Another Ebay 'darling'. Legit or blatant ringer?

Vehicle enquiry



Registration number: EHP 408Y



✔ Taxed

Tax due: 01 December 2015


✔ MOT

Expires: 12 October 2015


New keepers must get tax before using the vehicle. Please be aware that if you have taxed, made a SORN or had an MOT in the last 5 days these details may not have updated.

Vehicle details
6 month rate :£126.50
12 month rate :£230.00
6 monthly by direct debit totalling:£120.75
12 monthly by direct debit totalling:£230.00
Monthly by direct debit totalling:£241.50 (Monthly payment of approximately £20.13)
Vehicle make :LAND ROVER
Date of first registration :03 May 1983
Year of manufacture :1983
Cylinder capacity (cc) :2286cc
CO₂Emissions : Not available
Fuel type : DIESEL
Export marker : No
Vehicle status : Tax not due
Vehicle colour :WHITE
Vehicle type approval : Not available

jonny2tanx said:

Vehicle enquiry



Registration number: EHP 408Y



✔ Taxed

Tax due: 01 December 2015


✔ MOT

Expires: 12 October 2015


New keepers must get tax before using the vehicle. Please be aware that if you have taxed, made a SORN or had an MOT in the last 5 days these details may not have updated.

Vehicle details
6 month rate :£126.50
12 month rate :£230.00
6 monthly by direct debit totalling:£120.75
12 monthly by direct debit totalling:£230.00
Monthly by direct debit totalling:£241.50 (Monthly payment of approximately £20.13)
Vehicle make :LAND ROVER
Date of first registration :03 May 1983
Year of manufacture :1983
Cylinder capacity (cc) :2286cc
CO₂Emissions : Not available
Fuel type : DIESEL
Export marker : No
Vehicle status : Tax not due
Vehicle colour :WHITE
Vehicle type approval : Not available

Click to expand...

the orig vehicle with that reg was white, but this isn't that

trax said:

the orig vehicle with that reg was white, but this isn't that

Click to expand...

No, and TD5 engines ain't 2286cc either, so there's some amendments needed to the V5 at the very least.

We'll never know the complete truth behind this particular vehicle but it's always good to raise awareness of the illegality of these possible goings on!

blue beasty said:

I don't know but it'd be easy enough to tell whether it's really a Series chassis. If it's not you have to start asking serious questions about why would they pretend it is?

Click to expand...

This is not a Series chassis You can tell by the rear cross member, there's no big round hole in it to allow use of a rear power take-off. Most often you see the towing electrics socket mounted in the hole. Also you can see that the vehicle has coil sprung axles (wider than Series axles that have leaf springs ). To build a hybrid and keep the original reg number you need to use the original chassis, unless you replace it with an exact matching spec of chassis that has no modifications on it. Also you need to use another two original original components such as the engine or gearbox or axles or suspension. Without following these rules the vehicle should be on a Q plate.

LifetimeLandy said:

This is not a Series chassis You can tell by the rear cross member, there's no big round hole in it to allow use of a rear power take-off. Most often you see the towing electrics socket mounted in the hole. Also you can see that the vehicle has coil sprung axles (wider than Series axles that have leaf springs ). To build a hybrid and keep the original reg number you need to use the original chassis, unless you replace it with an exact matching spec of chassis that has no modifications on it. Also you need to use another two original original components such as the engine or gearbox or axles or suspension. Without following these rules the vehicle should be on a Q plate.

Click to expand...

I'd agree, having looked into this re my 2a, which has a new but like for like chassis, 2.5 engine and S3 gearbox. Mine just scrapes by on the original reg. If I thought otherwise I'd get it re-registered.

Looks very stolen to me. Y reg is too early for it to be a 90, not a series chassis either. At best it should be on a Q plate, at worst it's someone else's land rover that's gone walkies.

Just looked on Wikipedia, Land Rover 90 came out in 1983 and finished 2015. So Y reg-A reg was the start reg.

Finished at £4100.

Nice. Unless you happened to own it before in a former guise.

