Is this an Elephant?

mustang68

Something seems a bit off here....

corktina

whoosh....was that your post going over my head?

celticbest

Half the bumper is misssing...

Kenny Logins

Zv reg

JP 1800

It comes up as a sl350, presumably a r107 but that model is an R129 which did not come out until 1991. This kind of crap needs to be stamped out now or during the nct, or else us genuine classic car enthusiasts will bear the brunt of the usual knee jerk reaction of the powers that be. I have seen Land rovers which were obviously modern wearing ZV plates also, peoples desire for cheaper tax will bite them in the ass if an insurance claim comes into effect after an accident.

kev1.3s

Whatever about the landrovers but that is really taking the pisś.

Silvera

That merc (owner) is taking the piss ...bigtime!!

Cleveland Hot Pocket

JP 1800 wrote: »

It comes up as a sl350, presumably a r107 but that model is an R129 which did not come out until 1991. This kind of crap needs to be stamped out now or during the nct, or else us genuine classic car enthusiasts will bear the brunt of the usual knee jerk reaction of the powers that be. I have seen Land rovers which were obviously modern wearing ZV plates also, peoples desire for cheaper tax will bite them in the ass if an insurance claim comes into effect after an accident.

There's nothing illegal or contravening insurance about a declared body swap on to an older chassis though

JP 1800

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

There's nothing illegal or contravening insurance about a declared body swap on to an older chassis though

So how do you do a body swap on a monocoque chassis?. I was not referring to the landrovers when I meant the insurance part if done legally as you rightly mention, just to clear things up.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

JP 1800 wrote: »

So how do you do a body swap on a monocoque chassis?. I was not referring to the landrovers when I meant the insurance part if done legally as you rightly mention, just to clear things up.

Ah ok that's a whole nother story. Didn't know the merc's were a monocoque chassis/

Capri

kev1.3s wrote: »

Whatever about the landrovers but that is really taking the pisś.

Here's a real 142WW Defender 90 and a real old 88 - hard to tell them apart from some angles and especially to the untrained eye. ( Chap in 07 Brazilian T2c Bay told me a cop stopped him because he reckoned it was 'too old' to have a 07 reg, but Garda 'Hawkeye' was corrected on his 'knowledge' of T2's )

Silvera

It begs the question - how did the Revenue 'official' pass that Merc as a vintage vehicle?

Now I know many such officials would have little knowledge of motor vehicles in general, but surely they could see that the Merc above is not 'over 30 years old'?

...or perhaps the owner is doing a spot of 'plate-swopping' with an older Merc he owns?? :mad:

kev1.3s

Capri wrote: »

Here's a real 142WW Defender 90 and a real old 88 - hard to tell them apart from some angles and especially to the untrained eye. ( Chap in 07 Brazilian T2c Bay told me a cop stopped him because he reckoned it was 'too old' to have a 07 reg, but Garda 'Hawkeye' was corrected on his 'knowledge' of T2's )

It's almost impossible to tell them apart but in my opinion if someone is driving about in a zv reg'd modern where it possible to do a chassis swap we have to give the benefit if the doubt. It's not a practice I either endorse or condone, it's just a loophole but the merc driver should be ashamed of himself.

hi5

I would have thought that the insurance would be ok as long as the car is described on the insurance form exactly as it physically is.


There is a picture of an MX5 somewhere on zv plates too.

mustang68

kev1.3s wrote: »

..... but the merc driver should be ashamed of himself.

herself. I should have engaged them in conversation, but I spent too long fiddling with my phone.

corktina

I'm awake now. This sort of abuse will kill our Classic priviledges eventually.

mikehn

[IMG][/img]
Funniest looking mini I ever saw:cool:

ba_barabus

I've mentioned that merc a number of times on boards but nobody ever seemed bothered by it. The reg belongs to a 1973 merc sl350. I don't know why the driver is never stopped as I've gone through numerous checkpoints nearby.

It lives near Churchtown in a nice house with a nice collection of cars. It's easily visible to anyone driving by. I just never got a chance to take a pic. I don't normally comment on appearances but money doesn't seem to be an issue where it resides. That picture looks like it was taken near the luas stop just up from the owners house.

26000 Elephants

ba_barabus wrote: »

I've mentioned that merc a number of times on boards but nobody ever seemed bothered by it.

Maybe thats just it. They arent bothered by it.

Capri

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Maybe thats just it. They arent bothered by it.

