PDA

View Full Version : Red Mountain Rovers



chester rides again
12-23-2008, 08:33 AM
My jaw dropped when I saw that Red Mountain Rovers in Birmingham, AL was selling 110's. Specifically a '93 and a '98 that weren't the NAS white truck. Anyone know anything about these guys?

Merry Christmas to all,

Jeff

Eric W S
12-23-2008, 09:59 AM
My jaw dropped when I saw that Red Mountain Rovers in Birmingham, AL was selling 110's. Specifically a '93 and a '98 that weren't the NAS white truck. Anyone know anything about these guys?

Merry Christmas to all,

Jeff

The green one looks familiar. Check D-90.com. I think there was a thread on it some time ago.

Jeff Aronson
12-23-2008, 11:07 AM
With Td 5 engines it's doubtful that either truck came through LRNA. A Defender 110 is a wonderful vehicle, but I'd sure prefer to have an engine that is easy to work on and easy to find parts for in the US.

Of course, if Santa should drop one down the chimney, I would not reject it!

Jeff

sayers
12-23-2008, 11:51 AM
I think that these "110's " could be in the catagory of "gray market vehicles ". If someone is interested I would be extremely cautious in the purchase of one of these, from the fact that you might not be able to get it licensed in your state and then having someone to work on it.

Carpe
12-23-2008, 12:25 PM
My jaw dropped when I saw that Red Mountain Rovers in Birmingham, AL was selling 110's. Specifically a '93 and a '98 that weren't the NAS white truck. Anyone know anything about these guys?

Merry Christmas to all,

Jeff

If it looks too good to be true...

The 1993 hasn't been federalized (no roll cage). The 1998 is just another mistake to correct the first one (yah-it's a VIN swap...so re-VINing an illegal car just means that the dipstick who looked at it in NY didn't have the sack to impound it and have it chopped to bits). Both: illegal. Three exclamation points and capital letters doesn't make it legal or a good find.

Some folks don't see the issue. For them, I have dozens of blew rae DVDs of the movies that are still in the theaters that they can be the first to purchase for $50 each.

Eric W S
12-23-2008, 01:58 PM
The only way to tell if it is a grey market is if it was imported to begin with.

I can buy all the parts needed for a tdi 110 in the states, assemble it, and bring it to the IL DMV. They will issue a Kit Car VIN and title. Same thing as a hot rod.

State titling laws differ, but just because it exists, doesn't mean a law has been broke.

The VIN swap needs to be crushed and owner prosecuted, IMO.

Andrew IIA
12-23-2008, 03:36 PM
Just plain illegal as I read the law, but use you're own judgement. Here's an excerpt from the ECR website:

According to the D.O.T.: It is NOT legal to import a vehicle as parts and assemble it in the USA and then register it for road use. This is a crime and is it NOT legal. It is also NOT legal to import parts that constitute a vehicle (such as 1 gearbox, 1 frame, 2 axles, 1 body) this too can be a crime if the intention is to assemble the parts.

According to the States of: Maine, New York, New Hampshire and California (and these are the only ones we called) Registering your Land-Rover as a "kit car" is NOT legal. A kit cat is a vehicle such as Bradley GT that you build on a VW chassis. The manufactures of these "kits" are registered with the D.O.T. and putting together a production style vehicle such as a Defender 90 is NOT legal in any way shape or form. A few companies are currently using this method to build 110s, but they won't last long, and if they checked with the D.O.T they would find out it is NOT LEGAL.

Some unscrupulous dealers will also try to sell you a Defender or other Rover that is built up as a SPCV (Specially Constructed Vehicle). This is NOT a loophole, and does NOT apply to a production based vehicle such as a Land-Rover Defender. The companies using this are in VIOLATION of DOT and NHTSA rules. The shops using this method are classified as "Manufactures" by the DOT, and therefore the Defender or other Rover they are importing/ building would need to meet all current NHTSA and DOT requirements. These requirements would include driver and passenger air bags and anti-lock brakes just to name a few.

For more information on this you can search the DOT's web site. They have copies of the actual letters written to these fly-by-night operations explaining to them that they are in violation.

For more info than you want to know: http://www.eastcoastrover.com/imports.html

Regards, Andrew
63 SIIA 88"

sayers
12-25-2008, 07:45 AM
Thanks Andrew IIA

dcwhybrew
12-25-2008, 10:39 AM
Merry Christmas everyone!

I bought an LR3 from Red Mountain Rovers, back in November. The sale went very smooth, but their follow up on some items was less than desired. They got the vehicle to me just fine - very easy transaction...however they did not send it with paper work, and the paper work they did send wasnt as orderly as it should have been, they didnt transfer the title correctly and did not list my name correctly. I am not sure I would deal with them again, I would have to think about it.

Eric W S
12-25-2008, 12:51 PM
Just plain illegal as I read the law, but use you're own judgement. Here's an excerpt from the ECR website:

According to the D.O.T.: It is NOT legal to import a vehicle as parts and assemble it in the USA and then register it for road use. This is a crime and is it NOT legal. It is also NOT legal to import parts that constitute a vehicle (such as 1 gearbox, 1 frame, 2 axles, 1 body) this too can be a crime if the intention is to assemble the parts.

According to the States of: Maine, New York, New Hampshire and California (and these are the only ones we called) Registering your Land-Rover as a "kit car" is NOT legal. A kit cat is a vehicle such as Bradley GT that you build on a VW chassis. The manufactures of these "kits" are registered with the D.O.T. and putting together a production style vehicle such as a Defender 90 is NOT legal in any way shape or form. A few companies are currently using this method to build 110s, but they won't last long, and if they checked with the D.O.T they would find out it is NOT LEGAL.

Some unscrupulous dealers will also try to sell you a Defender or other Rover that is built up as a SPCV (Specially Constructed Vehicle). This is NOT a loophole, and does NOT apply to a production based vehicle such as a Land-Rover Defender. The companies using this are in VIOLATION of DOT and NHTSA rules. The shops using this method are classified as "Manufactures" by the DOT, and therefore the Defender or other Rover they are importing/ building would need to meet all current NHTSA and DOT requirements. These requirements would include driver and passenger air bags and anti-lock brakes just to name a few.

For more information on this you can search the DOT's web site. They have copies of the actual letters written to these fly-by-night operations explaining to them that they are in violation.

For more info than you want to know: http://www.eastcoastrover.com/imports.html

Regards, Andrew
63 SIIA 88"

Interesting. I did not know that about kit cars and the DoT. Learn something new everyday. Like take anything the DMV says and confirm it.

Ask for and confirm DoT and Importation paperwork if it is under 25 years old. Legal trucks will have the right paper form the registered importer. Without it it's just scarp waiting for a crusher.

So by reading of the law, wouldn't converting a 90 to a 110 be illegal as well? Or modernizing a 83 that is legal to import into a 2008 MY as well?

In any event, I'd rather restore a 109 than build a 110.

greenmeanie
12-25-2008, 03:49 PM
An addition to the above. ANY imported vehicle should have the correct paper trail with it no matter how many owners it has passed through in this country. As an example, in eight years of having my 101 in this country I have had to prove its legal import status at least 6 times to the AZ DMV even although they should have traceable records.

Just because it is over 25 years old when you buy it does not mean it was originally brought in legally and there is no pleading ignorance as a defence. As an example there was a nice blue 110 on ebay last year, 1983 V8 with LT95, that had my interest but it turns out when you started running the numbers based on the seller's commentary it had been brought in early. On questioning he disclosed that it was actually registered as a '74 109. Even although it was now 25 years old it still was not legal and, as the import paperwork was fraudulent, it never could be.

Caveat emptor. Like the poster above I prefer to stick with leafers and ended up with a fun NADA 109 to build.

Oscar
12-25-2008, 04:02 PM
Ask for and confirm DoT and Importation paperwork if it is under 25 years old. Legal trucks will have the right paper form the registered importer.

