M3 crushed for being cut and shut

[gpaevo]

Outa curiousity @gpaevo what makes this one legit? I know nothing about it

Wasnt made from stolen parts. The full build photographed and documented at every stage including the stripping of the donor F80 M3 he bought is on one of the BM forums.

From a structural point of view, it's just rear arch skins welded together. The chassis it's self is exactly that of an F series BM.

 

[cauld1]

It wasn't made from stolen cars and parts? So they say at least

Other than that it's no more or less "legit" than any other modified or custom built car put together in somebody's shed. There is really no way of knowing how well or not it's actually been put together other than commissioning an engineer report or other inspection.

Facetube hype or magazine features mean nothing at all. Built in a shed, you have no idea. Might be superb, might be a pile of dung. No way of knowing without an inspection.

Built by an actual company that's not based in a car park, and with actual history and references? Then more ground to stand on.

No idea where the one above falls.

I know for the most part doing work on your own car seems to be frowned upon on RMS going by some of the guff posted at times, but what is the problem with something being built in a shed?

Green example notwithstanding, what structurally changes in the shells? A bit of rear arch work isn't overly structural.

Having seen the blue one in the flesh and chatted to the owner it's a really well thought through and put together car from what I could see.

 

[KevM]

The green one had a sunroof roof-skin fitted, but it seemed to be tacked on 4 inches down each pillar by the look of it. Not that safe

 

[natogreen16v]

@svensktoppen @gpaevo ah fair enough. I was ignoring the stolen parts as that bit was obvious.

If the monocoque is altered it still needs an IVA so if it's not had that then it's no more legit than the other one in the black and white eyes of the law.

Not something I'd care about because it's the same weather you cut the back quarters out and weld in M3 ones, chassis notch the car or just cut the rear arch lips off. Altered is altered.

It's always good to have all documented though for a resale peace of mind or having to prove something.

 

[svensktoppen]

I know for the most part doing work on your own car seems to be frowned upon on RMS going by some of the guff posted at times, but what is the problem with something being built in a shed?

Green example notwithstanding, what structurally changes in the shells? A bit of rear arch work isn't overly structural.

Having seen the blue one in the flesh and chatted to the owner it's a really well thought through and put together car from what I could see.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with building stuff in the shed where you know exactly what's happened. We all do that. It's why we are here.

Just for anyone else buying a car like that, or winning one on a lottery, or whatever, there's no way of knowing. Even if you know the original builder, or have photos from Instagram or whatever from the original build, you still have no way of knowing what is actually there still.

And no recourse if something turns up.

That's all.

 

[cauld1]

@svensktoppen @gpaevo ah fair enough. I was ignoring the stolen parts as that bit was obvious.

If the monocoque is altered it still needs an IVA so if it's not had that then it's no more legit than the other one in the black and white eyes of the law.

Not something I'd care about because it's the same weather you cut the back quarters out and weld in M3 ones, chassis notch the car or just cut the rear arch lips off. Altered is altered.

It's always good to have all documented though for a resale peace of mind or having to prove something.

Think I'd rather cut and weld arches in than a chassis notch tbh, at least nothing overly integral being altered.

Does this mean if you cut or roll the arch lips you need an IVA?

 

[natogreen16v]

Think I'd rather cut and weld arches in than a chassis notch tbh, at least nothing overly integral being altered.

Does this mean if you cut or roll the arch lips you need an IVA?

Oh I'm definitely not debating what's what. I'm simply stating requirements.

Im duno about rolling them but cut the lips off an arch which is part of the monocoque would technically require it. Now how likely that is to be enforced is the other thing.

This is what you're working to:

 

[gpaevo]

Here is a video with the guy that built it.