| Author | Message | ||
     Gary Falkiner (195.218.116.8) |
I am trying to locate where the chassis number is stamped on my UK market 1968 T1 (aside from the title plate), in order to re-register my car in Ireland, I appreciate that this isn't a question that has direct relevance to Australia, but if any one knows where the number would be stamped directly on the carbody I (and the Irish Revenue Commissioners) would be grateful. Or if somene could categorically state that a 1968 car would not have a number stamped on it then that would do too. Many thanks, Gary | ||
| David Gore (63.60.233.35) |
Hi Gary, Your car's serial number is located in two places - the first is on the title plate fitted to the left-hand side of the cab bulkhead in the engine bay as you have observed; the second location is on the bracket which is located adjacent to the right-hand front spring pot. Your engine number is stamped on the front of the crankcase between the alternator and the left-hand front spring pod [just below the oil filler cap] - the number should be the same as the car serial number less the identifying letters i.e. the engine number for DRH14434 should be 14434. Good luck with the authorities!!! Kind regards David | ||
| Gary Falkiner (195.218.116.8) |
David, Thanks - no joy on finding the number on the spring pot web, however I've been on to Crewe and they have advised me that they didn't always stamp the chassis number on this part of the car (the phrase used was "sometimes"). However,it doesn't matter now,as the Revenue Commissioners have just phoned me that they are happy to register the car on the one number - and as the car is over 30 years old I don't have to pay the Vehicle Registration Tax of 30% plus of the value, nor will I have to pay the annual road tax of over 1000 Euro. I love classic motoring! Regards, Gary. | ||
| David Gore (63.60.233.35) |
Hi Garry, Thanks for your courtesy in letting us know what happened especially about the factory not identifying the chassis separately to the name plate - this could be a problem for us in Australia when re-registering a vehicle that has been in storage/under restoration and the registration allowed to lapse as the chassis number verification is an important stage to prevent "rebirthing" of stolen vehicles. Our regulations require the chassis number to be permanently stamped on the body structure and the name plate does not qualify to meet this rquirement. If you send me your email details, I will send you our preventative maintenance schedules prepared by our Club Shadow + derivatives registry to assist you in caring for your car. If you need any help with any problems that arise, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will do my best to help you with advice or referrals. Kind regards David [Corniche DRH14434] | ||
| Gary Falkiner (193.120.131.105) |
David, I can appreciate the problem! It may be worthwhile posting the relevant Australian legislation on the website - allowing potential purchasers to be wise before they spend their money. Also - I wonder how the Australian Authorities would deal with a car which had been accident damaged and had the relevant body work replaced? The Irish Authorities would issue a new chassis number, possibly "recycling" the original, and that would be the end of it. It may be worth while getting the official procedure for this instance posted too. It may also be a good idea to post photos of where the numbers are (or should be)on cars - it all helps! You can contact me on gfalkiner@yahoo.com Service recommendations VERY welcome, espically any unofficial hints, or any potential pitfalls, however I am currently working my way through the service recomendations in the handbook- figuring if I do everything on the list - repairing anything broken I find in the process - I should cover most angles. I've just done the brake hoses, and rebuilt the front calipers - and am planning on reworking the rear suspension this winter (time permitting). I'va also just put 7 litres of RR363 through the pipe work, flushing out all the previous contents. My current immediate priority is tackling the numerous small rust problems that the car has - 34 years of English winters and associated salted roads having had some impact! Regards, Gary Falkiner. | ||
| RROCA Web Site Administrator (203.51.9.119) |
I regret that posting the text of the relevant legislation would be a direct breach of copyright, and I would be obliged to remove any posting containing such text from the forum. A far better tactic is to find the URL and post that instead. It saves space on our server and ensures that what you see is the genuine article. To save time, you will find the "Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulations 1998, Schedule 4" located at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rtrr1998478/sch4.html. Section 60 (4) is what is the bit relevant to this discussion. If you like, search for "chassis" within the window by using the menu entry "Edit|Find" in your browser. | ||
