Car number plates question...?

[joshwa]

I thought it was illegal to put a newer number plate on an older car, for example, you're not allowed to put a 05 (2005) number plate on a 01 (2001) car...

BUT why are people allowed to sell Rover 75s on '07 plates, if they've been sitting in a car park for 2 years after the demise of Rover?

Presumably it's because they've never been registered...?

Which makes it legal? But in my opinion it shouldn't be.

Anyway... it also begs the question, why are people happy to buy a car that's been sitting un-used for 2 years in a car park?!?

Josh

(mini rant over and out, peace out )

[jon bda]

Presumably it's because they've never been registered...?


Which makes it legal?


Anyway... it also begs the question, why are people happy to buy a car that's been sitting un-used for 2 years in a car park?!?

Josh

Yes and, because they think they've bought a bargain...until the chocolate headgasket melts...

[Funkstar]

got it in one.

As far as the DVLA are concerned, the car doesn't exist until it is first registered, regardless of the date of manufacture.

As for why someone would want a car thats sat in a car park for two years: they are probably getting a pretty good deal to be honest. Although why anyone would want a Rover 75 in the first place i have no idea

[GrahamGarside]

Old men still stuck in the mindset they are buying British

[Tumble]

That's why one of my colleagues at work had bother with getting classic tax staus for his 1973 SII Lightweight - it had been a military vehicle at the start of it's life, and was only registered with the DVLA in '83... Argued the toss and won mind, but it can happen.

[Noxvayl]

Don't know why you guys hate Rovers so much they got a good review from Top Gear which is the hardest place to send a car hoping they will approve, just because they employed dumbass accountants doesn't mean they build bad cars.

[arbitor]

Don't know why you guys hate Rovers so much they got a good review from Top Gear which is the hardest place to send a car hoping they will approve, just because they employed dumbass accountants doesn't mean they build bad cars.

The rover 75 is dire.

They have made good cars in thier time, some of the honda engined ones, the rover 5 wasnt bad

[noTHINGface]

The rover 75 is dire.

I'd be interested to know why you consider the 75 to be dire?

The 75 was probably the best received Rover by the press, Parkers regard them well, considering its an MG Rover. Roewe are still producing the 75 and the ZT was undoubtedly the best MG-ised of all the saloons.

If any of the rovers are dire then the 25 is the one alongside the 45 (unless its the ZS 180 which was actually not bad). The 75 being the king of the Rover hill.

[Nick]

scarier still:

We use a system called AFRL now, which is a computer link from each dealer with DVLA, to create a V5 for new owners.

However, small documents called V55's used to be used, and still are occassionally, and they were the document that arrived for a new car to a dealer.

There are still some cars, sold WITH V55's, having never been registered.

There are, for example, supposedly still Metro 6R4's in the world with V55's, meaning you could buy one and put it on an 07 plate

Edit: This is Zak on Nicks PC.

[arbitor]

lol awesome

nothngface, my grandad (as with most) had one and i hated it how it drive, how it looked,what it tryred to be but wasnt

[GrahamGarside]

Don't know why you guys hate Rovers so much they got a good review from Top Gear which is the hardest place to send a car hoping they will approve, just because they employed dumbass accountants doesn't mean they build bad cars.

Top gear test drive a car briefly and tell you what it's like to drive. Actually owning one is entirely differant. No Rover/MG is very reliable, and the engines are especially weak points.
The 75 isn't the worse car of it's class, there are plenty of Korean and French cars taking care of that, but it's just not a good car.

[Flektor]

Top gear test drive a car briefly and tell you what it's like to drive. Actually owning one is entirely differant. No Rover/MG is very reliable, and the engines are especially weak points.
The 75 isn't the worse car of it's class, there are plenty of Korean and French cars taking care of that, but it's just not a good car.

The engines are only weak if the people who drive them don't maintain them properly.
True, the K series failed when the coolant levels were allowed to drop to a point where the engine would overheat. This was due to the thermostat housing being placed in such a position in the cooling system which allowed the car to warm up very quickly (a boon in the winter for short shopping trips etc).
The engines were used in the Lotus Elise with no major problems.

For the record, I have a Dec 1996 Rover 820 with the T16 engine and it's just ticked over the 296,000 mile mark on the original engine AND headgasket. Up to the end of September I was doing 2000 miles per month and she never let me down once.

[schmunk]

Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhh.

Why do they do it? Why? Why with the necroposts?

[Fox]

The Rover 75 is NOT dire, it's actually one of the best cars Rover ever made. This can be argued to be a bit like being top of the class at special school but really, the 75 is a good car.

[Fox]

Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhh.

Why do they do it? Why? Why with the necroposts?

It's the similar threads thing at the bottom of the page that does it.