Don't have to be a registered importer. Private individual can import. (I am, I did.) Do save the paperwork though. First titling was smooth. Registration renewal on line just like every other vehicle I have....(PA)

Eric W S
12-25-2008, 05:04 PM
Don't have to be a registered importer. Private individual can import. (I am, I did.) Do save the paperwork though. First titling was smooth. Registration renewal on line just like every other vehicle I have....(PA)

Quite true!

Registered importers come into play when you want to bring in a younger vehicle for the federalization process. Say the 959 porsche that Gates had done...

yank
12-25-2008, 06:56 PM
I think Gates crashed that 959 shortly after.

thixon
12-25-2008, 10:50 PM
I think Gates crashed that 959 shortly after.

It was impounded for nearly a decade and a half by customs in seattle. During that time, Gates and a bunch of other car collectors began working to have a law passed allowing certain cars of "interest" to be imported for show and display. The law was passed during Clintons reign. The use of these types of vehicles is extremely limited, and driving on public roads in not one of the approved uses. Seems like I saw the car in Vegas for sale a number of years back. Its red if I recall.

Bertha
12-26-2008, 02:38 PM
Interesting. I did not know that about kit cars and the DoT. Learn something new everyday.


Just because ECR has it on their website, doesn't make it true.
Truth be told the DMV has bigger fish to fry than chasing people who are trying to smuggle in old Land Rovers.

Bertha
12-26-2008, 02:48 PM
Or modernizing a 83 that is legal to import into a 2008 MY as well?



Modernizing or upgrading a legitimately imported car is not illegal as long as you are not tampering with emissions. Rebadging a newer car with an old vin tag is illegal.

Eric W S
12-26-2008, 03:27 PM
Just because ECR has it on their website, doesn't make it true.
Truth be told the DMV has bigger fish to fry than chasing people who are trying to smuggle in old Land Rovers.

Actually, ECR's info is correct. I checked the DoT website and the actual reg...

mechman
12-29-2008, 11:13 PM
Just plain illegal as I read the law, but use you're own judgement. Here's an excerpt from the ECR website:

According to the D.O.T.: It is NOT legal to import a vehicle as parts and assemble it in the USA and then register it for road use. This is a crime and is it NOT legal. It is also NOT legal to import parts that constitute a vehicle (such as 1 gearbox, 1 frame, 2 axles, 1 body) this too can be a crime if the intention is to assemble the parts.

According to the States of: Maine, New York, New Hampshire and California (and these are the only ones we called) Registering your Land-Rover as a "kit car" is NOT legal. A kit cat is a vehicle such as Bradley GT that you build on a VW chassis. The manufactures of these "kits" are registered with the D.O.T. and putting together a production style vehicle such as a Defender 90 is NOT legal in any way shape or form. A few companies are currently using this method to build 110s, but they won't last long, and if they checked with the D.O.T they would find out it is NOT LEGAL.

Some unscrupulous dealers will also try to sell you a Defender or other Rover that is built up as a SPCV (Specially Constructed Vehicle). This is NOT a loophole, and does NOT apply to a production based vehicle such as a Land-Rover Defender. The companies using this are in VIOLATION of DOT and NHTSA rules. The shops using this method are classified as "Manufactures" by the DOT, and therefore the Defender or other Rover they are importing/ building would need to meet all current NHTSA and DOT requirements. These requirements would include driver and passenger air bags and anti-lock brakes just to name a few.

For more information on this you can search the DOT's web site. They have copies of the actual letters written to these fly-by-night operations explaining to them that they are in violation.

For more info than you want to know: http://www.eastcoastrover.com/imports.html

Regards, Andrew
63 SIIA 88"


Werd. Do you happen to know the penalties for owning a vehicle with a swapped VIN? It's called [I]altering the VIN[I]. Try up to 5 years in the Federal pen, plus state penalties, not to mention the forfeiture and fines. If you sell such a machine, that goes up to TEN years in the pokey. And if you get into an accident, even if it's not your fault, YOU are automatically at fault (known defective vehicle that does not meet DOT standards) and are FULLY liable (and you can count on your insurance company suing you for perpetrating a fraud on them). Take your rig in for inspection or even repairs, and if the mechanic finds the alteration, you're in the same boat. Every time you buy tires... or get the oil changed... or a cop pulls you over because you have a taillight out... you get the picture. Is a D90 or 110 really worth that?

And a D90 (or 110) that was brought over in pieces is STILL a Defender, NOT a Series III.

Relevant links:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000511----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2321.html

Mech

Bertha
12-30-2008, 11:01 PM
So by reading of the law, wouldn't converting a 90 to a 110 be illegal as well?
In any event, I'd rather restore a 109 than build a 110.

I'snt that what ECR does-take d90's and 110's and convert them to 110's and 130's with different motors and equipment?

mechman
12-30-2008, 11:57 PM
If the car was federal DOT legal and will still pass emissions for the year of manufacture, you are allowed to modify your car as you see fit (it does still have to pass local inspection codes though). Bringing in a vehicle that was never built to be US DOT certified is illegal unless it is over 25 years old.

What Red Mountain has apparently done (with at least one of their Defenders) is to have a new VIN issued by the State of NY as either a replacement for a missing VIN (which, if they removed the original VIN, means up to 5 years in prison, 10 if they did it and sell it) or as a VIN for a kit car (which is lying to the state, opens them up for more time behind bars). Just because a state issued a title does NOT mean the vehicle is street legal - a title is for proving ownership only, not for determining the fitness of a vehicle for service. I did not see a sticker showing that the Defender (I only looked at the '98) had been Federalized by a Registered Importer (nearly impossible to do, as it falls outside the acceptable year range for Defenders), and usually that sticker would have been on the door pillar close to the VIN tag. Therefore, it CANNOT be legally registered and driven on the road in the US.

AFAIK, ECR is modifying NAS Defenders that were brought in and sold by Land Rover. It's perfectly legal to modify your DOT certified truck however you see fit, as long as the parts you put on it (mainly windows, seat belts, motor, tires and the like) meet DOT specs. OR ECR is a federally recognized Registered Importer and are allowed to modify '94-'97 non-NAS Defenders to bring them up to US DOT specs. I'm not sure, I've never asked them.

The laws are pretty strict. If anyone could buy a new car abroad, take it apart there, ship it over here in pieces and reassemble it THEN legally drive it on the road here, we'd have been flooded with cheap Chinese Cherries and the like YEARS ago. What's to stop a foreign manufacturer from shipping junky cr@p here in CKD and pawning it off on the public, if not our DOT and import laws? We're all MUCH safer as a result, believe me. I know I don't want plate glass windows in MY car, for instance.

If I were out driving and got hit by someone in one of these non-DOT legal trucks, I'd sue them 'til they bled out their eyes. Then I'd sue their insurance company for insuring it, whomever sold it to them, whomever inspected it, and so on back to the source. And I'd win. The law would be on my side. If you're in doubt, ring up your insurance agent and ask what would happen in that event.

ATV's are titled these days, too, and you can't drive one of THEM on the road either.

Mech


***Sorry for the diatribe, but this is a touchy subject for me. I hate seeing dishonest con artists selling unsafe cars to unsuspecting people, especially when there are plenty of honest people out there doing it right. Burns me up...

leafsprung
12-31-2008, 12:02 AM
ECR frequently imports/buys all the parts builds a completely new vehicle and then put the vin of a NAS vehicle on it (in most cases) Sometimes they will even sell off the complete hulk sans vin/paperwork. This is, according to their own website, illegal . . . They may call it something else in an attempt to make it sound legalish, but thats essentially what goes on. It can also be illegal to install an engine in a US spec vehicle with a different type which is not covered by an EPA certificate. Assembling your own vehicle is legal in many states but is often federally illegal. Swapping VINs is illegal in every state AFAIK. Chances are, if you have a land rover model newer than 25 years old that wasnt imported in its current form by LRNA, there is probably something sketchy about it that could be construed as illegal. If that bothers you, I wouldnt buy one.


