Has your vehicle been 'modified' AT ALL since new?

Page 2 / 3
ally-oop, Mar 31, 3:48am
If anyone finds that easy to read, the problem doesn't lie with the text. ). And on such an elaborate/potentially complex topic, i'm not so interested in the input of anyone who would find that so difficult to read so as to fail to be able to.
ally-oop, Mar 31, 3:49am
My point was that the plate would be the ONLY non virginal appearing thing in the engine bay (and bloody stark at that).
pebbles61, Mar 31, 3:53am
But putting a 4.1 into a 3.3 is just putting lipstick on a pig?
ally-oop, Mar 31, 3:58am
Once again, it's a hypothetical situation-and what's more, seemingly being a fan of bmc products, and using maxis as an example, i'm not sure you'd want to get into a debate on exactly what constitutes a vehicular 'pig'. just sayin'
socram, Mar 31, 3:58am
Back to your main thread. Buy any secondhand car at your peril is what you are saying. A rebore is technically an increase in capacity. Who would really know if there had been a cam regrind?

I suspect that the insurance company would need a pretty good reason to take off a cylinder head and do some measuring to try and deny a claim.

Seeing a supercharger and quad carbs on a V8 that normally had twin SU's and no supercharger, fat wheels, modified arches, drainpipe exhaust and tinted glass might just get them to look harder if no mods had been declared.

The LVVTA plate on my car is exactly the same size as the original 60 year old chassis plate and is neither intrusive nor large.
ttaotua1, Mar 31, 4:00am
pebbles61, Mar 31, 4:01am
I'm not saying the car is bad or anything mate, I'm just trying to understand the logic here. If originality is so important to the point that one can't have a cert plate in the car, then you'd get a factory 4.1 as no matter how much you tell yourself it's a 4.1, it's still a 3.3.

Kinda like getting an Escort, making it Mexico spec and telling yourself it's a Mexico when it's not.

And Maxis are pimp as _b
ally-oop, Mar 31, 4:06am
Yes indeed, back to the original point. However, i'm not talking about removal od ANY components, i'm thinking of where, purely by viewing details/numbers, etc (either on vehicle records, or on an engine itself), it could technically be established.
As for plate, the thing is that many vehicles have an original plate much smaller than yours-and some in quite inconspicuous locations-and anyway, the original one doesn't drag the scene kicking and screaming into the modern age (the one ya sometimes like to get away from for a bit by owning this old stuff) (plus it has many decades of natural weathering on it, and doesn't look out of place, let alone like a new tooth).
ally-oop, Mar 31, 4:11am
In that situation the logic could be; having a 3.3 auto trans xf that you've owned for decades, and have come to know and like, but say you do a lot of towing, hill-country driving so would benefit from the extra capacity/manual trans. Actually, a more classic model would be a better candidate for the concern about the engine bay appearance, so let's say an xc falcon, cos an nz-assembled xc also has a quite small-and inconspicuously located factory i.d tag. You wouldn't be telling yourself that it was a 3.3, you'd know it now had more capacity and therefor towed stuff up hills better, but it'd still retain the original hoses, cables, mounts, etc, etc. and look exactly factory.
dublo, Mar 31, 4:26am
This got me worried: I had my automatic 1977 car converted to manual/overdrive - I obtained all the authentic parts involved and had the work done by a mechanic who specialised in the marque.
Nowhere on the original registration form, in the car maintenance log book or in the insurance policy does it state that it originally had automatic transmission.
Presumably, if the worst happened, there wouldn't be any problems?
tony9, Mar 31, 4:29am
However if you can show that the different stereo did not contribute to the claim then the insurance co is obliged to pay out.

