Trying to validate a 1967 2a to see if it's genuine or too good to be true.

[MattH268]

I've been searching for a 2a for a bit with a lowish budget and one has come up that visually looks great and I'm trying to find the catch.  Seeing the vehicle would really help to clear a lot of questions up but it's a 3-4 Hour drive away.  I've been communication with its current owner who seems honest enough but hasn't had the vehicle long (6 months) and doesn't know a lot about it.  This in itself is a flag of kinds. 

The vehicle is a 1967 88" 2a with 9 owners but no electronic MOT history on an HPI check (not a Biggy as electronic records started in 2005? the vehicle might have been off the road and approaching 40years), the engine which would have been a diesel is now a Perkins Prima that has developed an issue that would need to be fixed - reason for sale.

Going by the number plate alone it is shown on many sites as a 88" Half Ton which would be a lightweight? How easy difficult is it to start with a lightweight and make it look like a 2a? I doubt this as it was registered first in September 67 and the lightweight were maybe 1968 with prototypes before? Could be a DVLA database hiccup perhaps?  I've asked to see a Vin Plate picture, chassis number or any documentation he has to prove it is a genuine vehicle and not a clone or a kit car with a valid plate.  All I have in the reg to go by at the moment.  The chassis has been painted and the current owner hadn't been able to find the chassis number but the vin and v5 might help? It's currently road legal not Sorn'd and taxed until June. 

If it all checks out it is a bargain but I'm certain there has to be a catch.

Matt

[Alan Drover]

You have to ask yourself why is he selling after only  6 months of owning it.

[MattH268]

I personally think because of the engine issue and the expense to rectify combined with a lack of understanding knowledge plus maybe a 56 year old vehicle in a city isn't for everyone if they are used to modern cars.  But yes it does add to my list of concerns.

M

[diffwhine]

Where is it? Maybe another more local S2C member can go and have a look at it on your behalf?

You are correct - the first production Rover 1 Air portables were built in the latter half of 1968, so basically 1969 Model Year. Where have you found that the plate relates to a Lightweight?

Proceed with extreme caution. With the way registration issues are going these days, just having a V5 on its own won't make it authentic if DVLA decide to investigate on change of ownership. It should always have a stamped chassis number on the RH chassis leg. Not having one will cause you problems, but is potentially a good basis for further negotiation.

I hope it really is sufficiently cheap to justify the grief it looks like this one will create...

[Wittsend]

Walk away and find another prospect.

Perkins Primas are no longer as common as they once were. Parts are expensive if it needs a rebuild. A non-runner raises questions £££

Even if this vehicle were free it sounds like it has issues.

LWTs weren't made before the 1969 model year. The 1st batch 236s made in the autumn of 1968 as posted ^^^.

Before then a few prototypes for evaluation were made. Very unlikely it's one off those.

If it doesn't have a chassis number of 236***** then it's not a LWT.

  

[MattH268]

Thanks for the reply, I should hopefully get some more information on it tomorrow if it hasn't sold by then, it's getting a lot of interest.  I did an HPI check, online searches on reg check and the gov.uk vehicle check. All quite vague but they usually show a bit more information than I'm getting.  The DVLA record on the HPI shows it as a 88" Half ton 286 diesel, there is an engine number listed but this is incorrect now that it had a Perkins engine.  I could be totally wrong, but I don't think the current owner did any/many checks and probably bought it as it looked good without delving too much.  I'm always sceptical especially more so as I don't want a lemon or something with hidden difficulties that are way above my skill level.

According to the owner it runs and drives well but the engine has developed a smoking habit that the sale price reflects. The Bodywork and structure look great and if the Perkins is beyond economic repair then it would be a great contender for a 200tdi but only if the paperwork stacks up for me.

[Peter Holden]

There are all sorts of things that spring to mind, V5 and vehicle may not really belong together.  V5 says it is too early to be a lightweight addeed to which very few lightweights were diesel, only those on airfield where ther was a risk of fire

Photographs are the priority.  Look at axle ends and there should be a crossmember immediately behind the front bumper.

Peter

[Wittsend]

Remember
At that time the MoD never bought diesel engined Land Rovers.
Any diesel powered MoD spec vehicle has been messed with by a PO.

Whilst 200/300 Tdi engines are good. They are getting scarcer to find.

[autorover1]

Dutch Army had 2.25 diesel Lightweights but then it would be LHD

[MattH268]

There are all sorts of things that spring to mind, V5 and vehicle may not really belong together.  V5 says it is too early to be a lightweight addeed to which very few lightweights were diesel, only those on airfield where ther was a risk of fire

Photographs are the priority.  Look at axle ends and there should be a crossmember immediately behind the front bumper.

Peter

I can't post pictures really without the owners of the vehicles permission but there is a crossmember in front of the front axle, the underneath is extremely clean and body coloured hiding everything potentially sinister. 

I'd like to assume that the 88" Half Ton is a clerical glitch.  My concern, and I'm probably not alone in my thinking, is that maybe 2 or 3 vehicles made one that cleared DVLA stipulations to grant it a year (F) numberplate, if that is possible.  It also could be a genuine car in great condition that I'm reading too much into, being sold cheapish because it has a dud non original engine and being sold because as said, parts are scarce and expensive, and a suitable replacement also won't be cheap or easy.

Thank you for your replies.

M

[Peter Holden]

What you have decribed sounds like a lightweight chassis so something is definitely not right.

I disagree with Wittsend though, the RAF had a very small number specifically for airfield use in volatile situations where ignition sparks could be a problem.  I also know of at least 1 dutch diesel lightweight that has been converted to right hand drive

Peter

[GlenAnderson]

Where, exactly, does the lightweight issue come from? Weren't all the 88" military vehicles described "1/2-ton", and 109" ones "3/4-ton"?

[diffwhine]

You are correct GlenAnderson. The chassis number is probably the easiest way of sorting this.

[GlenAnderson]

I know that nobody likes to waste time and effort unnecessarily, but if you (and by "you" I mean anyone, not just the OP) really want to buy a particular type of vehicle, and your budget is tight, surely a day of your time is a small price to pay for peace of mind? Burn a day's annual leave, jump in the car, and go look at it.

Even losing a day's pay and the fuel money is cheaper than buying a lemon...

[Peter Holden]

The poster has said that there is a crossmember in front of the rad panel crossmember.  The only chassis that I know of that has duch a crossmember is a lightweight..  We can only identify it from the physical characteristics - I wouldnt be relying on the chassis number

Peter