Ultimate 205 Gti Rallycar?

[matt.f 16]

eBay number-280893964327

Looks a nice bit of kit

[Chris H 10]

Looks a nice car but about 10K overpriced with the current market.....or i have undervalued my own car by 10K too!

 

While its a nice tidy car the spec really isn't anything special. 4.4 cwp, quaife diff, std box, compbrake calipers etc For that money i'd want to be seeing the likes of AP/Alcon, Proflex/Reiger 4.8/4.9 cwp etc

 

I could be totally wrong...but can't see that selling at all.

[stefan 4]

I see a lot of shell work been done, and that doesn’t come cheap. I suppose that significantly raised his expenses in building this car. But still, that’s a lot of money.

[Baz 421]

Chris is bang on IMO.

[Batfink 201]

I spent probably about £6k on a shell and suspension of similar spec but to be honest you dont get all your money back when it comes to getting rid.

[Baz 421]

I'd rather have bought Paul's Mi1600 for half the money.

[Batfink 201]

true! Probably was faster

[Cameron 16]

Maybe because it has Gp4 Escort parts he expects it to make Gp4 Escort prices?

 

If it's a class winner then maybe that's worth a premium, but it doesn't seem to have any details of race results or how competitive it's been.. if it's the ultimate 205 rally car, it must have won a few rallies, right?

 

Definitely seems expensive to me.. I reckon I'd struggle to sell my spaceframe build for that much when it's done, especially without showing how competitive it was!

Edited June 5, 2012 by Cameron

[Baz 421]

Agreed. But 205's just aren't competitive rally cars unless in lower capacity/classes.

 

'Ultimate' seems to be a very over-used word and very hard to justify for many different reasons and one person's 'ultimate' may not be another's.

[black lad 0]

No disrepect to the guy, but its nowhere near goin to sell with that price tag, shes a mint car though!!

[Cameron 16]

"Ultimate" isn't anywhere near as offensive as "optimised" IMO.

[Tesstuff 222]

Nor as offensive as utter sh1te sold as 'motorsport' items

[Cameron 16]

Like Compbrake you mean?

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

...and how are rear coilovers to regulation?!

 

Nice car, but I echo what's been said above. I know precisely how much my car has cost to build, and I'd be expecting kit more akin to mine than that, at that sort of money.

[welshpug 1,666]

Must have been logbooked and scrutineered as it is, so would be fine for rally regs I think?

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Well, if I was fussy and was pushing for a class win and this thing turned up, I'd be reporting it to the scrutineers!

 

edit: I'm going to quote from the blur book

 

Suspension

48.4. With the exception of cars accepted under 46.3,

and cars with modifications conforming to their

homologation papers (46.2):

48.4.1. The suspension must retain the operating

principle and utilise the mounting points as provided by

the vehicle manufacturer.

 

Since I'm guessing this car hasn't been scrutineered as a Cat 2 car (46.3) then I would argue that this is in clear breach of 48.4.1 as that is a clear change in the operating principle of the suspension of the car, even if it retains the mounting points of the beam. The mounting points of the damping mechanism are clearly non-original.

 

Now if it HAS had dispensation from the MSA and runs at a Category 2 car, then fair enough. But I seriously doubt it if it has, then that's an open book for people to modify the tits off their rally cars and sets a bit of a precedent, particularly at what is primarily a club-level car (we're not talking a Burton monster here, after all!)

Edited June 8, 2012 by brumster

[welshpug 1,666]

ahhh but...

 

 

48.1.4. With the exception of cars accepted under 46.3

(see 46.3.7), and cars with modifications conforming to

their homologation papers (46.2) floor pans, bulkheads

and transmission tunnels may not be modified other

than by localised alteration to accommodate the fitting

of an alternative engine and/or gearbox and/or

differential and/or axle, seats and exhaust.

 

massive grey area tbh!

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Not really. 48.1.4 is under the section related to body modifications, and all it's saying it you can modify the body only to accomodate alternative engines, gearboxes and axles. It doesn't mean it's a free-for-all on those items by association. That's like saying that paragraph means "oh, i can stick any engine I like in, I'll pop a Rover V8 in my Pug". That's daft - it's clearly against the rules dictated in the engine section. Just as modifying the suspension design from changing pick-up points or the operation of the damping/springing to a different method is well understood under the "suspension" section. You can't use statements in the bodywork section to justify changes against those under another section - that's clearly not the intention of the paragraph.

[maxirallye 2]

As I see it, if the car was log booked prior to the end of 2009 then it would be legal to use with rear turrets, regs quoted above apply to new builds after that date. Cheers, Tony

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

The regs have been the same for years with regards to suspension pickup location; it's not a pre-2009 thing.

 

edit: I take that back, 48.4 is excluded from the sections that pre-2009 cars need to adhere to. But the 265 ruling used to be interpreted different ways with regards to "manufacturers original specification"...

Edited June 17, 2012 by brumster