Either that, or it falls between the legal cracks between Enviroment (tax), Justice(tax) and ........,or there'll be an 'Operation Elephant' by the Revenue once they've got the numbers up to make it look good in the media

Max Headroom

If it bothers you that much ring the guards.....tell them theres an abandoned car, might be used in a robbery....make up something to get them interested...;)

bbsrs

If you can't beat em join em.

w124man

I saw a 90 or 91 S124 200TE with an 81 D reg plate in Port Laoise today ..... and then there was the 89 W126 with a 76 D reg in Gorey!!

Blue850

w124man wrote: »

I saw a 90 or 91 S124 200TE with an 81 D reg plate in Port Laoise today ..... and then there was the 89 W126 with a 76 D reg in Gorey!!

I read somewhere that the W124 with the 81 plate was a genuine error made by the VRT when the car was cleared , an 8 instead of a 9 was typed in...

carchaeologist

And people wonder why there is talk of NCT testing the older cars...

mustang68

ba_barabus wrote: »

It lives near Churchtown in a nice house with a nice collection of cars. It's easily visible to anyone driving by. I just never got a chance to take a pic. I don't normally comment on appearances but money doesn't seem to be an issue where it resides. That picture looks like it was taken near the luas stop just up from the owners house.

Picture was taken near Templeogue bridge, I'm not too far from churchtown, I'll be keeping my eye out for it now.

If one was to report it, who would you report it to? Revenue?

Cleveland Hot Pocket

carchaeologist wrote: »

And people wonder why there is talk of NCT testing the older cars...

It wouldn't make a difference though.
Plenty of "2.0 on the book" 3.0+ cars still pass the NCT as is.

Silvera

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

It wouldn't make a difference though.
Plenty of "2.0 on the book" 3.0+ cars still pass the NCT as is.

It's one thing having a different engine, but surely they would spot that it's not a 1970's Mercedes?!

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Silvera wrote: »

It's one thing having a different engine, but surely they would spot that it's not a 1970's Mercedes?!

Not really, that's not part of the testing manual though.
If it passes the relevant emissions and all the other stuff matches like VIN/chassis etc, they won't care what the actual car is.

bbsrs

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Not really, that's not part of the testing manual though.
If it passes the relevant emissions and all the other stuff matches like VIN/chassis etc, they won't care what the actual car is.

Really , if I drove in with an 840i on 1981 635 plate and vin number riveted on in place the 840 vin plate they wouldn't care?

carchaeologist

bbsrs wrote: »

Really , if I drove in with an 840i on 1981 635 plate and vin number riveted on in place the 840 vin plate they wouldn't care?

Once the documents match the car I suppose there won't be too much thought.

26000 Elephants

mustang68 wrote: »

who would you report it to? Revenue?

Seriously?

I bet you'd be the life and soul of any party....

pablo128

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Seriously?

I bet you'd be the life and soul of any party....

Do you own a classic? Do you enjoy 56 euro a year to tax it, and enjoy your hobby? Well that will all come crashing down because of 'cute hoors' like this.
And I can tell you that they don't give a hot sh1te about true classic car enthusiasts. It's purely about saving themselves a few quid on their car tax.

JP 1800

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you own a classic? Do you enjoy 56 euro a year to tax it, and enjoy your hobby? Well that will all come crashing down because of 'cute hoors' like this.
And I can tell you that they don't give a hot sh1te about true classic car enthusiasts. It's purely about saving themselves a few quid on their car tax.

My sentiments exactly, I have a few classics that I spend a great deal of time and money on, the reduced tax makes that hobby a little more financially bearable. I am also nursing a 1989 Mercedes CE 300 closer to the 30 year mark where I am in the hope that the reduced rate kicks in. If these types of tax dodgers get the attention of the senior civil servants we can all kiss the 30 year rule goodbye and in that a car that should be rightly worth a coupe of grand will be worthless. We will loose an era of future classics in this country along with the millions of euros raised in charity car shows.

26000 Elephants

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you own a classic? Do you enjoy 56 euro a year to tax it, and enjoy your hobby? Well that will all come crashing down because of 'cute hoors' like this.
And I can tell you that they don't give a hot sh1te about true classic car enthusiasts. It's purely about saving themselves a few quid on their car tax.

So to enjoy my 56euro concession, I need to go around investigating others to ensure they conform with some vague and indistinct definition of a "true classic car enthusiast"? And then inform on the offenders to Revenue?

So where should I draw the line? Someone driving a 1983 ****box Toyota to work everyday? Is that OK? Should I also report them to their insurance that they are exceeding the terms of the limited policy?