If I were out driving and got hit by someone in one of these non-DOT legal trucks, I'd sue them 'til they bled out their eyes. Then I'd sue their insurance company for insuring it, whomever sold it to them, whomever inspected it, and so on back to the source. And I'd win. The law would be on my side. If you're in doubt, ring up your insurance agent and ask what would happen in that event.

ATV's are titled these days, too, and you can't drive one of THEM on the road either.

***Sorry for the diatribe, but this is a touchy subject for me. I hate seeing dishonest con artists selling unsafe cars to unsuspecting people, especially when there are plenty of honest people out there doing it right. Burns me up...


1) Thats a lot of suing, and not for the right reasons. You sound like the guy who sues Nair after trying to remove his eyelashes.
2) ATVs are street legal in some states
3)non dot compliant does not mean unsafe. similarly dot compliant does not make a vehicle "safe" These importation laws were not put in place to protect consumers, they were put in place to protect car companies from additional competition.
4) who is "honestly" selling late model non NAS defenders?

mechman
12-31-2008, 12:16 AM
Word, leafsprung. Elegantly put.

Mech

*Edit: 1) Hmm, I don't agree. Registering, insuring and driving an illegally registered vehicle (non-DOT I mean) is essentially perpetrating fraud. SOMEONE lied to the state to register it, they lied to the insurance company to insure it, they lied to get it inspected (if they didn't pay off the mechanic, another fraud), and they knowingly put me in danger by driving a vehicle that does not meet US standards. Lying by omission is still lying. It is legal for a non-DOT vehicle to visit this country, but not to stay, and they are required to be insured properly while here. I have to side with ol' Ralph Nader on this one. And I've had the state try to get me with a random inspection test vehicle.

2) Really? Last I heard, there was a furor over allowing mini trucks on the road in Oklahoma, much less ATV's anywhere else. They're not up to DOT standards, but the farmers there want to drive them like cars instead of like farm equipment.

3) I disagree. The laws were put into place to protect the consumers, mainly, via the EPA and crash test standards. It was Ralph Nader's book "Unsafe At Any Speed" that really got that ball rolling. Believe me, if the manufacturers here didn't HAVE to put in parts like platinum-coated catalytic converters and airbags with gold coated contacts, or to meet federal CAFE standards, they wouldn't spend the money. Their cars would be cheaper, and they'd both sell more and make a higher per unit profit. They just (wisely) decided to make safety a selling feature in their advertising, to make the higher costs more palatable to buyers. And DOT compliance means that the car is guaranteed not to be made of or in a manner that is dangerous, i.e. with a single circuit master cylinder. I do not mean to imply that non-DOT vehicles are unsafe, but they do NOT meet the standards set by our government for safety. That's enough for me.

4) Apparently Red Mountain Rovers, for one. Nowhere on their ad for the '98 did it say the truck was not US street legal. To me, that's an attempt to pass it off as legal. And it's dishonest, but the average car-buying citizen would never think to ask if everything was copacetic in that regard.

109 Pretender
12-31-2008, 08:54 AM
Here's my take on this thread:

1. Leafsprung is right! Sueing is part of our social problem - You want to be part of the solution - right? That means getting involved in something constructive like proposing/creating/influencing new legislation.

2. I live in Oklahoma - mini-trucks (Toy,Nissan,etc.) have always been legal - don't have a clue where that came from... True enough, there has been talk about allowing ATV's on farm roads earlier this summer ($4.00+ gas) - but now that we're back down to $1.40/gal. everyone started driving their Hummers, F350 duallies, my 109, etc again!

3. Ralph Nader is an idiot! Always has been... The DOT is there for itself - ONLY! Don't even kid yourself into thinking that the Fed's are there for you and your well being. Case in point - The USA lived with DOT lighting laws that were passed in the early 1940's until just about 10 years ago. Our automobile lighting systems were 50 years behind the European laws. The DOT provides income for people who would otherwise be unemployable. (Yeah, it's harsh!)

4. Looks like a Duck, sounds like a duck, walks like... well? If you 'think' something funny's going on - probably is.

With that - Happy New Year to Everyone!!

jp-
12-31-2008, 10:38 AM
+1 Pretender.

Mech,
You state in your last post that the average citizen probably would be dupped into thinking that the vehicle was legal, yet you still say that you would sue him till he bled out his eyes? Why, he probably wasn't the one who swapped the VIN in the first place? Nobody would drive the vehicle that they swapped the VIN on... Even Red Mountain Rovers isn't willing to take that risk (assuming these are VIN swapped vehicles). They are passing the risk on, yet you would sue the victim of their crime. Not good.

The DOT are a bunch of ball-washing-bastards, who live to make it more difficult for me to register my vehicles. This is a case where government should be working for me, not against me.

Eric W S
12-31-2008, 11:34 AM
I'snt that what ECR does-take d90's and 110's and convert them to 110's and 130's with different motors and equipment?

I don't get the impression Mike is doing that anymore. He used to, for sure. But most of his recent builds have been on proper 90's and 110's. Of course the cost probably prohibits too many people from hiring him to do this with any frequency though.

ECR
12-31-2008, 12:46 PM
I don't get the impression Mike is doing that anymore. He used to, for sure. But most of his recent builds have been on proper 90's and 110's. Of course the cost probably prohibits too many people from hiring him to do this with any frequency though.

We still do it all the time.
That is how the Beach Runners and such are built. NAS 90s that are built up as 110s. We have a 90 to 130 BR coming up this Spring,a s well as a 90 to 110 BR next month.

As far as DOT... everything you want to do is illegal basically. Us building a 90 into a 110 is technically illegal as according to the DOT and Maine law if you change the frame you must now apply for a new VIN and meet 2008 regulations. So according to them every Series IIA with a new galv frame is illegal. Also if you restore a 110 to the level we do that is illegal too, as we change the frame and a good percentage of the body and mechanical parts. According to the DOT this is too many changes and is considered a new vehicle and would need to meet all new DOT regs. As the poster before said, in some cases of really crap donor cars we end up virtually tossing the entire body shell in favor of new parts and that restoration was illegal as we changed too much (according to the DOT). Same thing if you restore a 1969 Camaro with a new Dynacorp body. New crate motor, new suspension and all... that is illegal too. Most of the Series trucks we ever restored are illegal too, as they had new frames, engines, gearboxes, body panels, etc etc.
Its all illegal if you dig deep enough. You could likely find a law against anything you ever wanted to do if you dig deep enough.

ECR
12-31-2008, 01:01 PM
In regards to the truck in question. It came up on the D90 site and the seller says it has a valid US Government title. So that means maybe ti was seized and then put back on the road, or was imported for the government or something. It appears though that the US knows what it is and gave it a title. So everything is illegal unless you are the US Government.

leafsprung
12-31-2008, 01:16 PM
Kudos to Mike :thumb-up: I've butted heads with him in the past on this. Refreshing to hear that. All these vehicles in question are illegal to some extent (some more than others).

ECR
12-31-2008, 01:38 PM
Yup, put a new galv. frame in your SIIA... you are now illegal... along with most everyone else who does stuff that is fun.
Import a 300 Tdi engine... that is illegal. Its all illegal.

I drove over the speed limit on my way home last night too.

Ike is so squeeky clean he never does anything illegal. He just likes to find others that do and bash them on it.:D :D

Oscar
12-31-2008, 02:02 PM
I guess it's risk management. Exchanging a chassis on an SII is highly unlikely to get noticed. Taking the chassis and vin off an SII and sticking it under a 1999 110 is hard to miss.... We all make choices.

ECR
12-31-2008, 02:18 PM
All these vehicles in question are illegal to some extent (some more than others).

