Retropower built 400R

[Mickfrad]

Awesome car with a great build thread from retropower 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIvaLLHF0vN/?igshid=196jtc5wwyanl

 

The retropower link 

https://retropower.co.uk/2018/02/05/rb25det-powered-manta-400/
 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Mickfrad

[Jessopia74]

It's just been sold on FB, guy taken deposit at £49K 

But again I would be shit scared of getting a Qplate in that 😬

Edited December 15, 2020 by Jessopia74

[Mickfrad]

Wow that was quick. 
Not suprised 

[starmist]

A lot of money, but it's faster and rarer than a cosworth and they can go for double that.

[stumpy]

i just offered  3k for a rolling shell [nutty Niks] not having any of it tho reckons it cost hom 50k in theshell alone i dont see where tho to be honest and what you spend and what you can sell it for is two completely different thing

[Jessopia74]

4 hours ago, stumpy said:

i just offered  3k for a rolling shell [nutty Niks] not having any of it tho reckons it cost hom 50k in theshell alone i dont see where tho to be honest and what you spend and what you can sell it for is two completely different thing

He has broke the car?
 

[lewis p]

On 15/12/2020 at 21:57, Jessopia74 said:

It's just been sold on FB, guy taken deposit at £49K 

But again I would be shit scared of getting a Qplate in that 😬

Why would it go on a q now it's been built and on the road 3 years? 

[stumpy]

8 hours ago, Jessopia74 said:

He has broke the car?
 

it hasnt had a motor in it for some time if you mean Megamanta  i act posted  the reply on the wrong topic because iwas abitsquiffy 

[Jessopia74]

5 hours ago, lewis p said:

Why would it go on a q now it's been built and on the road 3 years? 

It's a risk, not guaranteed it would ever happen. 
Because it was built after the major rule change, so will (technically) never be exempt from requiring the extended inspection/check. To avoid it you could claim it was done before, but They would ask for evidence of the build 😞

every time it is MOTD or chance it is given a look over by traffic police or VOSS at roadside it is in danger of been forced to take a type approval inspection, and also evidence the donor vehicle for axle/suspension was scrapped (or not put on the road). I have highlighted the danger points in yellow on the points list, however the text highlighted in Red us the main issue when changing the shell is such a manner. 
Adding strength to a shell so long as original panels are not cut out is however acceptable. As is cutting panels out for replacement with OEM type repair sections. 
This is why I intend to remove the modified rear axle 4link pickup points on my 400r and take it back to original pickup points and swap the 4ha to a commodore axle, since I can't evidence how long ago it was done even n a 79 shell. Ending up with a Qplate I could never get off would just annoy the hell out if me.

DVLA are getting stricter with this too, it's like the old VW chasis was regarded a way to keep a kit car from a Qplate, these now need to keep the original VW floors now too.  And it will only get even more strict as they reduce numbers of cars on the roads.

So are Q plates so bad? Maybe not in the future as there will be more that appear.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by Jessopia74

[TheRealExile]

17 hours ago, stumpy said:

i just offered  3k for a rolling shell [nutty Niks] not having any of it tho reckons it cost hom 50k in theshell alone i dont see where tho to be honest and what you spend and what you can sell it for is two completely different thing

When I was in a similar state ages ago I bid on it whilst it still had the engine with it ...thought 7k was very fair. Glad it didn't meet the reserve now! If I were Nik  I'd just keep it after investing so much, trouble is it really is Marmite when it comes to selling it.

