All show and no goPeter255 wrote:Wings front and rear, roll bar, screen, and side panels, but non-adjustable suspension and no charger.
Slightly un-usual options imo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All show and no goPeter255 wrote:Wings front and rear, roll bar, screen, and side panels, but non-adjustable suspension and no charger.
Slightly un-usual options imo.
Does anybody think this is worth buying and if so what do you think its worth.Fastlane wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 1:08 pmThe MOT history is interesting. It failed its first MOT (in October 2012) with 2063 miles with some very basic stuff:Timtum wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:29 am Hi all, does anybody know any of the history to this atom....?
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds ... hp/9686354
Reason(s) for failure
Offside Stop lamp not working (1.2.1b)
Offside Rear position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.3b)
Nearside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
Offside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
Parking brake not fitted on at least two wheels (3.1.1)
Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle excessive (7.3.D.3)
Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.C.1b)
Advisory notice item(s)
Nearside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
Offside Front Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
This includes not having a handbrake, which it still doesn't have. That would suggest either a "friendly" MOT station who ignored this or that the factory MOT it each year (most likely whilst it is being serviced) and fit a handbrake for the MOT. Mine had this arrangement for its first 9 years (at £80 a pop) but I asked the previous owner to have one fitted (permanently) by the factory - it cost £954 inc VAT fitted.
Interestingly it wasn't taken back to be retested in 2012 as the first MOT it passed was in July 2015 at 2679 miles. The MOT from then have all been passed with no problems.
This would strongly suggest that it was a track only car for the first 5.5 years. Given the mileage, probably not an experience day car, but most likely privately owned and not very well looked after, at least for the first 3 years.
This doesn't make it bad car or a bad buy by any means, but this will have a bearing on its value and future desirability.
Avoid! Obviously an ex-cup race car. Mileage is irrelevant. It will have been thrashed 24/7 and probably damaged. Cup springs are too hard for the road unless re-valved. I personally don't like the cup chassis. Extra bars look clunky to my eyes.woza wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:59 am Not supercharged but seems a good price?
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified ... obcid=soc4
W.
It's not a real 3.5, it's an ex-cup car that's beenc converted to look like a 3.5. The mudguards are still the original longer mudguards as used on the cup cars. The mileage probably isn't correct either as it was probably on 0 when teh new dash was installed and registered for road in 2016 presumably.woza wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:59 am Not supercharged but seems a good price?
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified ... obcid=soc4
W.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests