Im thinking about buying this.....

[tunnyx]

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C329248#

I've been to see it, and have been taken for a spin in it - it was seriously lashing down, so i've not been able to get under it and sensibly the owner drove as I'm not insured fully to drive it (but would arrange something before I part with any cash).

I've got a couple of queries though:

1 - Its an "A" reg on the plate, but listed as a 1955, which doesnt seem to tally? Any ideas how this could be possible? I forgot to verify the log book - VIN whilst I was there but I've asked the owner to verify this for me.

2 - It's badged up as a Minor 1000 but again, if its a 1955 that doesnt make sense as it should be a Series II? Similarly I believe its a 1098cc engine but I gather at this age it should be a 803cc?

Any advice appreciated

Regards

Mark

[Dean]

It looks right appearance wise, clap hand wipers, single red rear lights etc. It would have been a 948cc originally, so could have been upgraded to 1098cc at some point.

Not sure about the A reg plate, perhaps all age related plates from the DVLA once the original is sold isn't dependant on the year it was first registered.

I'd go back again and just check all the underneath is solid, sound and not made up of old biscuit tins.


EDIT: Sorry yes you are right 1956 was the first series III?

[charlie_morris_minor]

first the A reg plate there are a few options.. either the car started life in the armed forces and was de-mobed in time to get an A reg or could have been reimported in to the UK in time to get an A plate. The other option and more probable, is that someone took the number plate from the car a long time ago. At the time ( do not ask me when the changed ) when a car was re-registered it was given an A reg plate as opposed to 3 letter 3 digit such SSU 123 that they do now.

as for having a 1098 engine it is not uncommon to fit later bigger engines to car.. my 56 convertible has a 1098, provided the car is registered as such and the numbers match it is not a worry unless of course originality is what you are really looking for.

[chesney]

Shouldn't a pre '56 have a splitscreen??

[Dean]

Shouldn't a pre '56 have a splitscreen??

Yes.

http://potteries.mmoc.org.uk/Identify.htm

[chesney]

So unless the previous owner was a master metalworker, it is not a '55, it has the one piece screen and the larger rear window.

[bmcecosse]

It's certainly not a 55 car - so something fishy going on there with the documents..... Walk away.... On the plus side - it has a NEW COIL !

[chesney]

Could be an honest mistake! Seems a nice enough car otherwise.. See the log book first though and check to the 'chassis' number.
It will be a '56 to a '62 as the potteries website shows.

[tunnyx]

Thanks all. I'm working on the valuation being good for a 55 plate so depending on what the owner comes back to me with I'll make a decision then. Hopefully it's an honest mistake as its a lovely car and drives very well - some of the work done to it is highly impressive & it's all been done by the MM center in Chorlton, Manchester - lots of bills for work done.

On that basis, I might give them a call and see if they are aware of any 'story' behind the car. Can't hurt!

Cheers

Mark

[LouiseM]

Here are the details from the DVLA site:

Vehicle enquiryThe enquiry is complete.
The vehicle details for AAU 206A are:
Date of Liability 01 11 2012
Date of First Registration 27 03 1957
Year of Manufacture 1957
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 948cc
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type PETROL
Export Marker N
Vehicle Status Licence Not Due
Vehicle Colour GREEN
Vehicle Type Approval Not Available

So showing as a 1957 car with a 948cc engine. I'd wait to see what the seller says after checking the log book as it could be a genuine mistake. And as already stated, quite a few cars were provided with 'A' reg plates when the original number was sold. Make sure that you view it again in the dry so that you can throughly check the underside.

[tunnyx]

Thanks Louise. 57 vs 55 isn't too bad, although seems like a silly mistake to make on a listing. I'll spend some time double and treble checking everything over before committing.

Cheers all

Mark

[mike.perry]

If it had been 59 instead of 57 you would never have noticed, it is obvious because a 55 is a Series II and a 57 is a 948.
If it has a 1098 engine check that it has a ribbed gearbox, have they uprated the diff?
Check the chassis number on the plate against the number on the engine compartment bulkhead and the registration docs but don't worry if there are errors in the docs, that is quite normal.

[ASL642]

We have a '62 saloon. Previous owner sold the registration number. Car was fitted with a new number plate ending in an "A"

This happened in the first few years when the DVLA were issuing vehicles with replacement numbers. Later they issued age related ones.

[bmcecosse]

Oh yes - the A plate is not a worry - but the claim that the car is an earlier (potentially more valuable) 1955 car IS a concern........

[ASL642]

It may just be what was typed into the "system" and we all know DVLA!

[chrisryder]

Surely it's not a DVLA system mistake if the registration check posted by LouiseM is right. If the reg check says 1957, then the logbook would say 1957 too.

[ASL642]

You'd be amazed! When I registered a 1970 4dr in my name after purchase it came back with my new details but stating Morris 1100 not Morris Minor! Engine size still stated 1098cc It's very easy to just read that your name has been changed and file it. You need to check everything! So a 57 could easily be changed to 55.

[chrisryder]

But in that situation, would that have come up on the reg check system as an 1100 not a Minor?

That's what I'm trying to ascertain, if the systems are linked. If they are, then the 1957 confirmed by the reg check would also say 1957 on its logbook.

[ASL642]

I've absolutely no idea as i didn't do one. I just sent it back to DVLA marking where it needed changing.

P.s. Always photocopy any documents you have before sending - they have this knack of "mislaying" them

[LouiseM]

The only suggestion that the documents are 'fishy' has come from BMCecosse. The original poster didn't check the log book when he viewed the car and has asked the seller to check what it says. If the log book states 1955 then there is a potential issue but no point in speculating until the seller has checked and confirmed what it says.