Anyone who ever built a limo is also illegal according to the DOT due to the frame/uni-body mods.

Every Tdi conversion or Tdi powered Rover in the USA is illegal too (even if it is an older truck because import of a Tdi is illegal according to the EPA).

Basically, who cares and do what makes you happy within your own bounds.

leafsprung
12-31-2008, 02:28 PM
Ike is so squeeky clean he never does anything illegal. He just likes to find others that do and bash them on it.:D :D

I'm pretty much stuck on the series trucks (though I have had a couple of coilers) and on the west coast, dont need to do many frame swaps so I dont have these issues. You've been the grey market police for some time over on D-90.com while simultaniously cranking out illegal rigs. That would be the only issue Ive ever had with you. I applaud the candor in your earlier post and hope thats the end of our disagreement.

mechman
12-31-2008, 02:38 PM
+1 Pretender.

Mech,
You state in your last post that the average citizen probably would be dupped into thinking that the vehicle was legal, yet you still say that you would sue him till he bled out his eyes? Why, he probably wasn't the one who swapped the VIN in the first place? Nobody would drive the vehicle that they swapped the VIN on... Even Red Mountain Rovers isn't willing to take that risk (assuming these are VIN swapped vehicles). They are passing the risk on, yet you would sue the victim of their crime. Not good.

The DOT are a bunch of ball-washing-bastards, who live to make it more difficult for me to register my vehicles. This is a case where government should be working for me, not against me.


Pretender? WHAT?!

I've been a professional antique car mechanic for over 20 years now. I held a PA inspection license, but have let it lapse because I no longer need it (I now fix Zambonis and work for the Federal government). I started with aircooled Volkswagens, later branching out to antique French, Italian, German and British cars. I worked for a Rover shop in Philly for almost three years, mainly on ex-NATO Series Rovers, and at an MG shop for a while after. I have been a part of MANY body/frame swaps and have seen LOTS of VERY illegal cars. This is one of the things that happens to STOLEN cars, too, you know. How do you know that the rebadged car isn't HOT? I PERSONALLY know a person who STOLE a 1970 VW Bug, swapped out the VIN and chassis, then spent a week driving it past the man she stole it from, just to piss him off. Then she sold it to some sucker. She bragged about it to me.

I've not only worked on but OWNED many grey market cars, including a BMW 316, a Porsche 924 (Federalized) and a 1964 Bug (still have it too). At the Rover shop I personally helped reassemble a D110 that the boss had brought over from England in pieces, in a sea container. If you've been following the dealers' inventories for a few years, it was blue. He titled it as a 109 (VIN from one of the 100 he brought over). It was illegal as HELL. The windshield was non-laminated glass. Non-safety glass sides. No roll cage. A CARBURETOR on the 3.9. Non-DOT seat belts, no inertia reel tensioners. I helped install cats, to make it look at least a LITTLE legal. The man who bought it knew what he was getting into though. And if he ever hit me on the street, HELL YES I'd sue. If I were the one driving that abortion, I would expect the other guy's lawyer to feed my liver to me.

The DOT may be ball lickers, but they are pains in the ass not only to protect the guy behind the wheel, but all the people he might HIT. Not to mention the passengers.

The law states that nonconforming vehicles entering the United States must be brought into compliance, exported, or destroyed. Motor vehicles not more than 25 years old must conform to the Department of Transportation (DOT) motor vehicle safety standards that were in effect when these vehicles were manufactured. Passenger cars manufactured after September 1, 1973 must also meet bumper standards. The importer must file form DOT HS-7 at the time of entry, indicating whether the vehicle conforms to applicable safety and bumper standards. The original manufacturer is required to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that these standards have been met if the vehicle is intended for sale in the United States. Vehicles that do not bear a certification label attached by the original manufacturer must be entered as a nonconforming vehicle under a DOT bond for one and a half times the vehicle's dutiable value. This is in addition to the regular Customs entry bond. Unless specifically excepted, the importer must sign a contract with a DOT Registered Importer (RI), who will modify the vehicle to conform with all applicable safety and bumper standards and who can certify the modifications. A copy of the RI's contract must be attached to the DOT HS-7 form and furnished to the Customs Service with the DOT bond at the port of entry. A list of RIs is available from DOT and should be obtained before you decide to import a vehicle. Furthermore, DOT requires that the vehicle model and model year must, prior to entry, be determined eligible for importation. A DOT RI can advise you whether your vehicle is eligible; if it is not, the RI can submit a petition in your behalf to have your vehicle considered for eligibility, if you so desire. Understand, however, that fees must be paid at the time such petitions are filed. (clipped from a RI's site)

Pretty clear cut and simple. If it's under 25 years old, it has to meet US safety regs to be allowed on the road. Apparently there are a few state legislated exceptions. Japanese "Kei" mini trucks (top speed of 50 MPH) are allowed on the roads in a few states, but not on the Interstates or highways. ATVs (if a DOT approved kit is installed) are allowed to be registered as motorcycles in a few states as well. And, of course, anything over 25 years old (classified as an antique by the feds and thus not likely to be imported in great quantities) is legal to bring in and drive under federal regs (but not some state regs, this differs state to state).

I own a 1964 Citroen 2CV. A less safe car would be tough to find. Don't believe me, want to see pictures?

www.webshots.com/user/mechman71

Can you imagine trying to bring something like that into the country as a NEW car? Guess what - manufacturers are building cars TODAY that are NO safer. For the crowded streets of Beijing or the empty roads of Kashmir India these cars may be perfectly fine, but in modern US traffic? NO WAY.

Just because someone builds it and someone, somewhere drives it, that does NOT make it safe for US roads.

So PLEASE don't tell me what people would or would not do, especially to make a quick and easy buck. I'VE SEEN IT. I've even (to my shame) been a PART of it.

Mech

leafsprung
12-31-2008, 02:58 PM
Pretender? WHAT?!

"+1 Pretender" means he was agreeing with the post from the guy whose screen name is "109 Pretender" I chuckled when I saw that huge response to a perceived slight. Your work with Gabor probably does qualify you as an expert in whats illegal though. Ultimately, since you can drive vehicles that are unsafe legally (like your old 2cv) while safer vehicles are illegal (like a brand new diesel BMW) one is left to assume that safety is not in fact the main purpose with these regulations.

Eric W S
12-31-2008, 03:06 PM
"+1 Pretender" means he was agreeing with the post from the guy whose screen name is "109 Pretender" I chuckled when I saw that huge response to a perceived slight. Your work with Gabor probably does qualify you as an expert in whats illegal though. Ultimately, since you can drive vehicles that are unsafe legally (like your old 2cv) while safer vehicles are illegal (like a brand new diesel BMW) one is left to assume that safety is not in fact the main purpose with these regulations.

I have heard horror stories about Gabor's trucks. Him and Creed need to have the rover community vote them out of the tribe so to speak.

mechman
12-31-2008, 03:24 PM
"+1 Pretender" means he was agreeing with the post from the guy whose screen name is "109 Pretender" I chuckled when I saw that huge response to a perceived slight. Your work with Gabor probably does qualify you as an expert in whats illegal though. Ultimately, since you can drive vehicles that are unsafe legally (like your old 2cv) while safer vehicles are illegal (like a brand new diesel BMW) one is left to assume that safety is not in fact the main purpose with these regulations.


Oops! Well, that's my bad. I thought he was calling me names. I got pretty worked up there. :rolleyes: Time to take a deep breath, and a deep draught. :gulp:

I don't actually drive my 2CV, y'know, I just happen to own it. :D I like to think I'm smart enough that I wouldn't drive it out of town, but in all honesty I once took Gabor's 2CV home to do some work on it and drove it right down Rt. 95. Twice. In Philly rush hour traffic. Eek.

