Thread: Series III SWB Soft Top Rear Seats - Advice Needed

Originally Posted by mick88

I believe that back in the day the word "utility" when associated with Series Land Rovers was more the fact that they were a universal vehicle that could be a soft top, full hardtop, truck cab, topless, windscreen up, windscreen down, doors on, doors off, door tops of or on and so it goes.


I know it is "past tense" but fifteen years ago when I was getting my S3 88 registered I only had a soft top for it at the time. My intention was to fit a hardtop eventually when I sourced one for it. I explained this to an old guy (probably the same age as I am now) at the motor reg. office and his words were that it didn't matter, as they a utility vehicle that could utilised in a variety of formats. He said it didn't even need to have the roof or windscreen on it.


Then again he may have like Land Rovers too, as that can have a big bearing on some of these issues!


Cheers, Mick.

I had the opposite experience down at Qld Transport. While trying to register the 109, she didn't like the description of 'wagon' and I told her i could make it into a ute in 1/2hr if she preferred that. That only made her more angry, and she said I'd need a mod plate and engineering for that because "that's a major modification". Correcting her was a bad idea..... lol.

But we digress...... Although I think we've made the point that land rovers don't fit the mould that everyone thinks they should and this in turn makes it hard for us when really it shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by debruiser

I'm in QLD and I know that that can change things, an my 1975, swb S3 was factory with hard top and no rear seats. However the PO has converted it to softtop and added rear bench seats. I took it for a roadworthy here and the guy said my seat belt was too worn - needed replacement, but did not say anything about the configuration of seats. (I've got a QLD mod plate to say it's now a 5 seater)

Thanks very much for this. It is actually really helpful as it confrms my reading of the rules that doing this is technically entirely legal in terms of the federal DoT regulations.

I think the problem as normal is state level interpretation and how institutionally obstructive or otherwise the local State DoT wants to be...

As a matter of interest, how is the vehicle now described on its documents? Is it a UTE in class N or something else? Station wagon? Soft Top?

Also I assume that the heavy duty hood sticks you have fitted are not a certified roll cage / roll over protection system in terms of engineering and an approved design?

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

Hi Alistair.
An interesting issue that you have as it effects my S111 109 project. I had considered fitting some forward facing seats in the rear, but I may have the same "ute" issue as you so will stick with the 3 front bench seats for the moment.

Do DoT consider your SWB a utility because it has a bulkhead behind the front seats? Maybe an option would be to remove this bulkhead (with suitable strengthening) so the body is more of a conventional "wagon" style floor plan??

I think the problem really is that "The DoT" is actually one person who has formed an opinion based on very little (he certainly has no clue about the variable configuration of Land Rovers and the concept that "standard" is a loose term), but is now going to prove very challenging to work around. Comes across as being an alright sort of bloke but one who will take any discussion around the codes and regulations as being a challenge to his self-perceived authority as opposed to a problem solving exercise to acheive the required outcome within the regulations. Being a Brit and not really culturally atuned yet to Australian psychology or terminology I have no idea whatsoever why WA DoT think that the car is a UTE. As far as I am concerned it is a soft top because the cab is not enclosed.

Here we have the true insanity of the situation, with the DoT chap insisting that it would be dangerous (and against the regulations) to put seats in the back of 'a UTE' whilst ignoring the fact that it is in reality a soft top by any reasonable definition of the term and I can quite legally take the canvas, hood sticks and door tops off and drive down the freeway at 110kph sporting a pair of goggles and the front window folded down.... go figure.

The saving grace here is that my car is actually fitted with a full cage which although not currently certified is built to full competion and LK standards as a roll over protection system. It transpires that it is in fact legal to put seats in the back of a UTE, providing it has that protection fitted. The way ahead will be to get the existing cage engineered and certified and then put the seats in.

So the situation is not a complete write-off, even if it is a completely unnecessary pantomime and waste of everyone's time when one considers the number of ex-ADF soft top 109 and 88 land rovers currently running arround with bench seats, soft top and no roll over protection system.

As it happens I already have cut the bulkhead away to lower it and put in a strengthening rib. I am not sure that I want to point that out too loudly to him as technically it constitutes a modification for which a permit and engineering is requred and I don't want him to get distracted.

In terms of your plan to put forward facing seats in the back of your 109, I am fast getting the impression that this vehicle modification thing is completely in the eye of the beholder and entirely a matter of luck in terms of whose desk the application lands on. Also some states seem more cooperative than others. WA is proving to be a nightmare whenever ordinary people have to interact with state officialdom. If I was you I would just put in your application and hope for the best.