| David Gore (63.60.7.90) |
Thank you Administrator for taking the time to post the relevant regulation covering the chassis number. I am currently checking procedures with the NSW RTA regarding vehicles which do not have permanent chassis numbers to prepare an article for our Branch magazine and for probable inclusion in "Praeclarvm" as a Shadow registry news item - I will summarise this information here as well for interested owners. Gary, I will contact you separately about your maintenance as we have both been down the same track and share some common problems/experiences. Regards David | ||
| Bradley Clinch (202.129.95.21) |
David Gore, I have just purchased a SSII, and have a forum posted in this section, "Legal requirements regarding braking system roadworthy standards?" 07/22 01:49am If you would be so kind, I would be very interested to receive your preventative maintenance schedules prepared by your Club Shadow + derivatives registry as referred to in your response to Gary Falkiner. My email address is gcvideo@froggy.com.au My new vehicle is a 1979 Silver Shadow Series II, VIN SRH38081, which was imported from the UK in 1997. Regards, Brad | ||
| Richard Treacy (195.232.90.66) |
Your discussion raised my curiosity. Here, the engine number is not relevant, unlike in Australia, and having looked in vain for the engine number beforehand on buying the car I was never concerned. Yesterday I had another look at my engine in SCBZSOTO9HCH20037, a 1987 Turbo R. According to the book, the engine number should be stamped on a boss at the front of the crankcase under the aircon compressor. The boss is there but it is blank. Also blank is the crankcase boss by the left hand cylinder head. According to the book, the serial number and sequence number locations are swapped for the Turbo motors, but I can find neither in these designated placews. (maybe there was a change not documented in my factory manuals ??). However, I found a number at the rear of the crankcase under the distributor housing: 60022L410IT/8. L410IT: OK that is an L410 motor, injection, turbo. But what does the 60022 mean ? Is this possibly a retrofitted motor from a few years back, series 60022, or is the correct motor, (SZ)20037, still there with the engine number stamped somewhere else ? Any advice would be welcomed ! | ||
| David Gore (63.60.11.86) |
Hi Richard, We are having a RR Club technical session at the NSW Bentley agent tomorrow morning and I will see what I can find out for you re engine number location. Kind regards David | ||
| David Gore (63.60.11.65) |
Hi Richard, Following information will help with your request: The location of the engine identification number was changed for 1987 model year cars commencing with VIN SCBZSOTO3HCX20001 and comprised a single identification number instead of the previous separate engine build code and serial number. This number is stamped on a crankcase boss adjacent to the ignition distributor - the previous location at the front of the engine as described in the owners manual is no longer used. The engine number is made up from the following components: 1. A 5 digit build sequence number which commences at 60000. 2. A 5 or 6 digit character engine type code which identifies whether the engine is naturally aspirated [L410I] or turbocharged [l410IT]. 3. A single digit compression ratio identification 8 [8:1 CR] or 9 [9:1 CR]. Your engine no. confirms it is an 8:1 CR turbo engine which was the 22nd built after the change - you need your vehicles build sheet details from Hunt House to determine if this is the original engine - I suspect it may be as your VIN suggests your vehicle was the 37th built in 1987 and it is probable RR built batches of Turbo and Normally Aspirated engines and fitted these as appropriate to bodies on the production floor as required by orders in hand hence the variation. However, it is also possible the original engine failed on test and was replaced by the current engine to enable delivery - the build cards will tell all!!! Hope this information helps you and I wish to express my appreciation of the assistance given to me by the staff of Bentley of Sydney [formerly McMillans] with my enquiry including access to a 1987 Turbo R to verify the engine identification location. Kind regards David Gore | ||
| David Gore (63.60.11.65) |
Gary and Bradley, I have emailed the Service Checklist to you as requested - if you have not received it please check your ISP mail filter. If you can not find the message, please contact the Forum Administrator who will forward my email address and advise me by return email. Thanks and regards David | ||
| Richard Treacy (195.232.90.66) |
