Hawk FIA

[Karl]

Peter, if you check the pictures at mobile.de you will see that it is a Hawk. Th car from below looks exactly like mine!

[Tapped]

Both Phil and Baz could confirm, but I think the Ram used Jag suspension all round which is why it probably got registered as a Jag Cobra using the Ram chassis number. Surprised you think it has Hawk front suspension as that would have been unnecessary with the Jag based kit. Or has it actually got a Hawk twin tube chassis to accept the FIA body and someone has just added the Ram number. If that's the case then there's more skulduggery.

The fact it still uses the description Jag on the log book was often the way forward for those converting their cars without raising issues at the DVLA. Of course in 1971 was pre SVA requirements. Along came the SVA and they should have re registered it correctly whilst they had the opportunity to avoid the new rules.

I guess it would be extremely difficult to register correctly now unless it can be proven as genuine 1971 build and thus potentially avoiding the need to pass an IVA.
I hope that anyone buying it in the UK would be aware of the problems.
Peter C

Hi peter

I think you've missed the point!

The car is a hawk 289 FIA. All correct and as you'd expect with correct chassis

The V5 with the car shows "Jaguar cobra" in red, has a ram chassis number on it and the k plate reg

The car in Paris seems to be the corresponding ram car with that chassis number (the photo of the chassis plate is from the Ram in Paris) and presumably wore that registration when in the U.K.

The Hawk is a "physically ok" car but the docs with it and it's reg number clearly are not all they should be

[Tapped]

http://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/detai ... &fnai=prev

http://www.shmooautomotive.co.uk is his business (although this is a private sale)
If someone wants to contact him I'd love to hear the story

[simonjrwinter]

That's certainly not a RAM chassis under that car, looks like a ringer to me. I think maybe somebody should report it.

[Roger King]

I guess it would be extremely difficult to register correctly now unless it can be proven as genuine 1971 build and thus potentially avoiding the need to pass an IVA.
I hope that anyone buying it in the UK would be aware of the problems.
Peter C

Irrelevant, as there was an 'amnesty' in (I believe) 1998 following which there were no provisions for retrospective dating. When SVA came in, all cars registered as kits should have been declared as such and would be granted kit status with no test. After that date, all kitcars of whatever date had to do SVA, no exemptions. So, any car now surfacing which can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was built in 1971 will still have to pass an IVA (which replaced the SVA). Sounds like this car may have similar issues to a certain black 'MG'.

[simonjrwinter]

It doesn't need to be re- registered if it has "Cobra" anywhere in the description. The DVLA (VOSA) are already aware that it's a kit car so no further action is needed.
It doesn't say RAM on the V5 so why is it being called a RAM? it not a RAM chassis......

Simon

[Roger King]

I would be a lot happier if this conversation were to be continued in private amongst those who wish to do so. I get very twitchy about suggestions around 'reporting' cars with question marks over their provenance etc. - 'buyer beware' is a well-established maxim, but I do not believe it is in the Club's interest to start making public pronouncements about cars that it does not know the definitive history of. That is the seller's business, and all risk involved is the concern of the seller and any buyer. I'd just ask that we all remember what happened recently with the Bugatti OC and what that triggered with the DVLA - a lot of stress, difficulty and financial implications for many people, which is probably not over yet. We have perfectly legitimate cars in our Club which were registered a long time ago and have documentation which would not now be considered acceptable, but was at the time. Who knows what might turn up as a result of public speculation, and what the knock-on effects might be? Best not on this forum, I think.

[Migge]

I can only agree.

[Phil Riley]

Ditto.

[amulheirn]

Very wise Roger - I'd agree.