OP need to look at the Insurance Law Reform Act.
kazbanz, Mar 31, 4:29am
sorry ally oop - I can't see any way any how ever I'd agree with your logic.
Put simply Ive seen too many true monstrosities where "factory" parts were fitted.
THAT is why the law is as it is now.
Not the guy who does carefull research and finds out exactly the part numbers that are universal (or not) and replaces ALL the parts to completely 100% build a car that is as it WOULD have rolled out the factory.
its the bodgers who at best say-"she'el be right" then find the driveshaft is different or the engine mounts are different or any of a miriad of options.
Hey look in my garage right now is a Gixxer 750 with a fair few Gixxer 600 components fitted. But to do so I spent hours cross referencing to be sure
ally-oop, Mar 31, 4:36am
I guess you're talking about a Jaguar? (or maybe that's a bit presumptuous), anyway i'm part way along the track of converting my Mk X from autoerratic to manual overdrive-and similarly, using all genuine components (although my post isn't actually specifically about that car)
I'd say that you'd be very unlucky to come unstuck, unless insurance people established that it was made automatic via a code/portion of your chassis number. I also wouldn't underestimate the tenacity of an insurance company these days.
If only insurance companies could only crawl out of their responsibility if the 'modification' was a contributing factor in giving rise to the actual claim huh.
ally-oop, Mar 31, 4:36am
Snap!
ally-oop, Mar 31, 4:39am
You should read my points again. You essentially just echoed them. P.s i'm a Qualified Mechanic, and, as i mentioned, the scenario would be one where an entire car-of the same model, bar the engine capacity/transmission type-is available as a donor.
ally-oop, Mar 31, 4:40am
Cheers mate, i'll have a squiz.
seadubya, Mar 31, 4:53am
Am I right in questioning this scenario. "guy wants to buy a classic mini, all inspections say it has a 1275cc engine, disc brakes and the seller produces receipts to say it has been rebuilt with 40thou oversize pistons and a better cam and electronic dizzy".
Looking at all the data tells him that minis came out in that year with an optional 1275cc engine and optional brakes so he thinks it is all good to go and pays a premium as it has just been rebuilt. But it turns out that originally that car had an 850cc engine and drum brakes, but there is no paperwork to suggest that the car is anything but a restored original as no records were kept about the factory options for that particular car.

How do you know what you are insuring in order to give full disclosure? Especially on such heavily optioned classics as minis and mustangs, where anything could be ordered from the dealer and sometimes options were added by the dealer even though it left the factory in a different state ie, Mustang assembled with drum brakes, shipped to Ford agent brand new and fitted with disc brakes by the Ford agent before being sold to first owner.
vtecintegra, Mar 31, 5:02am
IIRC the standard test is 'would the company have insured the vehicle had they know about the modifications'.

It'd be an uphill battle for any insurance company to argue their way out of covering the Mini in the example above.
ally-oop, Mar 31, 5:02am
Yeah, I guess it does get a bit like that.
ally-oop, Mar 31, 5:03am
Good point. Hopefully. And hopefully they'd stand by it if push came to shove.
tony9, Mar 31, 5:19am
When getting insurance for anything, I always say or write "As far as I know". So far it has not been a problem, or more questions asked.

FWIW, Section 5 of the Insurance Reform Act 1977 says.

"Misstatements in other contracts of insurance

(1) A contract of insurance shall not be avoided by reason only of any statement made in any proposal or other document on the faith of which the contract was entered into, reinstated, or renewed by the insurer unless the statement??
ally-oop, Mar 31, 5:40am
That's interesting cheers tony, although I wonder how much time and money it'd take to find out what a court of law decides is meant by "substantially" and "material", still, it's good to know that it's not black and white.

Re your comment "so far it has not been a problem", of course it isn't a problem until it's a problem (which isn't quite as silly/insulting as it may seem on the face of it (see my comments in post #35) (i.e have you ever needed to make a really substantial claim under that policy?) (my concern is an insurance company looking for reasons-including purely technical-to save tens of thousands of dollars at the relatively miniscule expense of annoying/losing a relatively very minor customer.
dublo, Mar 31, 7:00am
ally-oop,
Sorry, no, it's not a Jaguar, it's a Triumph 2500TC. Nothing in the chassis number to denote whether auto or manual (unlike my earlier 2000 auto which has BW at the end .) Both versions have the same state of engine tuning (or lack of!), diff. ratio, brakes etc. Different length gearbox mount spacers give the correct universal joint angles and a different length propeller shaft. Speedo drive gear on the o/d is correct. The only part not changed was the front exhaust pipe which runs out a little wider to clear the BW65 box - I made a neat bracket to attach it to the gearbox.
ally-oop, Mar 31, 7:26am
My father bought an automatic 2500 tc around the early '80s -he said he'd heard that they were "the poor man's jaguar", it nearly sent him broke and was that last English car he bought lol-although I think some oil magnates retired early on him. i'd have to say that a conversion to manual would transform one of those cars in terms of driveability etc.
From your description, i'd say there's no possible way that you could come unstuck due to a modification issue, assuming it's not able to tell by examining the car itself, but if it's used all factory parts then you'd have to be a 100% fine.
Unless they read this thread.
dublo, Apr 3, 6:10pm
Ally-oop, thanks for your comments and sorry to learn of your dad's experience. A good Triumph is a pleasure to own and drive but of course there were always the Friday afternoon or Monday morning assembly cars which gave their owners headaches.