Hi Alistair.
What is your 88 registered as, a "utility" or a "ute"? As alluded to by Mick, a "utility" designation is much wider than the colloquially shortened "ute". A "utility" is a "utilitarian" vehicle with multiple uses and possible multiple configurations. Could it be that the historical designation of a land rover as a Utility is mostly about its multipurpose usage rather than configuration as a cabin and load carrying area. Maybe your assessor is using the narrow definition rather than the historical broader context?

Getting this through to DoT may be another issue entirely though......

Cheers,
Chris

Originally Posted by debruiser

I'm in QLD and I know that that can change things, an my 1975, swb S3 was factory with hard top and no rear seats. However the PO has converted it to softtop and added rear bench seats. I took it for a roadworthy here and the guy said my seat belt was too worn - needed replacement, but did not say anything about the configuration of seats. (I've got a QLD mod plate to say it's now a 5 seater)

I had the opposite experience down at Qld Transport. While trying to register the 109, she didn't like the description of 'wagon' and I told her i could make it into a ute in 1/2hr if she preferred that. That only made her more angry, and she said I'd need a mod plate and engineering for that because "that's a major modification". Correcting her was a bad idea..... lol.

But we digress...... Although I think we've made the point that land rovers don't fit the mould that everyone thinks they should and this in turn makes it hard for us when really it shouldn't be.

Priceless!

Actually I had a similar conversation with the WA DoT man when trying to come to a way forward. I suggested that I unbolt the cage, stick the hard top and rear door back on, put the seats back in because it is now a wagon and that is fine, get the seating capacity upgraded to 6 and then unbolt the top and stick the cage back on... and let someone else figure out what to call it. I proposed "soft top".

He grimiced, acknowledged the insanity (and reality) of the situation and more or less said 'them's the rules'....

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

Hi Alistair.
What is your 88 registered as, a "utility" or a "ute"? As alluded to by Mick, a "utility" designation is much wider than the colloquially shortened "ute". A "utility" is a "utilitarian" vehicle with multiple uses and possible multiple configurations. Could it be that the historical designation of a land rover as a Utility is mostly about its multipurpose usage rather than configuration as a cabin and load carrying area. Maybe your assessor is using the narrow definition rather than the historical broader context?

Getting this through to DoT may be another issue entirely though......

Cheers,
Chris

It is down as "Body: UTE"

Completely agree with your sentiments about the car being a ''utility' in the historic context and that is exactly what it says on the UK V5 registration document.

I have however, as you observe, not a chance of getting that through to the man from the ministry.

As a matter of interest, do you happen to know what other designations are given to Land Rovers in Australia. Evidently they can be UTE or Wagon. Is there a 'Soft Top' designation in use at all?

Originally Posted by Esmac

What happens if you wish to install a hard top? What will the DOT call it then? a ute with a canopy?

Would be interesting as there are plenty of wagons/SUVs that have gone the other way and would have been mod plated accordingly I guess.

Yep... as I posted earlier, I actually had that conversation with the man from the ministry. I suggested that I unbolt the cage, stick the hard top and rear door back on, put the seats back in because it is now a wagon and that is fine, get the seating capacity upgraded to 6 and then unbolt the top and stick the cage back on... and let someone else figure out what to call it. I proposed "soft top".

I think he recognises that this whole thing is ridiculous, but he seems to feel bound by a pretty rigid and limited WA interpretation of what are actually a fairly open set of national rules and codes.

Personally if I had a wagon and was going to put a soft top on it, knowing what I know now I wouldn't bother telling anyone. I would just unbolt it, stick the hood sticks on and get on with it.

Originally Posted by Alistair

Thanks very much for this. It is actually really helpful as it confrms my reading of the rules that doing this is technically entirely legal in terms of the federal DoT regulations.

I think the problem as normal is state level interpretation and how institutionally obstructive or otherwise the local State DoT wants to be...

As a matter of interest, how is the vehicle now described on its documents? Is it a UTE in class N or something else? Station wagon? Soft Top?

Also I assume that the heavy duty hood sticks you have fitted are not a certified roll cage / roll over protection system in terms of engineering and an approved design?

I'm really sorry but I dont know what it was described as. I haven't managed to get it back on the road yet (doing a ground up rebuild).

There is no certification on those hood sticks, they were on it when I bought it so that's about all I can safely say. When I took it for a roadworthy a couple months back, the 3 guys doing the roadworthy had no problems with them and I only had the bikini top on it so it wasn't like I had a full tilt trying to hide them. If you go on exmoor trims site, they do a HD hood stick set for defender
Hood Stick Sets : XS Hood - Heavy Duty Bar Set I'm reasonably sure that mine is a copy of it.