Daihatsu Copen 356....
 

This caught my eye as I thought it might be a new option -

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PORSCHE-3...S/174092209081


Then I read the description which is quite interesting - "BEFORE I GET ASKED ABOUT IVA INSPECTION,I HAVE REMOVED METAL FROM THE BODY (NOT JUST TRIMMING WHEEL ARCHS) SO IF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY ANAL THEN YES IT DOES.WHAT I CAN SAY IS IT’S NOT BEEN CUT IN HALF AND WELDED BACK TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE THE CORRECT WHEELBASE LIKE YOU WOULD USING A BEETLE DONOR WHICH DEFINITELY NEEDS AN IVA BUT IS RARELY DONE."

Hmmm, it is not easy to tell from the only photo, but it looks like the removal of metal might have included the surround for that big bit of glass that you look through...


I have just had a better look at a Copen and the dimensions aren't bad, and the door shapes are OK. If you remove bumpers, bonnet and boot, the silhouette is quite sleek. The main problem is...it's a Copen.

It's idiots like this that give our hobby a bad name.:tsk::tsk:

The wheelbase is 5" too long so it might look a little odd and it'll probably need IVA, but otherwise, I can't see an issue with it.

It's just the same donor + kit formula that's been used for 60 odd years in our hobby but using a cheap and ugly modern donor that will benefit from the makeover. Very similar in concept to the current crop of Z3 based body kits.

It'll take quite a lot of money and work to finish to a good standard, but I feel it'd be worth the effort for someone.

I thought it looked pretty good but only 1 photo.
As the windscreen and surround has been removed from the donor I don't think it stands a chance of being registered without an IVA.

The windscreen surround forms part of the monocoque so it has been cut into. It will need IVA to be legal. There might have been other donor options which may have avoided IVA but not this one.

I agree. I think it is doable if you blend the 356 roofline to the existing windscreen and get the wheelarches in the right place. Interestingly, the latter don't look too bad in the pic.

It was the seller's description that was the problem for me. I can't imagine an MOT tester not noticing that the original windscreen has gone.

I also think he has taken the doors off the Copen otherwise the positioning would be all wrong. The distance between B pillar and the rear wheel is much longer than on the 356.

I noticed the windscreen removal,but also the top of the scuttle/bulkhead.
When Banham reemoved the screen in the past he provided replacement sections to reinforce the removed structure..
Is this still legal(ie the Banham method)?
Given that the structure can't be seen from the picture, there is no way it can be assessed .
From what I see I think that a full roll cage for the passenger compartment(obviously) would be the only way forward
It would become quite an expensive car,I'd expect

Only 1 photo? Seems odd .. sets alarm bells ringing

Probably found out he can’t do anything with it without Iva

There’s a fiat barchetta with a 356 front and rear on up for sale at the moment for for £3k

Looks a bargain

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...Cs4WYf64qPpIXg

That seems a sensible buy

I think the point people may be overlooking is that it will probably fail the IVA test due to cutting the monoquoc structure. It's now only worth the value of GRP body. And unlike the BMW z3 conversions its not a simple rebody.

I suspect this method would put the builder entirely at the mercy of the IVA tester - whether in his/her opinion the reinforcement 'replaced' the removed parts. There would be little the builder could do if the car failed in this way.

It's 9 Grand , and "agressively marketed" as they say

Hi, I have never seen a 356 Coupe on a Daihatsu Copen but I have seen a 356 Speedster on the same car. A company in Japan called Ducks Garden sells kits.

https://www.ducks-garden.co.jp/image...04775442_n.jpg

From a lot of angles it looks like a Nissan Figaro rather than a Speedster.

The Metro based Banhams along with the Skoda based Banham Speedster wouldn't stand a chance at IVA. Even under the old system they were questionable.

Does anyone have a link to this?

Sorry, couldn't find a link to that Barchetta/356 for sale anywhere.

I've never needed an IVA so hadn't really looked at the implications, but I just spent ten minutes looking for the bit about not cutting the 'screen frame out of a monocoque and it isn't in the IVA manual.

It is in the 'Radically altered vehicle' guidance, though, in as much as it says you'll need an IVA unless the original (or new oe replacement) chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame is used unmodified.

What the IVA bit does say, though, is the following:

The condition/absence of an item in isolation is not a reason for an item failing to meet the requirements. However if the condition of an item
is such that a meaningful assessment cannot be made, then the IVA 30 should indicate that the applicable section/area was unable to be
assessed and state the reason for this action. Examiners are not required to carry out a roadworthiness inspection but where obvious safety
defects are noted the vehicle may be subject to prohibition action, The IVA certificate (IAC) will not be issued.

Where an item appears to be missing an assessment should be made of the effect the missing item will have on the suitability for use of the
vehicle and the safety of the occupants, pedestrians and other road users. Where a missing item is considered to have a detrimental effect
the IVA 30 (Refusal to Issue IAC) will indicate that either the item was unable to be assessed or that a required standard from the section
‘General Construction’ has not been met.

To me, that reads that the inspector has to make a safety assessment of anything that's missing or modified, so I would expect that chopping off the windscreen frame is fine so long as you replace it with a decent substructure to maintain the vehicle's integrity and safety.

Edit - just read a bit further and found the 'general construction' guidance on page 269. Well worth a look imho. https://assets.publishing.service.go...r-vehicles.pdf

Please feel free to disagree with that view if you know better...

Indeed - As I said above, it will be the opinion of the SVA inspector. Could go either way. just because we might think the structure is substantial doesn't mean the inspector will. I know someone whose car was failed at SVA because the seat belt mounts were not 4mm thick (yes that's right, 4mm) when most production cars are about 2mm thick. He got them replaced, even though many of the same car have passed over the years.

https://www.facebook.com/Custom-Car-...8600750272984/