Engine number. Thank you David ! After I posted the message, I looked at the owner's manual and build sheets. Indeed the car was delivered with this motor, but I still wondered whether perhaps failure under test had meant a substitute motor. You have cleared this up for me. Being an early 20,000 series car, it was no doubt in the transition phase. The first build sheets show engine number 20,037, whilst the sheets later in its manufacture do show the 60022. I worked out the L410IT part, but the 8 referring to 8:1 compression is useful too. Many thanks, Richard. | ||
| Richard Treacy (195.232.90.66) |
Again, thank you David and Bentley of Sydney for taking the care to help me with this information. On vehicle assembly and build sheets, I have a few comments which may stir some argument. In 1972 and 1983 when I visited the factory at Crewe, I was most impressed with the attention to detail (rework). R-R even ran a series of full page adverisements in the Times around 1972 (I have an original set), showing the corrections to the bodywork, and a man who rode in the boot to listen for noises, among others. These days such advertisements would backfire. The scale of rework is clearly documented in the build sheets, of which I have a set for our three cars. However, after some years in manufacturing, the entries in the build sheets horrify me. I have been endoctrinated by Kaisen, just-in-time and Lean Manufacturing, whereby rework is not tolerated. If a component is defective we reject it and consider our future relationship with the supplier. If our own workmanship is not up to standard, we educate the craftsman and re-enginner the product to suit production. The build sheets for my Turbo R confirm that Crewe was mainly a rework shop, and assembly was the secondary activity. Contemporary manufacturing techniques would immediately condemn this. The defects were too many to list, and the car reached the end of the production line with major bits missing or faulty (eg missing cruise control microprocessor; just in time or just too late ? Clonks in the drivetrain etc etc), and the corrections to paintwork and trim are astonishing. OK, the car ended up perfect, but at what cost and what effect on long term longevity ? Any comments ? Does Bentley still operate like this ? I hope I haven't trodden on too many toes. Regards, Richard. | ||
| Bil Vatter (66.20.178.55) |
I am not that familiar with production methods for the modern cars; however, what you describe would be very poor operational practice in any industry. In the nuclear power generation business, from which I recently retired, we would not have allowed a plant to operate that did business as you describe RR. What you describe we called "inspecting in the quality." A measure of quality for us was the absense of rework needed following rigorous inspection and testing. The fundamental problem with allowing rework to be a way of life is that it does not encourage the workers to provide a quality product in the first place. It costs much less to do the job right the first time than it costs to do it over. Also, when the quality verification activity is burdened by finding so many problems, they are bound to occasionally miss something. It lowers the standards of the inspection. (I'm finding lots of problems so I must be doing my inspections well.) There is no motivation to look harder. I believe that one of the problems that the Crew factory had was the acceptance of a lower quality from suppliers than was necessary. I believe a somewhat arrogant mindset was present. (No one but Rolls-Royce can make the product to the RR standards, after all we are the best. Therefore it is OK for the products supplied to us have some flaws.) Everyone can do well, they just need to be encouraged to do it. The highest quality product always results when it is built right to very exacting standards the first time, and the defect corrections resulting from inspections are very few. It is also the least costly, which lowers the product cost, improving profitability, or as could have been the case for RR, it would free money to be spent on R&D or engineering refinements of the design. I do not think Sir Henry would have been pleased with a large amount of rework. | ||
| David Gore (63.60.11.65) |
Hi Bill, Thank you for your observations - this particular discussion developed from a problem that arose for understandable reasons as a consequence of the changeover to monocoque construction with the Shadow rather than the previous traditional chassis construction - the employees were used to stamping the traditional chassis and monocoque cars produced for markets where chassis numbering was not mandatory would have relied on the vehicle plate. Australia has required chassis numbering on the main body structure for many years and no doubt all Shadows produced for Australian delivery would have been properly stamped together with the fitting of the "colonial" [must keep the descendants of convicts in their proper place!!!!] specification suspension and engine supplied by Crewe. Problems arise when "grey market" cars are exported from their country of delivery to other countries with