As far as i see it, revenue have rules, and if a car has been given a zv plate then it must have satisfied those rules. However it was done. Enforcement is for the lawmen.
Going down this quasi-vigilante road just makes us all look like petty, mealy-mouthed fools.

Max Headroom

Oh no...i feel like someone is going to mention kit-cars again......:eek:

DOH.!!!..too late..:)

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

So to enjoy my 56euro concession, I need to go around investigating others to ensure they conform with some vague and indistinct definition of a "true classic car enthusiast"? And then inform on the offenders to Revenue?

So where should I draw the line? Someone driving a 1983 ****box Toyota to work everyday? Is that OK? Should I also report them to their insurance that they are exceeding the terms of the limited policy?

As far as i see it, revenue have rules, and if a car has been given a zv plate then it must have satisfied those rules. However it was done. Enforcement is for the lawmen.
Going down this quasi-vigilante road just makes us all look like petty, mealy-mouthed fools.

No-one suggested that there was a need to report those who weren't "true classic car enthusiasts". That's a pretty weak straw man argument. It's law-breaking was the actual issue to hand.

Someone driving a '83 Toyota to work each day is entirely within the law to do so. I doubt anyone has an issue with classic daily drivers, so why pretend otherwise? No-one is in a position to know anyone else's insurance terms, so again - why the straw man argument? The issue to hand, again, is clear/overt law-breaking.

Someone abusing the ZV rules (laws) is not satisfying the law - and that their law-breaking hasn't yet been discovered by the 'lawmen' is no obstacle to anyone else looking to have the law upheld. If you knew of an active arsonist in your community, would you consider yourself a vigilante if you reported that information to the Gardai? So, again - why the 'quasi-vigilante' guff? You seem determined to miss the point.

hi5

26000 Elephants wrote: »

As far as i see it, revenue have rules, and if a car has been given a zv plate then it must have satisfied those rules. However it was done. Enforcement is for the lawmen.
Going down this quasi-vigilante road just makes us all look like petty, mealy-mouthed fools.

The revenue didn't give the plate for 'that' car, they gave it to a different car.
The owner has swapped plates to evade paying €1753 or thereabouts tax per year.
We all have to make up the shortfall in other taxes to compensate, so we have a right to complain.

26000 Elephants

hi5 wrote: »

The revenue didn't give the plate for 'that' car, they gave it to a different car.
The owner has swapped plates to evade paying €1753 or thereabouts tax per year.
We all have to make up the shortfall in other taxes to compensate, so we have a right to complain.

Thats a completely different case. Thats simply 'ringing' and is equally illegal on modern cars as for classics. So why this terror that you will loose your 'special deal' by random criminals falsifying registrations to evade tax?

My point is that there may possibly be a valid reason for that car to bear that index plate, and this witch hunt will more than likely result in the general population questioning why we give concessions to classics in the first place.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats a completely different case. Thats simply 'ringing' and is equally illegal on modern cars as for classics. So why this terror that you will loose your 'special deal' by random criminals falsifying registrations to evade tax?

My point is that there may possibly be a valid reason for that car to bear that index plate, and this witch hunt will more than likely result in the general population questioning why we give concessions to classics in the first place.

We both know that there's no possible valid reason for that Merc to have that plate. No witch hunt is required. But thanks for the bogus attempt at scaremongering.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

No-one suggested that there was a need to report those who weren't "true classic car enthusiasts". That's a pretty weak straw man argument. It's law-breaking was the actual issue to hand.

Someone driving a '83 Toyota to work each day is entirely within the law to do so. I doubt anyone has an issue with classic daily drivers, so why pretend otherwise? No-one is in a position to know anyone else's insurance terms, so again - why the straw man argument? The issue to hand, again, is clear/overt law-breaking.

Someone abusing the ZV rules (laws) is not satisfying the law - and that their law-breaking hasn't yet been discovered by the 'lawmen' is no obstacle to anyone else looking to have the law upheld. If you knew of an active arsonist in your community, would you consider yourself a vigilante if you reported that information to the Gardai? So, again - why the 'quasi-vigilante' guff? You seem determined to miss the point.

Straw man argument? Great. So you have googled Logic Fallacies. Well done. You are indeed an intellectual colossus of he highest caliber and I am truly in awe of you. ( thats satire, btw. Google S-A-T-I-R-E)

Determined To Miss The Point ( ad-hominem attack): Surely the goal of all this is to present different points of view? Are you sure there is only one (yours)?

