Caterham Fake at ebay

[Comadis]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&am...

[pikeyboy]

The chap seems adamant that its not a fake too, having put pics of the v5 and mot in the auction.

[Comadis]

the MOT showing caterham isnt a prove as i found loits of MOT certificates with a wrong or partially wrng written "Make"...unfortunately the V5 is pictured out of focus...so i cant read if it says caterhm or not.

the car looks like a locust, based on triumph running gear.

[2slo]

All that proves is whoever registered that 7 copy wrote Caterham in the 'make' box and the DVLA accepted it.
Legal documents or evidence of misrepresentation?

[snapper seven]

That is definitely NOT a Caterham. The chassis number isn't anything like a genuine Caterham one and that is before you look at the details like the wing stays, bonnet, dash, engine (what engine is that, it's not a Crossflow as the exhaust is on the right hand side so guessing Pinto - which was staple diet of Seven replicas).

I've got nothing against replicas but when they are being passed off as something else and potentially misleading then that is unacceptable.

Cheers
SS

[Tom_C76]

Whatever the make says on the MOT, that's not a Caterham chassis number.

[Risky]

NOT a Caterham, just something that has been registered incorrectly as a Caterham. Log book and MOT's are no proof of make.
Not a pinto engine. I would have said pre-crossflow Ford, but it doesn't look like it. With SU carbs, could it be something like a Triumph? Gearbox also doesn't look like a Ford.

[NGee]

I have just asked him to post a photo of the chassis plate, be interesting to see what we get - I suspect nothing!
NGee

[andrewdebbie]

The WMI (first 3 digits of the VIN) is wrong. A real Caterham would start with SDK.

SAB is renumberings. The VIN was probably issued by the DVLA for a car that was radically altered. Homebuilt not even a kit.

[NGee]

NGee said:

I have just asked him to post a photo of the chassis plate, be interesting to see what we get - I suspect nothing!
NGee

Interesting reply from seller:

"Hi There, I think i have the message, about its identity, but thanks anyway"

NGee

[2slo]

[Comadis]

it seems that nobody here has comprehensive car-knowledge besides caterhams?

the engine can be easily identified as a triumph (herald or spit), also the front suspension, brake and clutch master cylinder arrangement and so on.

the VIN is NOT a proper caterham chassis number but theoretically a caterham could also get a SABTVR.... number:

those numbers where given from the dvla in case the donor car was scrapped or when a car was a write off and has been re-chassied.

[2slo]

Comadis said:

it seems that nobody here has certain experience in other cars than caterhams?

I think the point isn't what the vehicle actually is, it's the fact that it isn't a Caterham and the seller appears to be misrepresenting it as such.

[one eyed mick]

That car requires one thing CRUSHING pref with the plonker who is trying to rip people off inside it!!!!

[2slo]

The description on ebay has now been altered: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIte... The price is still the same though.

[Comadis]

thats unbelievable...this guy is really unteachbale..scrap the car, incl. him!!!!!

Edited by Comadis on Monday 19th September 19:52

[Bricol]

Easy what is is - a JC Locust, or if it really is a 1990 car, a T&J Locust by then. Looks quite a neat one too.

Plywood body, skinned in ali, GRP wings and nose, new ladder chassis using Triumph front end bits, and probably a Marina back axle to keep same PCD front and rear, 1500 Triumph engine (larger SUs)

Not a Caterham though - although the pictured V5 does seem to state "Caterham".

Bri

[groomi]

I kind of feel sorry for the guy. He clearly believed he had bought a Caterham and has just realised that he's been driving something far less desirable and clearly not worth anything like the same.

He should have done his homework when he bought it though.

[Comadis]

my speach: Locust!!!

[2slo]

groomi said:

He should have done his homework when he bought it though.

I get the impression from his change of advert that although he may have thought he'd bought a Caterham when he acquired it, he knew fine well it wasn't a Caterham when he put the advert up and possibly thought along the lines 'if I was taken in then why not someone else'
Caveat emptor. I don't feel sorry for him at all.