A big part of the federal laws as I understand them, in regards to the 25 year rule, is that they don't expect huge numbers of any car that old to come into the country. The NATO demobbing of Series trucks was an event that (I think) took them off guard, but is not common enough to legislate away. There just aren't enough antique cars coming in for them to worry about each and every one.

Hehehe, about Gabor... I could tell stories... :popcorn: Part of why I left had to do with my "over fixing" the trucks. Like insisting on new wheel cylinders so they would stop more than once. But that was only a small part of why I left...

Mech

*Edit: FWIW, if any of my posts seem a bit... odd.. right now, I must apologize in advance. I've just been diagnosed with kidney stones and a resulting infection. I'll probably be online quite a bit for the next week or two, until I recover (and can stop shivering and stand straight agian). I'll try not to fly off the handle any more! :)

Oscar
12-31-2008, 05:33 PM
I own a 1964 Citroen 2CV. A less safe car would be tough to find. Don't believe me, want to see pictures?

That was my daily driver from 1978-1980...Is it a -6 or a -4? They are actually safer than they look. They handle quite well and are almost impossible to roll. Now, getting run over by an 18 wheeler would be a different story. One will have to drive accordingly. Is it for sale?

mechman
12-31-2008, 05:43 PM
It's a 2CV...uhh... 4 originally (if I remember right), but it has a 602 with Visa cylinders. It was built in Vigo, Spain, during the time they were building Saharas there (I understand they only built them because they got the new sedan dies by mistake - usually they built Camionettes and Truckettes). It is for sale, too! PM me for more info.

Have you seen the 2CV crash video on Jeroen Cats' site? It's... enlightening. Or horrifying. Or both.

Mech

Oscar
12-31-2008, 06:04 PM
Have you seen the 2CV crash video on Jeroen Cats' site? It's... enlightening. Or horrifying. Or both.

I have seen them crashed live. As a spectator, a passenger, and an operator......:D PM in the mail.

Leslie
12-31-2008, 09:19 PM
As an aside, Tennessee has a new class of "medium-speed vehicles", such as ATV's and modified golf carts.... so, you can drive them around town, etc. http://state.tn.us/revenue/notices/titlereg/08-21.pdf

Back to Rovers..... I've been in this discussion upmp**** times over the years, and I must be sadistic as I enjoy it every time.... lol.....

I work for a state agency, that enforces the state version of federal regulations... As federal regulations laid out, then the state enacts their own rules that can either reiterate, or go above and beyond (or within limits of), but don't have to exactly match. The feds have an oversight, but the state runs its own show. At times, there are plenty of things that the feds disagree with how the state does, and while sure, there are sometimes when the feds can call the shots, there have been *many* instances where the state's opinion stands, over the fed view. My point being..... while yes, there are federal laws that may not be adhered to, if you are meeting the letter of the law of your own state, then you're mostly in the clear (*no*, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not giving one the okay to break federal laws, etc. etc.).

On a state-by-state level, things are all over the board. Cali has laws that no one else has, yet many states feel they have to follow suit on a lot of them. Some things, like swapping VIN's, I think we're all on the same page about it being outright illegal, any way you cut it. Then, the other approach often bandyied about is the kit-car route. Starting off from ECR's site, Mike's site makes the point that they've checked California, New York, Maine, New Hampshire, that building a Defender out of parts and calling it a kit isn't legal. It also goes on to mention specially constructed vehicles, etc. (A lot of good info there, such as the info on titles, too.) (Have to admit, I wonder if a CKD could be legally defendable as a kit, eh? I know the initial answer is no, but, a good lawyer might be able to.... anyway...)

But some states don't specifically deny such. Some states, it's scary what's allowed to run around legally. If you can bolt together a bunch of parts and get something to run, tow it to the DMV, a state trooper here will inspect it, and if he's signed off on it he'll issue you a VIN, and it's street-legal here. (Again, I'm not gonna come bail you out if you find otherwise.... ;) )

And, there are plenty of other facets.... liability, insurance, service, maintainability, etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of people who want a Defender, want one cheaper than buying one of the NAS ones, try to get one via other routes.... but, I think most of the folks here realize, not that I'm trying to be harsh or judgemental, but there are some people just not quite cut out for living with a Rover.... be it a Series or a 'special project'.

I think a problem with special Rovers is keeping them up. It's one thing to have a vehicle that you can run to a dealer and they can go through it by the book. When a Rover is put together by someone else, no matter how well done, it's not going to be an assembly-line vehicle. (That can be a good thing! but...). When someone hadn't built a vehicle themselves, or doesn't have the builder at-hand, then when a problem comes about, they have difficulty in dealing with... some people (the kind that lives w/ a Series), probably has a basic skills set and enough of a sense of adventure that they can roll up their sleeves and have a go, but I dare say we all know of at least one case where someone was enamoured with the idea of a Rover, obtained one, and really started to find that it wasn't a Honda (again, a good thing, but....).

Anyway, I'm rambling, and have a long Rover day tomorrow, so, adieu.......


:)

Eric W S
12-31-2008, 09:35 PM
All grey market and most VIN swapped trucks have state titles. Doesn't make them in "the clear". Nor does a state titling a truck make it legal.

Leslie
12-31-2008, 09:47 PM
I agree, but I wasn't talking about titling.... that's separate. As previously mentioned, all the title does is demonstrate ownership. I agree, a title doesn't help.

Swapping VINs then getting a new title is still fraud. Being honest about the process is another matter. Be deliberate in your interaction in trying to do things the 'right' way. Don't know about other states, but here does things differently than elsewhere. FWIW....

lr110def
01-01-2009, 12:29 AM
As for the green "1998" Def. 110 on Red mt rovers site. All I can say is I owned it about 7 years ago and it was right hand drive,red, had a Disco 200tdi engine and was titled by the person I bought it from as a 109. He said it had been rebuilt. I said ok and drove it a couple of years and then sold it. The guy I sold it to rebuilt it to its current state and then he sold it, again as a 109. So how it became a 1998 D110 is beyond me. it is a darn fine truck though. I also noticed that Red Mt has removed all of the "questionable" trucks from their site.

mechman
01-01-2009, 09:23 AM
Leslie, EricWS, you are both absolutely correct. Some states don't even have inspections! I know in Washington, your car has to be inspected when you first register it, but NEVER AGAIN afterwards. Oklahoma abolished its inspection program - it used to cost something like $15 to get your car inspected, price mandated by the state. The mechanics fought it in court, public advocacy groups fought the mechanics, and the state refused to subsidize the difference, so they abolished the inspection requirements altogether. I was in Oklahoma while this was going on (late 2001).

I've been involved with building kit cars, both here in PA and in NJ (where I worked for the VW shop). A kit car has to be substantially different (if I remember right, 40% of the parts have to be non-OE supplied) from the car(s) it is built from. ANY parts coming from any other vehicle have to be documented. For instance, if you use a VW chassis to build a dune buggy (I have one, too), you have to have the title that matches the chassis and (it's highly suggested) receipts for the other parts. VW kits were easy to build, because the other parts usually came off of the car you used as a base, or came with the kit.

If a car is fundamentally unchanged from it's manufactured specs (or option range), then it's NOT A KIT but a CKD car, and has to meet DOT regs before it can go on the road. Any engine that's on the road is supposed to be covered by an EPA certification and have all of the emissions equipment mandated for the car's date of manufacture. Heck, these days LAWN MOWER engines have to have EPA certs, too! Some state are more stringent about this than others - it's tough to catch "illegal" cars if you don't even do annual inspections. But if you have an accident with an illegal car and someone gets hurt, expect to get reamed by the other guy's attorney.