[Jonathan Pounsett]

3 hours ago, Jessopia74 said:

It's a risk, not guaranteed it would ever happen. 
Because it was built after the major rule change, so will (technically) never be exempt from requiring the extended inspection/check. To avoid it you could claim it was done before, but They would ask for evidence of the build 😞

every time it is MOTD or chance it is given a look over by traffic police or VOSS at roadside it is in danger of been forced to take a type approval inspection, and also evidence the donor vehicle for axle/suspension was scrapped (or not put on the road). I have highlighted the danger points in yellow on the points list, however the text highlighted in Red us the main issue when changing the shell is such a manner. 
Adding strength to a shell so long as original panels are not cut out is however acceptable. As is cutting panels out for replacement with OEM type repair sections. 
This is why I intend to remove the modified rear axle 4link pickup points on my 400r and take it back to original pickup points and swap the 4ha to a commodore axle, since I can't evidence how long ago it was done even n a 79 shell. Ending up with a Qplate I could never get off would just annoy the hell out if me.

DVLA are getting stricter with this too, it's like the old VW chasis was regarded a way to keep a kit car from a Qplate, these now need to keep the original VW floors now too.  And it will only get even more strict as they reduce numbers of cars on the roads.

So are Q plates so bad? Maybe not in the future as there will be more that appear.

 

 

Unless you get caught doing 150 mph or kill some one do one would ever know. I think you would have to cross a very switched on Bobby or mot tester for them to know what you had changed.

 

[Jessopia74]

14 minutes ago, Jonathan Pounsett said:

Unless you get caught doing 150 mph or kill some one do one would ever know. I think you would have to cross a very switched on Bobby or mot tester for them to know what you had changed.

 

Not so much these days, as I said there is a push and it will increase in the next few years as they start to reduce the number of cars on the roads. Expect 1999 ish as a cut off date for classics in the future imo and then a 15% modification rule will come into affect. I expect we will go like the continent countries that do not allow much modification to the classics, with exception of historic providence .

Also popping a bonnet of a car that has a completely different manufacturer engine under the bonnet will more than likely be enough to trigger a more thorough  inspection. In some ways a Q plated car is less likely to be targeted as it is known to have already gone through a check. Time will tell.

But it is a risk and people need to be aware of the risk.

[stumpy]

personaly speaking a Q plate car wouldnt bother me to be honest as long as it wasnt a rare example or of significance  ive had bikes in the past on a q plate atually made it easier to modify them and not have to report things or worry come MOT time i get what your saying tho  i think the general rule is you can add too but not take away  so if the rear chassis were left in place and added to i think thats ok samewith the 2 link boxes i think thats possibly ok as its adding to your only taking out a50mm widestrip of steel bit adding a channel  i think the problem is its largely down to interpretaion  so there is a risk ime on quite a lot od forums and the thinking is generally build it to pass the test rather than second guess as to wether or not it would ever get a tug by the law  have a look at project binky on youtube couldnt get anymore exreme

[Jessopia74]

59 minutes ago, stumpy said:

personaly speaking a Q plate car wouldnt bother me to be honest as long as it wasnt a rare example or of significance  ive had bikes in the past on a q plate atually made it easier to modify them and not have to report things or worry come MOT time i get what your saying tho  i think the general rule is you can add too but not take away  so if the rear chassis were left in place and added to i think thats ok samewith the 2 link boxes i think thats possibly ok as its adding to your only taking out a50mm widestrip of steel bit adding a channel  i think the problem is its largely down to interpretaion  so there is a risk ime on quite a lot od forums and the thinking is generally build it to pass the test rather than second guess as to wether or not it would ever get a tug by the law  have a look at project binky on youtube couldnt get anymore exreme

you can't cut the link boxes in to the floor or change suspension pickup points as that affect the 5 points for chassis (That you should definitely try to keep)

For the top links, The only way is to modify the cross member that carrier the torque tube for the pickup points, or add the 400 additional rails that are additional strengthening. 
if you cut the shell to replace a panel that was not as per original type approval, it is a modified monocoque shell. In the Q/A it states that replacing or strengthening the shell us permitted though.