The arsonist: - Inconsistent argument. Are you suggesting that a rapist/arsonist/murderer is the same as someone you merely believe to be making a dishonest declaration for the purposes of obtaining a tax disc? Thats a pretty big leap.

I think you will find that it is the growing number of people simply using 30 year old cars to evade road tax that will end the concession long before individual cases of possible registration fraud.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

We both know that there's no possible valid reason for that Merc to have that plate. No witch hunt is required. But thanks for the bogus attempt at scaremongering.

Wrong direction.

The scare mongering is your own - The Elephant in the room!! My argument is quite the opposite - 'Calm down folks, no need to get the burning torches and pitchforks out' - sort of thing.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Wrong direction.

The scare mongering is your own - The Elephant in the room!! My argument is quite the opposite - 'Calm down folks, no need to get the burning torches and pitchforks out' - sort of thing.

Ehh, you're (either disingenuously or mistakenly) positing that the car's reg could be legit - which it clearly can't be, and that shining a light on such blatant law-breaking might undermine those of us who aren't breaking any law. Sounds like scare-mongering to me.

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Straw man argument? Great. So you have googled Logic Fallacies. Well done. You are indeed an intellectual colossus of he highest caliber and I am truly in awe of you. ( thats satire, btw. Google S-A-T-I-R-E)

Zzzzz. Let me know when you have a point to make.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Determined To Miss The Point ( ad-hominem attack): Surely the goal of all this is to present different points of view? Are you sure there is only one (yours)?

Distorting other people's posts in an attempt to distract from the core issue is not presenting a different point of view. It certainly demonstrates a determination to miss or evade the point.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The arsonist: - Inconsistent argument. Are you suggesting that a rapist/arsonist/murderer is the same as someone you merely believe to be making a dishonest declaration for the purposes of obtaining a tax disc? Thats a pretty big leap.

Again - attempting to miss the point. There's no inconsistency with ensuring the proper authorities enforce the law of the land - whatever laws they might be, and the nonsense of suggesting that doing so is 'quasi-vigilantism'. I note that you couldn't bring yourself to answer the question all the same,

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think you will find that it is the growing number of people simply using 30 year old cars to evade road tax that will end the concession long before individual cases of possible registration fraud.

There's no 'possible registration fraud' at play here. It's clear-cut. And best of luck with your personal theory on the future, but again, you're avoiding the question to hand.

mustang68

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Seriously?

I bet you'd be the life and soul of any party....

No need to get personal, I just asked a question.

hi5

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats a completely different case. Thats simply 'ringing' and is equally illegal on modern cars as for classics. So why this terror that you will loose your 'special deal' by random criminals falsifying registrations to evade tax?

My point is that there may possibly be a valid reason for that car to bear that index plate, and this witch hunt will more than likely result in the general population questioning why we give concessions to classics in the first place.

I'm referring to the OP, what other case?
ZV plates are only issued to vehicles first registered or first manufactured over 30 years ago.
The Merc R129 model was first manufactured in 1989, making it 25 years old at most.
Neither the R107('71 to '89) or the R129 have separate chassis, so it can't be a body swap.
There is no possible valid reason for it to bear that index plate.

Capri

hi5 wrote: »

I'm referring to the OP, what other case?
ZV plates are only issued to vehicles first registered or first manufactured over 30 years ago.
The Merc R129 model was first manufactured in 1989, making it 25 years old at most.
Neither the R107('71 to '89) or the R129 have separate chassis, so it can't be a body swap.
There is no possible valid reason for it to bear that index plate.

129 panels on a 107 shell.???

hi5

Capri wrote: »

129 panels on a 107 shell.???

Or expanding foam and shares in a sandpaper company:D

alastair

Capri wrote: »

129 panels on a 107 shell.???

Which panels could be a candidate? It's not exactly 911 territory, with variations on a theme between models.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

Zzzzz. Let me know when you have a point to make.

No need to comment any further on your posts. You are clearly an individual who is so anally fixated that youve become cross eyed.

anyway, my original point was that reporting such things might be seen by some as a bit, well, w*nkish.
Your above comment indicates that you clearly belong to this category.

26000 Elephants

hi5 wrote: »

I'm referring to the OP,
There is no possible valid reason for it to bear that index plate.

Can the OP just ask? If you know where the car is, can you just ask the owner? If they say, 'oh, yeah, its just a scam. Ive a scrapped R-whatever out the back that had that plate', then i will concede the point.

But that scenario is still just straightforward ringing. Its nothing to do with classics. He just picked an identity that had a lower tax to pay.