One good example of this was CX Auto. Back in the 90's they imported Citroen CX's into the US, even though Citroen hadn't had a US presence since 1974. They were buying the cars in Europe, refitting JUST ENOUGH parts in the Netherlands, then shipping them to the US as a car of their own manufacture under a small manufacturer exception. The government eventually closed that loophole (I think with airbags being mandated, it became too expensive anyway), but there are still a whole bunch of CX's running around (and they're awfully nice cars, too).

lr110def, you got pretty lucky. I wasn't saying that that truck is necessarily bad (though some of the reassembled trucks definitely ARE), just illegal. If you'd have hit someone, or even been hit by a drunk driver, you'd have been in for a world of legal hurtin'. According to Red Mountain's ad, the truck was a "police impound", so someone else may have gotten that legal screwing you avoided. If it had been involved in an accident, you might have been contacted, as a previous owner of record. It usually depends on how hungry the attorney or DA is, though.

I'm glad to hear that they removed their "questionable" trucks for their site, But I'd still be leery of them. Gabor didn't widely advertise all of the trucks he sold, either.

Mech

scubarova
01-02-2009, 01:10 AM
>>I don't get the impression Mike is doing that anymore. He used to, for >>sure. But most of his recent builds have been on proper 90's and 110's. >>Of course the cost probably prohibits too many people from hiring him to >>do this with any frequency though.

>“We still do it all the time…That is how the Beach Runners and such are >built. NAS 90s that are built up as 110s. We have a 90 to 130 BR coming >up this Spring, as well as a 90 to 110 BR next month.”

>“As far as DOT... everything you want to do is illegal basically. Us building >a 90 into a 110 is technically illegal as according to the DOT and Maine law >if you change the frame you must now apply for a new VIN and meet 2008 >regulations…Also if you restore a 110 to the level we do that is illegal >too…”


WOW…
How can ECR justify a major portion of its vehicles? ECR is admitting that many ECR vehicles are not legal yet in the past ECR has hounded other people for selling “illegal” vehicles. ECR is blatantly mentioning they are building illegal “beach runners.” I’d be mighty pissed if I bought something from ECR only to find it was a dodgy vehicle like some of the others (which are often a fraction of the ECR price) How do they justify the markup for a vehicle that even they admit is not legal? Any idiot with a spanner can reassemble a Defender- that’s why we love them. Let me guess, now that they don’t have the NAS 110/90 market wrapped up they want all the other imported vehicles classified illegal.

Now that 25-year-old Land Rovers - D90, D110 and D130 - are basically legit, we are going to get the vested interests trying to discredit others who are actually playing by the rules. Nobody has to spend 35k for a decent legit Defender. You can get one for less than half that. If you want it pimped to beach runner status or you want a killer turbo, you can get it upgraded for a few grand more. There is no secret, if it is 25 years old, fill out your paperwork and it is legit. Nothing illegal, no mystery from Maine to Montana (poor bat fastards in kalifornia might have problems though;) If you want to upgrade it to a beach runner and sell it, that’s legit. Import that 300 TDi, TD5 or Puma 2.4 with 6-speed gearbox and pop her right in. Nothing ambiguous - it is legit. I’d like to hear from Mike why he can do it but nobody else can. Pity for all those who think they are still going to get 45k for a rusted NAS 110 or 60k for a recontorted NAS Defender with a supercharged 4.6 lump on a long chassis.

If somebody has a 110 with a 109 VIN it is fraud. If somebody has a ’93 or ‘98 110 with ambiguous paperwork it is most likely a fraud. Basically anybody selling a post 1984 Defender, -with the exception of a *bone stock* NAS Rover- is selling a song and dance including the vehicles from ECR as ECR has admitted. You can choose to believe the song and dance but cross your fingers that you don’t get challenged. I’d hate to be sitting on a ECR “beach runner” with an envious neighbor.

BTW - The DOT and EPA rules are bollocks but they make rules. Only a fool would justify them. It's just bureaucrats and businessmen trying to compromise on mediocrity. The USA does not have the safest or most economical cars on the road. Most other countries that can afford to pave their roads have more efficient and/or safer cars. Those who can’t afford to pave their roads drive Rovers at their own peril☺. A 2009 D90/D110 is safer, more environmentally friendly, more efficient, and all around more politically correct than a 1983 90/110, yet the ’83 is legal and the ’09 is not. No need to go into the hazards or environmental nightmares of series vehicles.

I own and drive vehicles more dangerous than a 2CV, including a few Rovers (even federalized!), and that’s my business. If I end up like a fly on my own windscreen… well I’ve got problems and the last of my worries is some prat suing me. If some idiot drives a 2CV into my Hummer, well then the 2CV owner has some problems and only a retard wouldn’t understand that driving a tin can into a brick is trouble. Get over it, if you own a Rover or 2CV and you are worried about safety than drive a Merc sedan or a Prius depending on your budget or righteousness. Don’t sue somebody else when you make a mess of yourself at an accident.

A 2CV or older Rover, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, VW, Mini, etc, are death traps which should be clear the moment you step into one. Most of my cars are death traps (Rovers and other odd old cars) and if I decide that’s the way I want to die (which is most likely because I don’t even maintain them) so be it. Lets get over the “Nanny State.” Anybody on a Series Land Rover list who lectures about safety is a prat and hypocrite. Sorry for sounding like a jerk but come on… safety lectures on a Series Land Rover list? What next, celibacy lectures on a girlie site? If you get your knickers in a twist over a few sods driving in unsafe Rovers than perhaps you should get off the road because they will be the least of your worries. One drunk in a street legal German sedan can make minced meat carnage out of most DOT approved vehicles on the road today. We won’t even mention the sober teenager in a Hummer that missed a turn who will be scrambled but his/her victim will be an omlet.

Bertha
01-02-2009, 07:14 AM
Scubarova-Interesting first post. Truth is no one gives a rats A$$ about this whole topic and whether it is legal or not except the few here in this thread who what to come across as being the moral compass of Rovers. Bottom line is, if you dont like the way ECR builds their trucks, dont buy one. If you dont trust the Red Mountain Rovers-dont buy from them(not an endorsement for either company). Just realize that plenty of people out there are buying these type trucks and enjoying them, while a few folks here are crying about how wrong it is. To each his own, but I would rather enjoy a truck my way than adhere to some questionable laws.

JimCT
01-02-2009, 09:07 AM
I agree with the last post. But really, buy the time you have replaced the chassis, the bulkhead, put in a different running gear, a non LR engine, RR axles....etc, etc, does it matter that you have kept the tag with the VIN on it? Forget legally, but how is in reality it any different than what ECR and others are doing?

thixon
01-02-2009, 09:18 AM
Bertha,

Amen.

Are those of you that are upset by all this concerned about possible safety issues. Or, are you just mad because someone who is less risk averse than yourself has something you want? And don't give me the argument that "unethical vendors are selling illegal goods to uneducated consumers." Last time I checked, "buyer beware" is how we roll here.

The system is easily worked, and its always been that way. No one here should be surprised by this. In GA, no title or registration is required on a vehicle over 15 years old. All you need is a bill of sale. Outside of Atlanta, no inspection is needed (inside ATL, emmisions inspection is required). On one occasion, I borrowed a pen, and asked for a piece of paper from the counter girl at the DMV to write out a bill of sale for an MGA I'd bought from a buddy. All I had to do was prove that I'd insured the car, which was done via a phone call. Make all the jokes you want about GA being a backwards arse state full of stupid rednecks. Guess what... they're everywhere, and if someone wants to get something done, all they have to do is identify that one idiot to exploit to aid them in their quest.

If it really bugs you that someone has an illegal truck, then bust them.

Spend more time trying not to be an idiot, and less time complaining about them.

yorker
01-02-2009, 12:29 PM
I agree with the last post. But really, buy the time you have replaced the chassis, the bulkhead, put in a different running gear, a non LR engine, RR axles....etc, etc, does it matter that you have kept the tag with the VIN on it? Forget legally, but how is in reality it any different than what ECR and others are doing?