Interesting discussion and proof that some on here either know very little about Landrovers or are quite happy to ignore the obvious or possibly both?

while i dont approve of the vehicle in the ebay ad.

can you tell me

"To build a hybrid and keep the original reg number you need to use the original chassis, unless you replace it with an exact matching spec of chassis that has no modifications on it. Also you need to use another two original original components such as the engine or gearbox or axles or suspension. Without following these rules the vehicle should be on a Q plate."

what year did this rule come into play ..... its not as early as most would have you think and it does not apply retrospectivly ....

given people have been doing it since 19 oatcake its possible to end up with a hybrid from the 70s/80s thats perfectly legit - I however would not be buying such a vehicle without comprehensive proof of where all the parts came from and a dated build history.

crowmann said:

Finished at £4100.



Nice. Unless you happened to own it before in a former guise.



Interesting discussion and proof that some on here either know very little about Landrovers or are quite happy to ignore the obvious or possibly both?

Click to expand...

You've made your point. We all love our Landies of course, none of us condone Landy theft or any theft ( I think that's a given ), some of us may not know as much about Landrovers as you! But, still no reason to ask others for an opinion/discussion and then get on your moral high-horse banding the unquestionable 'truth' that you knew from the start!

I don't see a problem with it. The 90 and 110 were first introduced in 1983 on a Y plate. So what if it's had later model replacement panels, who's hasn't? Now if a X plate landy 90 turned up on ebay then yes there is a problem, but this one is probably a genuine landy 90.

Ian46 said:

I don't see a problem with it. The 90 and 110 were first introduced in 1983 on a Y plate. So what if it's had later model replacement panels, who's hasn't? Now if a X plate landy 90 turned up on ebay then yes there is a problem, but this one is probably a genuine landy 90.

Click to expand...

Don't fuel the fire Ian! It's not supposed to be a 90, but a S3 88".

He wants to make his mind up what he's selling then. At the top he says 90 defender and further down he's got 88". Dumb sh1t int he?

In his 'defence' he does say "hybrid". The debate is whether it's a genuine re-build ( albeit with some ignorance to legalities ), or if it's a nicked Td5 that's been disguised as a 'hybrid'.

If you're going to do a ringer at least make it tax exempt.

The tax paid would be for the legit ( possibly ) S3 not for the stolen ( possibly ) Td5, so wouldn't have raised any alarm bells.

bluedog333 said:

You've made your point. We all love our Landies of course, none of us condone Landy theft or any theft ( I think that's a given ), some of us may not know as much about Landrovers as you! But, still no reason to ask others for an opinion/discussion and then get on your moral high-horse banding the unquestionable 'truth' that you knew from the start!

Click to expand...

Not sure who is on what 'high horse' here?

For myself I threw this in because it is relevant to lots of posts on here about concerns regarding theft (parts and complete cars) and what happens to them afterwards.

Ebay routinely has vehicles that to my cynical eye look dodgy - I popped this one up to see what folks reaction was to it. I have no doubt it is essentially a TD5 with mods ringed to a stupid V5 - why they did not at least stick it on a later 90/Defender V5 I can only guess at, coupled to (as has been pointed out) a daftly worded advert.

Perhaps most surprising was the finish price - £4100 is strong money for a car that did not add up to all but the most naïve buyer. The demand for these cars is so strong even posters on here (assumedly more knowledgeable than most?) appeared happy to overlook the obvious and that in itself is the reason why I and a few others are always pleased to see their car parked up where they left on each return.

bluedog333 said:

In his 'defence' he does say "hybrid". The debate is whether it's a genuine re-build ( albeit with some ignorance to legalities ), or if it's a nicked Td5 that's been disguised as a 'hybrid'.

Click to expand...

looks like a hybrid to me ,which uses mostly td5 parts, whether any are stolen or not ,who knows but that applies to any using second hand parts

To me it looks like a Td5 that has been modded - essentially a Td5 still with an illegal V5 which itself has not even been updated.

The rest is just hogwash to attempt to cover up what I have no doubt would see you at best being given a Q plate and some awkward questions and at worst the vehicle being taken from you.