more stringent standards hence my concern for vehicles that may have been imported privately and not Australian-delivered encountering problems if their registration was allowed to lapse whilst undergoing major repairs or restoration. I do not consider cars which complied with the then applicable standards in the country of delivery and which were subsequently exported to countries where they did not comply represent a failure by the manufacturer to meet acceptable quality standards. With regard to the engine change on Richard's Turbo R, engines are mechanical devices embodying a large number of diverse components which are subject to sudden and inexplicable failures - is it better for the engine to fail on test in the factory or fail in the customer's vehicle when Murphy's Laws will prevail? [i.e. the engine will fail in the most public and embarassing manner at a time which causes the greatest amount of inconvenience] Having a modicum of quality control experience in both manufacturing and after-sales service for a broad range of engineering products, I have a pragmatic approach to quality control - in the nuclear industry I would have zero tolerance for defects due to the possible consequences of component failure especially where "fail-safe" criteria could not be satisfied. Normal manufacturing regards a reject rate of 3-5% as being an acceptable trade-off between the cost of achieving lower reject rates and the actual cost involved in scrapping/reworking rejected product. Criticism may only be fairly directed to those who cause excessive costs either through excessive reject/rework costs OR excessive purchase costs arising from over-specifying/over-engineering components. What is important is to develop a culture where each worker is encouraged and trained to take responsibility for the quality of their work rather than delegating this responsibility to separate Quality Control/Inspection personnel - if the worker knows their decision to reject a component or stop production for quality reasons will be supported by management then they will act and reject costs will be minimised. Otherwise, they will assemble defective product and pass it on to be "some-one else's problem" where they are unconcerned and/or unaware of the additional costs and consequences of their action. This behaviour was extremely common in the 1960 - 1980 era until the success of Japanese industry in achieving employee responsibility for quality became widely recognised in the West. Every manufacturer can make a perfect product - the only problem is how many of us are prepared to purchase such product at the price required to achieve this perfect quality. It is an economic reality that our purchase decisions involve a compromise between the price we are prepared to pay and the quality of our purchase - we try to maximise the benefit and minimise the cost by purchasing product from suppliers we believe we can trust from past experience and/or reputation - the "Law of the Jungle" ultimately prevails as successful producers survive and unsuccesful producers go bankrupt or are taken over. I would not presume to speculate on what Sir Henry would have thought of this situation however I would be very surprised if he would not be concerned with producing vehicles of best-possible quality at prices his customers were prepared to pay whilst ensuring his business would survive both good and bad times. | ||
| Jon Rothwell (144.137.241.124) |
Well, just to bring this discussion full circle. My 1966 Bentley T1 does not appear to have the chassis number stamped in any of the above locations, and after 6 months of searching I have not a clue where the engine number is (see my earlier posts about the T1 engine number). I don't think that our local licensing authority is going to be too pleased when I present the car for licensing next year. | ||
| bob (213.1.66.149) |
My 1974 Shad SRH 17768 has the number on the bulk head and the lh suspension turret. The number is spot welded black with a yellow vertical line. The 1 is stamped upside down. The engine no is as discribed and matches the chassis no. | ||
| Jon Rothwell |
Just an update on my prior post. I recently re-registered my T1 which was an English import last registered in Canberra. The only engine number the examiner was able to find was SY69, which was acceptable to the police dept as it was stamped on the block. | ||
| Bill Coburn |
Jon I am intrigued. There have not been too many Tee Ones (sic) in Canberra. The only very early one I know/knew of was one allegedly delivered to a State governor (Tas?)that turned up here in ghastly condition. It was red or reddish as I recall and I am talking about 20 odd years ago. | ||
| Jon Rothwell Posted From: 61.9.128.174 |
I think it was probably a late English import. The last RR record I have of the car being in England was a service docket from 1970, so who knows when it came into the country. This one is gold by the way. |