Even more to the point- who cares!? This sort of endless ****house lawyering I'd expect on Dweebweb or even d90.com but here? If it isn't your truck or one you are considering buying then what does it matter? It doesn't belong on a Series LR tech forum.

Eric W S
01-02-2009, 02:24 PM
Even more to the point- who cares!? This sort of endless ****house lawyering I'd expect on Dweebweb or even d90.com but here? If it isn't your truck or one you are considering buying then what does it matter? It doesn't belong on a Series LR tech forum.

Half the posts in this section don't belong here. This isn't the be all end all tech source for series trucks.

When did the definition of tech change to include battery and tire choices or any other amount of banal topics that have surfaced recently?

thixon
01-02-2009, 02:30 PM
Oh yeah?

Well....my dad can beat up your dad!

Eric W S
01-02-2009, 03:23 PM
Exactly!

For every point there is a counter point. You either get sucked into these like a fool like me or just roll your eyes and think "It's an internet BBS..."

End of the day right wrong or indifferent, the laws aren't going to change overnight...

yorker
01-02-2009, 03:41 PM
Exactly!



End of the day right wrong or indifferent, the laws aren't going to change overnight...

and odds are they won't change for the better for people with interests like us. Remember when it was legal to import your own car from overseas?

If politicians see a way to make $ they'll close down the 25 year old "loophole" too.

And you'll get other wacky stuff like Yearly gas guzzler taxes for engines over 2.0L Or finite parts percentage rules for the registration of older cars- exceed a certain percentage of parts that change from an "as manufactured" standard and the vehicle can no longer be registered and used on the road.

There is no telling what they can come up with. I just don't see much point in arguing about someone elses' 110 here. Buyer beware.

I've seen illegally imported/vin swap Defenders just like everyone else here has- I just prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. We're really lucky there isn't much scrutiny on our little segment of the automotive world IMHO, if we keep dredging this up and hashing it over ad naseum some politician will get ahold of it and start dreaming up even "better" laws. Keep poking this bear and pretty soon we'll all get screwed somehow. ;)

I Leak Oil
01-02-2009, 03:59 PM
Well said Yorker. I don't think anyone would care about this if you could pick up a good 110 for $5K. Lot's of times this type of conversation just sounds like sour grapes. Afterall, who here speeds on occasion? That's breaking the law too.....

Jason T.

Donnie
01-02-2009, 04:19 PM
Here's my take on this thread:

1. Leafsprung is right! Sueing is part of our social problem - You want to be part of the solution - right? That means getting involved in something constructive like proposing/creating/influencing new legislation.

2. I live in Oklahoma - mini-trucks (Toy,Nissan,etc.) have always been legal - don't have a clue where that came from... True enough, there has been talk about allowing ATV's on farm roads earlier this summer ($4.00+ gas) - but now that we're back down to $1.40/gal. everyone started driving their Hummers, F350 duallies, my 109, etc again!

3. Ralph Nader is an idiot! Always has been... The DOT is there for itself - ONLY! Don't even kid yourself into thinking that the Fed's are there for you and your well being. Case in point - The USA lived with DOT lighting laws that were passed in the early 1940's until just about 10 years ago. Our automobile lighting systems were 50 years behind the European laws. The DOT provides income for people who would otherwise be unemployable. (Yeah, it's harsh!)

4. Looks like a Duck, sounds like a duck, walks like... well? If you 'think' something funny's going on - probably is.

With that - Happy New Year to Everyone!!
"Ralph Nader is an idiot".........I'm not sure where you are drawing your conclusions from, but I tend to disagree,, If you are a Corvair owner, or have read Unsafe at any speed, and have not researched all the unsafe scams, and products that have been shoved down our Gullets, then U should research a bit about this man B4 making such a comment.. Maybe U have only done your research on the DOT, or I'll admit he is a piss poor politician..That alone is in his favor... In a society where wealth and greed seem to run rampant, Nader's group has done a lot for the common good of our country........... I don't mean to start a pissing contest here, but myself, I'd consider it an honor to carry his briefcase while he walks to work...

jp-
01-02-2009, 04:30 PM
"Ralph Nader is an idiot".........I'm not sure where you are drawing your conclusions from, but I tend to disagree,, If you are a Corvair owner, or have read Unsafe at any speed, and have not researched all the unsafe scams, and products that have been shoved down our Gullets, then U should research a bit about this man B4 making such a comment.. Maybe U have only done your research on the DOT, or I'll admit he is a piss poor politician..That alone is in his favor... In a society where wealth and greed seem to run rampant, Nader's group has done a lot for the common good of our country........... I don't mean to start a pissing contest here, but myself, I'd consider it an honor to carry his briefcase while he walks to work...

Sorry dog, but Nader is an idiot.

The point is that any vehicle can kill you if you drive it like a fool. Corvair or anything else. Nader made himself famous, by wild charges. All cars are unsafe if their limits are exceeded. This was more or less the beginning of the death of personal responsibility in our society. That is what has killed America. You alone should take responsibility for how you operate your car or your blender. If you stick your hand in a blender it doesn't mean the blender is defective and the manufacturer needs to be sued...

http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html


"The Corvair Is Exonerated
At the conclusion of these tests, the NHTSA released its 134 page report. It exonerated the Corvair from Nader’s charges, and said things such as: "The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests," and, "The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic." The complete report, PB 211-015, can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (http://www.ntis.gov/) (NTIS)*."

Bertha
01-02-2009, 04:30 PM
"Ralph Nader is an idiot".........I'm not sure where you are drawing your conclusions from, but I tend to disagree,, If you are a Corvair owner, or have read Unsafe at any speed, and have not researched all the unsafe scams, and products that have been shoved down our Gullets, then U should research a bit about this man B4 making such a comment.. Maybe U have only done your research on the DOT, or I'll admit he is a piss poor politician..That alone is in his favor... In a society where wealth and greed seem to run rampant, Nader's group has done a lot for the common good of our country........... I don't mean to start a pissing contest here, but myself, I'd consider it an honor to carry his briefcase while he walks to work...

Sorry to tell you but:

RALPH NADER IS DEFINITELY AN IDIOT!

I Leak Oil
01-02-2009, 05:27 PM
If you are a Corvair owner, or have read Unsafe at any speed, and have not researched all the unsafe scams, and products that have been shoved down our Gullets, then U should research a bit about this man B4 making such a comment.

No one is forcing anyone to buy an illegal 110, just like no one was forced to buy a corvair or a chevy pickup with side saddle fuel tanks. Because of discussions like this over the last few years (no, this is nothing new)there's enough information, and hopefully, common sense out there that we can all make intelligent and informed decisions with our dollars. No one is shoving anything down my gullet. If I don't want it, I simply don't buy it. With that said, I admire Nadar's intentions and he has made a difference but doesn't have the clairvoyance to predict all future hazards. So that gives him 20/20 hindsite, not X-Ray vision like Superman.
If Nader really cared he wouldn't let you carry his briefcase as you might pull a muscle in your back!
Jason T.

Donnie
01-02-2009, 07:37 PM
Sorry dog, but Nader is an idiot.

The point is that any vehicle can kill you if you drive it like a fool. Corvair or anything else. Nader made himself famous, by wild charges. All cars are unsafe if their limits are exceeded. This was more or less the beginning of the death of personal responsibility in our society. That is what has killed America. You alone should take responsibility for how you operate your car or your blender. If you stick your hand in a blender it doesn't mean the blender is defective and the manufacturer needs to be sued...

http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html


"The Corvair Is Exonerated
At the conclusion of these tests, the NHTSA released its 134 page report. It exonerated the Corvair from Nader’s charges, and said things such as: "The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests," and, "The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic." The complete report, PB 211-015, can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (http://www.ntis.gov/) (NTIS)*."
JP---I'm gonna' dismiss the name calling, it is uncalled for, & un professional..I think that your attitude is coming from the web, since U quoted the NTIS. Nader is a lot more than the DOT, or a faulty blender...........Jason, I think that U did get something showed down your Gullet, unless U were in favor of your tax $$ bailing out all the corp.bad guys. HUH??.....Bertha, your comment was not defined, that's OK...I suggest to all you Nader haters, look beyond the DOT & the faulty consumer products...pick up a copy of "CUTTING CORPORATE WELFARE"..You will get another view of the man U all hate....Then one day when U need a break from your project, or whatever, grab your favorite beverage, kick back & maybe you will discover what really is destroying America.................
I apologize to the moderator, I realize I sniped this thread but felt the need to respond..........I'm out.........

thixon
01-02-2009, 08:23 PM
Oh yeah,

well my dad can beat up your dad...and Ralph Nader.

jp-
01-02-2009, 11:09 PM
No name calling took place...

