Title says it all really. I have been liaising with the seller of a nice looking S4 FHC. I am at the stage of planning to go and look at it and was doing a bit of due diligence and so asked to see the identification plate and V5C to check if numbers matched. The plate gives a body number beginning 45. That means DHC doesn’t i?. I can see how a fixed head becomes a drop head (often courtesy of Christopher Neal) but the other way around? Should I walk away? Or is there an innocent explanation?
Has it had a replacement FHC body fitted at some stage in its life?
The body, chassis (frame) and id plate are all easily interchangeable. The cars were designed for a ‘spirited drive’ and it was not at all unusual for the cars to get banged up - the Beatles even wrote a song about it (sort of). As a result a number of cars were rebuilt with good bits from other banged up cars and ended up a bitsa.
It’s not uncommon for a Sprint to be a S4 in drag, or a DHC to have been born a FHC, but this is the first DHC that thinks it’s a FHC I have seen (as you point out, it should be a type 36).
Maybe Tim has further info, but my guess is that this is as a result of damage repair and maybe the owner chose to keep the original VIN plate.
Thanks. The mystery deepens in that the body number 7471 looks likely (given what is on the registry) to be an S3. But the body is definitely S4.
My reading is that this possibly just a bunch of parts that maybe don’t match anything officially produced by Lotus. Does that matter? I just dont know. Its got a V5 and that has the VIN on the chassis plate. So I suppose it officially exists. But it is not what its Lotus chassis plate says it is.
I mentioned on your other thread that it had an S3 window frame. That could be why the description says “door locks a bit fiddly”. An S3 frame would have to be altered to accept an S4 lock.
Taking a closer look at the photos it appears that some FHC features are also missing. There are no sun visors (I don’t think they were optional), and in some of the photos no rear view mirror (it should have a mirror that attaches to the roof, not a stick-on on the windscreen, although saying that I can’t see how the mirror present in the main photo actually attaches). It should also have coat hooks and interior lamps on the B pillar trims. I think the whole interior roof/headlining/etc. would need close inspection to see how well it’s been done if parts were originally missing.
The boot handle is also wrong for either an S3 or an early S4. It should have the small T handle, not the larger L handle that’s fitted.
Personally it would not worry me that an Elan has been rebodied. My own S4 FHC wears the body shell from another and many parts were missing and had to be sourced second hand etc. It’s the way that this one has been rebodied though that’s the problem i.e. DHC to FHC, S3 to S4 (first registered Jan 68, which makes it an S3).
If you do view the car I think you are though in the position of negotiating a price that reflects those inconsistencies. As mentioned before, there’s a lot of money in that car, but it’s also a buyers market at this point in time.
Mike
1 Like
There is an element of ‘Trigger’s broom’ in many Elans. The main issue here is that the type number on the VIN plate / registration and body shape clearly don’t match. That is much more of a problem than a chassis change or body replacement. While it won’t impact your enjoyment, should you need to sell the car at some time then the mismatch is likely to cause problems. You could always cut the roof off of course.
Edit: For those not familiar with the reference, ‘Triggers broom’ comes from -
For those with a classical education, the ‘Ship of Theseus’ is probably a better reference.
3 Likes
‘George Washington’s axe’ for us colonists.
Martin, if you’d let me know what the VIN says I shall see what I have on my register for the Unit No.
Tim
1 Like
Thanks Tim. Its 45/7471.
Thanks.
I have that Unit No, 7471, being invoiced by the factory in January 1968, as reflected by the date of first registration.
Unit No 7895 was the first production Series 4 and that was in May 1968, although the Series 4 was announced in March of that year. There is an outside chance your car might have been a development unit for the S4 body, but my guess from looking at the advert photos is that the current FHC body is in really rather good condition, reflecting the likelihood that it is a replacement.
Is the way the VIN plate is stamped consistent with others of that era? I have images to compare it to or you can search on here. If it is, then your car may well have started out life as a Type 45 DHC Series 3 and subsequently been rebodied. Given that the advert describes a ground up restoration, I suspect this is the most likely explanation. Knowing the Engine No would help confirm this, I feel.
There is another possible explanation, particularly if the VIN plate is a fresh new one that has been punched/scribed in a way that bears little similarity to the factory standard. That is that the VIN has been made up or that the number was from an original part no longer available and the person doing so used the 45 prefix in ignorance of what would be correct for a Type 36 FHC. I am not implying any criminality, rather a matter of just getting it wrong.
Either way, it does look as if someone spent a great deal of time and money doing the restoration and, from the photos, to have made a pretty good job of it.
Tim
My car is a 1968 S4 FHC. My VIN plate is extremely scruffy and effectively illegible. Your VIN plate looks so good and smart that I suspect it is a replacement.
Richard Hawkins
2 Likes
My '67 S3 and '68 S4 both have the unit numbers scribed onto the plate rather than punched. Nothing wrong with a new plate as part of a restoration, but I would always retain the original. Ask if it has been kept if you still plan on viewing the car.
Mike
1 Like
Thanks for all your help and comments. I am genuinely undecided whether to view or just walk away on account of the uncertainties. I don’t think the ‘original’ plate is available. This was a project that was passed on from a deceased previous owner. So it will just have to be a bunch of unknowns. I suppose anything is a case of ‘if the price is right’ but I have no idea what value to put on this one.