Just now, Jessopia74 said:

you can't cut the link boxes in to the floor or change suspension pickup points as that affect the 5 points for chassis (That you should definitely try to keep)

For the top links, The only way is to modify the cross member that carrier the torque tube for the pickup points, or add the 400 additional rails that are additional strengthening. 
if you cut the shell to replace a panel that was not as per original type approval, it is a modified monocoque shell. In the Q/A it states that replacing or strengthening the shell us permitted though.

space framing and part of shell means a required type approval inspection aka Qplate 

[rutts]

Unless you go for a rally/race log book. And MOT on the same said rally/race MOT test. I have and no problems. 

[stumpy]

12 minutes ago, rutts said:

Unless you go for a rally/race log book. And MOT on the same said rally/race MOT test. I have and no problems. 

what changes have you made to tour car mate 

[rutts]

Demo rally spec. Engine gearbox axle modified. Suspension modified from standard. Stripped interior roll cage harnesses race seats. 

[Jessopia74]

57 minutes ago, rutts said:

Demo rally spec. Engine gearbox axle modified. Suspension modified from standard. Stripped interior roll cage harnesses race seats. 

Interior and roll cage are not items that would detract your points, even suspension to a certain extent, if you have same spring points, shocker pickups and arms etc still complies - from what I have read it is modified as to a different type completely like coil overs etc. Strengthening of arms would also be allowed as that is per the manufacturers 400 preparation manual.
Engine and gearbox*if not standard is only 3points loss. Not sure how the point would go if you could argue the blocks are same as what was fitted to manta.
Main thing is keep the shell from losing its points .

 

*putting Getrag 265 in place of 240 would be hard for DVLA to argue is against type approval as was std equipment on same model and doubt a GM branded R28 etc would even be noticed really.

[®evo03]

Didnt some ex works manta 400s run volvo 740 axles, with 400 arms, too many GM axle breakages, 

Jess, do all gearboxes mentioned above, use a torque tube out back?

Ive a hangup on rules, where do they begin and end? If a car can be saved, made use of, and not wasted to scrap, i like this rule! 

[Jessopia74]

5 hours ago, ®evo03 said:

Didnt some ex works manta 400s run volvo 740 axles, with 400 arms, too many GM axle breakages, 

Jess, do all gearboxes mentioned above, use a torque tube out back?

Ive a hangup on rules, where do they begin and end? If a car can be saved, made use of, and not wasted to scrap, i like this rule! 

Not sure on axles, or the rules on homologation for rally with regards to axles, but I would presume it would be modded to use the same 400 pickup points/arms anyway?

With gearbox choices, you can use the torque tube axle sure, the manta axles weak spot is the torque tube shaft, so if you use an upgraded shaft that is available, they claim to be good for 300bhp no problem. I think the reasonable assumption here is engine/gearbox combinations that was never fitted to a Manta. Like BMW gearbox and SAAB engine.( Picked this combination as the BMW gearbox could still be a Getrag 260 and SAAB lump is a GM part ) but that's at worse 3points lost, so no big deal. The only thing to watch here is 'modification to exciting mountings' , so cutting and moving an engine mounting position could technically fall foul. Would they ever concern themselves with such nuances? 
 

Sadly the pressure on classic cars will inevitably increase to comply with ever more stricter rules. At some point I expect a cut of date rather than a rolling >'X years old' to be eligible. Best guess would be somewhere in the 90's, possibly Ban date for fossil fuel cars minus 40years, so as early as 1995. Obviously this is just my gut feeling based on the draconian measures that our pals on the continent have to endure with their old timers.

The rules state you can add to, but not cut away or modify original shell. So adding the 400 strengthening parts for rear axle as per workshop manual must be acceptable. When I look at this there are still grey areas that have not really been tested properly, but as classics increase in value at some point I suspect it will happen.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Jessopia74

[rutts]

22 hours ago, Jessopia74 said:

Interior and roll cage are not items that would detract your points, even suspension to a certain extent, if you have same spring points, shocker pickups and arms etc still complies - from what I have read it is modified as to a different type completely like coil overs etc. Strengthening of arms would also be allowed as that is per the manufacturers 400 preparation manual.
Engine and gearbox*if not standard is only 3points loss. Not sure how the point would go if you could argue the blocks are same as what was fitted to manta.
Main thing is keep the shell from losing its points .