My point was simply that the Corvair was exonerated from fault, but nobody wants to hear that.

Thixon, I have a whole bag of "shhhh!" with your name on it.

I Leak Oil
01-03-2009, 07:08 AM
Jason, I think that U did get something showed down your Gullet, unless U were in favor of your tax $$ bailing out all the corp.bad guys.

With 100% certainty I can assure you I have never had anything "showed" down my gullet!:D

I'm also not in favor of the bailout package as it affects our free market too much, and I also don't think anyone here is a "Nader Hater", some of us just have a different opinion....

Jason T.

Maryland 110
01-07-2009, 05:41 PM
If I were out driving and got hit by someone in one of these non-DOT legal trucks, I'd sue them 'til they bled out their eyes. Then I'd sue their insurance company for insuring it, whomever sold it to them, whomever inspected it, and so on back to the source. And I'd win. The law would be on my side. If you're in doubt, ring up your insurance agent and ask what would happen in that event.

Mech


***Sorry for the diatribe, but this is a touchy subject for me. I hate seeing dishonest con artists selling unsafe cars to unsuspecting people, especially when there are plenty of honest people out there doing it right. Burns me up...

I have imported a few 25yr old trucks www.dividingcreekroverimorts.com (http://www.dividingcreekroverimorts.com) and drive one myself daily. While I agree with a lot that has been said in this thread. I really have a hard time with some of the things said. One of which is the litigeous angle above. I wish we could all import a late model defender for $100 each. I dabble with these as a hobby at night, not as a way to pay my mortgage, but because I love defenders. There is very, very, little that has changed on a defender over the last 25yrs (one of the cool things about them). Most of the safety improvements have happened in the last five years, or instance: ABS, TC, airbags, defrosters that work, etc. The differences between a 1983 110 and a 1998 110 are miniscule. Same steering, brakes, seat belts, seats, suspension. So how the 98 is "unsafe" and the 83 is, is a perspective that I don't understand. The difference is one is a legal import and one potentially may not be, thats it. My 83 has front and rear inertia reel seat belts, disc brakes, and the exact same steering components as a 1999 US spec Disco. Motorcycles go 2-3 times as fast as most defenders, have no seat belts, have the most minimal of safety or emissons requirements and are generally operated in an unsafe manner far more often than anyone in a defender. I marvel @ the hypocracy of that everytime I take my bike for a spin. That someone would "hope to be rear ended so they could sue till the offender bled from his eyes" is in my mind contrary to the culture that many of us that drive these vehicles embrace.

The one aspect of grey market trucks that is giving the entire thing a bad name (and that everyone in this thread seems to be in violent agreement on) are the people who do VIN swaps bringing in Defenders on old series documentation. I have had people who drive these trucks say to me that they are "going to take care of that when the truck is actually 25yrs old". I then explain that can never be done. You would have to export the truck as whatever the hell its titled as and then re-import it as what it truly is to have the proper releases with the correct VIN show up in DOT's & EPA's, Custom's, Carfax etc's data bases. Otherwise it will never be legal. Are there a dozen + of these trucks @ every large event ? Absolutely. Are the majority of them in the hands of enthusiasts who use them for the purpose for which they are intended ? I think so. All of the people with VIN swapped trucks that I have met are fully aware and were not "duped" by a seller but rather wanted the damn thing so much they were willing to take the risk, or do the deed themselves. I recently got a call from George @ RDS, someone I have talked to for hours on this subject. A totaled VIN swap truck was dragged into his place while Customs and the insurance company that covered the truck decided what to do. The truck sat there for about a month. In the end the insurance company covered the claim, Customs didn't pursue anyone and the whole thing was a non-issue.

How any of this has anything to do with Red Mountain Rovers is beyond me. For what its worth I have heard through the grapevine that the proprietor Tim is a good fellow to deal with and is accurate in his descripton of a vehicles condition. This from enthusiasts who have bought from him over the years. Its my understanding he has been purveying used Land Rovers for the past ten years.

Cheers,
Doug

Leslie
01-10-2009, 10:44 PM
Not tryin' to turn up a bad penny, lol, but, I thought I'd take a gander at my state's law on such subjects. My original thought was, regarding replacing the chassis on a Series... some of the previous comments in this thread indicate that such is illegal in certain states. (FWIW, there's no such issue here... you can get to the point that a vehicle is unrepairable, and have it disposed of, but, if you can fix it up on a new chassis, go ahead.... if you want to swap a motor, go ahead.... but that's a different tact than what I want to mention here).

I noticed the section regarding reconstructed, specially constructed vehicles, and thought I'd take a look at it. I find the way it reads interesting. From my state's legal code, it says:

Title to a custom-built car for which no certificate of title has ever been issued by the division may be titled as the make, model and year of the manufactured motor vehicle that the custom-built car most closely resembles; provided, however, that the car is intended to replicate the make, model and year of the manufactured vehicle; and provided further, that the title clearly identifies the custom-built car as a replica.

If I read that correctly, what it's saying is......

I could get a new chassis from one of the aftermarket manufacturers (thus never been registered), gather up the needed Rover parts, and assemble it into a vehicle... let's say, to mimic a 1993 Land Rover Defender 110... then I could register it as a 1993 Land Rover Defender 110 *replica*.

Not a specially constructed vehicle, not a kit car, but, it would be listed as a replica. Interesting.....


FWIW.....

GeoffWillis
02-13-2009, 10:04 AM
I've been watching this thread with mixed feelings. First, I'm a satisfied customer of Red Mountain Rovers. I dealt with Evan and Sean (Brothers) and am 100% satisfied with the way they described the vehicles. I found my 81/83 110 MOD on ebay and was a little nervous buying on line. I called them and Sean did a walk around of the vehicle with me on the phone describing interior/exterior/and under carriage. The vehicle arrived (Had it shipped) and while the top got destroyed in transit, the vehicle was exactly as described. They even split the cost of a new top. They were in no way obligated to do this, but they wanted to do the "Right thing".
As to the re-VIN'ing of vehicles, I've learned a lot about the pitfalls in this thread and hope I've nothing to worry about. While mine is titled as an 81, it's got coil springs under it which puts the chasis as at least an 83. While its possible its just a "Franken-rover", i.e. new frame to replace a rusted out one, its kinda un-knowable. How would one check to see if it were legaly imported? My old series IIa was legal, but I had no importation papers. I was totaly forth right with the DMV and USAA (Insurance co) about my suspisions, but they could not help me tracking down the lineage of the vehicle. Wish that when I bought the vehicle, I knew what I know now about the re-VIN'ing issues, but according the the great state of Texas the vehicle is legal so I'm going to enjoy the heck out of it.
My two cents worth, Red Mountain Rovers has a bunch of neat toys, just DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Geoff

OkieRover
04-17-2009, 12:53 PM
The DOT are a bunch of ball-washing-bastards,..


The DOT may be ball lickers,
Technically it was "ball-washing bastards...."
:D

And I say never under estimate the value of a good ball-wash.

:thumb-up:

Great thread guys. Geoff's "just do your homework" pretty much covers it.