C-V8 FF Recreation

[John Staddon]

There is no hole on the left side on the replica, not that anyone has ever suggested that there are any Interceptor body parts in the replica, also on a C-V8 the front bulkhead ends just above the hood or cowl over the hole for the steering column, but in the replica there is a lot more metal above that hood so the bulkhead is higher than it would be on a C-V8 so it is from an FF.

I have also found photos of C-V8 rear springs with the leaves separated for painting and there are 9, the replica has 10 leaf springs as an FF, brakes and handbrake are as an FF and the rear bulkhead is FF. Even those open birds mouths on the flange at the top of the transmission tunnel which bothered me before match the same area on photos of an FF I have now found on the forum.

I would now say, and some people have always said this, that no matter what Ron Clay says, this is an FF chassis from front to back probably as far as the rearmost rear spring mountings, though the chassis tubes are new and something odd has been done to the front floor pans. The only bit that could be C-V8 is the new boot floor.

John

[Per]

But the again the side slots in the bulkhead are not FF, nor the rearmost centertubes. Your assumption of a bitsa is pretty much it then?

[John Staddon]

The circular hole in the bulkhead is there in FF 189, see the photos in Montpelliers thread about the restoration here https://joc.org.uk/joc-forum/?w3=aW5kZXgucGhw I don't know if the longer slot is also there as it is hidden in the photo. Below is a photo of an FF upside down, if by rearmost centre tubes you mean the C-V8 style chassis tubes that run from the back of the rear floor pans and turn up the rear bulkhead then I would say the replica looks very similar to this, also note the hole in the rear cross tube at the back of the rear floor pans that the prop shaft passes through, on a C-V8 there are two smaller holes either side of it that brake lines and Selectaride power cables pass through, the replica doesn't have these holes either so it's not C-V8.

IMG_3465.JPG (142.29 KiB) Viewed 4070 times

John

[Joerg]

I read a bit through Ulric Woodhams 320 FF stories yesterday evening and some FF chassis ended up at Ron Clays in various state of deterioration ( and Ron was always silent about what happened to them ) that the reuse of an FF chassis is very likely.
Normally you find the number stamped to the tubes.
But anyhow - all that doesn’t matter if someone is willing to build a CV8FF replica. I hope someone will do it one day. Much better project than stuffing a modern drivetrain into an Interceptor.

[Frankoid]

I am fairly confident the chassis is FF 119/063...... Simpler all round if this is confirmed

[mikebyrne]

Last I heard of the real CV8 FF (and that was in the 80's) was that it was rusting away in a field in Kent. Was that its final resting place ?
Mike.

[Frankoid]

Last I heard of the real CV8 FF (and that was in the 80's) was that it was rusting away in a field in Kent. Was that its final resting place ?
Mike.

Really Mike..? Tell us all you know !!!

[mikebyrne]

That is about all I know. Location was said to be in the middle of Kent I believe.
I think it was Dave Horton who told me this.
Mike.

[Frankoid]

Well, stranger things have happened... I am reminded of the prototype Jensen F type found in Kent a few years back

[AlanBray]

Not being a regular on the forum this discussion had passed me by and was bought to my attention by a customer.

We were given the CV8 FF project to do by the late Norman Paskin after he acquired it from George Zdanko. We had it in the workshop for a while and were in the process of marshalling parts for it whilst we pressed on with Norman's MKIII restoration. It gave us the opportunity to crawl all over it and we arrived at the conclusion that it was a modified FF Chassis.

We had the benefit of comparing it with Norman's CV8 MkIII Chassis we were working on. The bulkhead side panels had rotted out and we had to fabricate new, and I recall thinking that some one else had done the same thing to replace those on the FF Chassis for the CV8 adaption. Whilst having a clear out in the shop the other day, I stumbled across some side frame templates we had made from the standard MkIII, so we had something to work with when it came to fabricating the frames for the CV8 FF. The side frame fabrication had been started on the CV8 FF project but not completed. I couldn't quite bring myself to throw the templates away!

Sadly because of Norman's sudden and untimely passing we didn't get to start the project, but had gathered some parts together a lot of which came from a donor CV8 MkIII from a farm near Ludlow. I remember how pleased Norman was that we had found an engine with a number in the range that might have been fitted to the original CV8-FF. Likewise his excitement when he called me to let me know he had won JFF 66 in the DVLA auction.

A great guy, much missed.

[Martin R]

Thank you Alan, it's truly wonderful to hear your inside story of the car and confirming what you believe to be the FF chassis and where the C-V8 came from.
Norman was indeed a lovely chap and such a sad, sudden end.
Hopefully, the FF C-V8 project can now come to life!

[colin7673]

Just a question, If this car got to the stage of having an MOT, would be classified a "Modified Car" like the Inteceptor S is.

[AlanBray]

I semi recall that Norman was hoping to get it registered under the identity of the original donor FF.

However, that was before the MOT changes of May 2018 which stated that Historic vehicles manufactured over 40 years ago are MOT exempt unless they have been "substantial changed". Within that criteria there is the category of "reconstructed classic", the deeply fascinating guidance for which can be read at
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration ... c-vehicles.

It looks like if a C-V8 Recreation was accepted as a "reconstructed classic" DVLA would assign an age related plate.

It would however be subject to an annual MOT test (as should all classics but don't get me started on that!).

[johnw]

Just a question, If this car got to the stage of having an MOT, would be classified a "Modified Car" like the Inteceptor S is.

Let me confuse things a little here before someone answers. (Edit: looks like Alan beat me to answering! Great answer as well)

There is a points system to determine part of this. The Interceptor S has new IRS, engine, gearbox, front suspension and steering I would assume too. That looses too many points to stay unmodified Basically just keeping the body unchanged which is the idea. A typical UK RHD Interceptor S project presumably starts with a donor car with V5c.

All those are considered major changes. A CV8 FF might keep all the running gear and motorised Chassis of an FF that has a V5c. Still a 2 door 4 seater layout. It has enough points to stay unmodified including original bulkhead. It is the opposite scenario. No idea what that means. To complicate things Ulric wrote a letter certifying the ID of this car. The creator of the project says otherwise. It would be nice to scratch build a new FF chassis from new tubes, from eg Dave Perkins, a donor Interceptor rear end or a new scratch built one, and a bulkhead new or modified Interceptor. There are enough FF front suspensions diffs left from scrapped cars. The existing chassis could go back to the FF it came from and become a Mk1 FF again. The new CV8 FF could be IVA'd. Things then become cleaner for the CV8 FF. It gets it's own ID. It is then effectively a one off kit car. That doesn't answer your question does it!

[AlanBray]

That's a good point John. The "substantial changes" criteria is focused around running gear and major components being changed, not the body.

I'd be up for building an FF chassis from scratch if anyone would like to fund it!