 

*putting Getrag 265 in place of 240 would be hard for DVLA to argue is against type approval as was std equipment on same model and doubt a GM branded R28 etc would even be noticed really.

Mine is an ascona a series. 265 or 240 never fitted. Might get away with 4ha axle as group 4 used them. Front arms modified and use compression strutts. Basic shell not too modified. The list goes on. 

[Jessopia74]

11 minutes ago, rutts said:

Mine is an ascona a series. 265 or 240 never fitted. Might get away with 4ha axle as group 4 used them. Front arms modified and use compression strutts. Basic shell not too modified. The list goes on. 

AXLES is not a big issue anyway as only a couple of points.

GEARBOX 1 point, But did the group 4 use a 262 gearbox? As those could come 4 and 5 speed so maybe historic evidence there.

as I said stay away from chopping into the shell is the key here, adding to it seems perfectly acceptable so long as the oem panel is still in place.

 

[®evo03]

Rutts, are your rallycars msa log booked, is that a way around possibly? Not really concerned as quite honestly i didnt think i could tell the difference between a standard axle setup and a multi link.

I always think a well maintained and correct setup of original parts are fine, and no difference can be felt over standard items. Example! Rear drums over rear disks, ok handbrake it a bit sharper but not really into handbrake turns! Sometimes!  Vented front disks over standard items if well maintained.

18 hours ago, Jessopia74 said:

 The rules state you can add to, but not cut away or modify original shell. So adding the 400 strengthening parts for rear axle as per workshop manual must be acceptable. When I look at this there are still grey areas that have not really been tested properly

Surely to fit top arms, you are cutting away, and loosing rear seat with arm boxes? With all other axles if not using opel mounting points. 

Opens up a whole can of worms as the rb25 manta above uses a r33 skyline rear floor pan, with mounting points and subframe. 

[stumpy]

ime wondering if either these are two different builds pics on the same build  [they have done loads of manta builds]   i remember back in 2010 they were builing a skyline  based car but had put box section in the inner sill and the chassis rails  as i copied them and was in contact with them for dimensions


or there was a change of plan halfway through as pics show the car with original floors and time taken fabbing new inner sill/floor over jacking point   then in other pics  flat floors ....looks super clean with flat floors imho

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by stumpy

[Jessopia74]

3 hours ago, ®evo03 said:

Rutts, are your rallycars msa log booked, is that a way around possibly? Not really concerned as quite honestly i didnt think i could tell the difference between a standard axle setup and a multi link.

I always think a well maintained and correct setup of original parts are fine, and no difference can be felt over standard items. Example! Rear drums over rear disks, ok handbrake it a bit sharper but not really into handbrake turns! Sometimes!  Vented front disks over standard items if well maintained.

Surely to fit top arms, you are cutting away, and loosing rear seat with arm boxes? With all other axles if not using opel mounting points. 

Opens up a whole can of worms as the rb25 manta above uses a r33 skyline rear floor pan, with mounting points and subframe. 

If you fit top arms by the method you describe (as my rear axle us currently fitted in the 400r shown in attached pic), you are right it means a shell modification. However, if you are adding to a shell but not cutting into the exciting oem panels then that is acceptable. The original 400 design uses an additional rail (highlighted on drawing pic ) under the rear floor for the top mounts on the axle, so putting my 400r back to this design ( I will have the rails and pickup points manufactured) then I am compliant.

Likewise, if you utilise the exciting torque tube pickup points to make a bracket to attach top links too, as this is rear axle and original suspension points, then again it is acceptable . Someone recently posted a picture of how they had done exactly as I describe here, will see if I can find it.