Light Conversions after May 20th?
Discussion
Hi PHers,
I wonder if someone can guide me...I've got a '66 Ford Mustang coupe on the way from America. It'll probably be here some time in July. Based on the new rules, it looks like it should classify as a Vehicle of Historic Interest and should be exempt from the MOT. What I'm struggling to find an answer for though is whether I will still need to go through the whole light conversion thing that kept coming up over the past year that I've been doing my homework. It's not an awful lot of money, but still £500ish that I'd rather not pay!
Anyone got any knowledge on this subject?
I wonder if someone can guide me...I've got a '66 Ford Mustang coupe on the way from America. It'll probably be here some time in July. Based on the new rules, it looks like it should classify as a Vehicle of Historic Interest and should be exempt from the MOT. What I'm struggling to find an answer for though is whether I will still need to go through the whole light conversion thing that kept coming up over the past year that I've been doing my homework. It's not an awful lot of money, but still £500ish that I'd rather not pay!
Anyone got any knowledge on this subject?
Hi PHers,
I wonder if someone can guide me...I've got a '66 Ford Mustang coupe on the way from America. It'll probably be here some time in July. Based on the new rules, it looks like it should classify as a Vehicle of Historic Interest and should be exempt from the MOT. What I'm struggling to find an answer for though is whether I will still need to go through the whole light conversion thing that kept coming up over the past year that I've been doing my homework. It's not an awful lot of money, but still £500ish that I'd rather not pay!
Anyone got any knowledge on this subject?
I wonder if someone can guide me...I've got a '66 Ford Mustang coupe on the way from America. It'll probably be here some time in July. Based on the new rules, it looks like it should classify as a Vehicle of Historic Interest and should be exempt from the MOT. What I'm struggling to find an answer for though is whether I will still need to go through the whole light conversion thing that kept coming up over the past year that I've been doing my homework. It's not an awful lot of money, but still £500ish that I'd rather not pay!
Anyone got any knowledge on this subject?
Although you won't need an MOT you do need to ensure the car is road worthy i.e. able to pass an MOT. It will still be illegal for cars after Oct'65 to have red rear indicators, orange sidelights and headlights that dip to the wrong side. Whether you risk it is up to you.
£500 to convert is extremely strong money, you can easily do it under £200. The front is just a few bits of wire, a relay and a halogen light kit from one of the classic car specialists. The rear is either lenses for under a £100 delivered, a bulb holder and some wire. You can save on the lenses if you convert the reversing lights if you have them, but in my opinion the lights are too low for most drivers to notice.
Do bear in mind, if you leave the rear lights standard no-one will understand them in this country (sad, but true). I witnessed many emergency stops in my mirrors before I changed mine - the kits weren't as easy to get 10 years ago. If you get rear ended and don't have the correct rear lighting where do you think you'll stand with the insurers?
£500 to convert is extremely strong money, you can easily do it under £200. The front is just a few bits of wire, a relay and a halogen light kit from one of the classic car specialists. The rear is either lenses for under a £100 delivered, a bulb holder and some wire. You can save on the lenses if you convert the reversing lights if you have them, but in my opinion the lights are too low for most drivers to notice.
Do bear in mind, if you leave the rear lights standard no-one will understand them in this country (sad, but true). I witnessed many emergency stops in my mirrors before I changed mine - the kits weren't as easy to get 10 years ago. If you get rear ended and don't have the correct rear lighting where do you think you'll stand with the insurers?
Good choice of car OP, and pictures will be nice when you’ve got your hands on it…
I’m guessing that you’re looking forward to driving it, and that you can’t wait to go out for a cruise around? Sadly, its attitudes like your that will mean us classic owners may be unable to this this in the future.
If you can afford to import a car from the States, then surely you can afford to make sure it confirms to the correct UK regulations?
It is this “I’ll get away with it so why bother” attitude that makes me think the MOT exception of 40 year old cars is a really, really bad idea. I’ve said all along that it’ll only take a couple of high profile accidents to make the powers-that-be decide that maybe classics should be strictly monitored and that, Hmmmm, some form of usage limitation would be a good compromise…
(I appreciate that pre-1960 cars have not thrown up any major issues, but now the scheme is being rolled out to cover many more vehicles, you have many more possibilities of an owner saying “sod it” and causing a problem).
I don’t normally get overly critical of people on the ‘net, and I make a point of never typing anything I wouldn’t say to someone’s face in the pub, so OP, don’t be a fool and get the damn lights sorted properly so you and others can enjoy a pretty cool car (I’ve always wanted one!).
Sorry if I’ve come across a bit harshly, but I get upset when the thoughtless actions of others puts driving the cars I love at risk.
I’m guessing that you’re looking forward to driving it, and that you can’t wait to go out for a cruise around? Sadly, its attitudes like your that will mean us classic owners may be unable to this this in the future.
If you can afford to import a car from the States, then surely you can afford to make sure it confirms to the correct UK regulations?
It is this “I’ll get away with it so why bother” attitude that makes me think the MOT exception of 40 year old cars is a really, really bad idea. I’ve said all along that it’ll only take a couple of high profile accidents to make the powers-that-be decide that maybe classics should be strictly monitored and that, Hmmmm, some form of usage limitation would be a good compromise…
(I appreciate that pre-1960 cars have not thrown up any major issues, but now the scheme is being rolled out to cover many more vehicles, you have many more possibilities of an owner saying “sod it” and causing a problem).
I don’t normally get overly critical of people on the ‘net, and I make a point of never typing anything I wouldn’t say to someone’s face in the pub, so OP, don’t be a fool and get the damn lights sorted properly so you and others can enjoy a pretty cool car (I’ve always wanted one!).
Sorry if I’ve come across a bit harshly, but I get upset when the thoughtless actions of others puts driving the cars I love at risk.
Faust66 said:
Good choice of car OP, and pictures will be nice when you’ve got your hands on it…
I’m guessing that you’re looking forward to driving it, and that you can’t wait to go out for a cruise around? Sadly, its attitudes like your that will mean us classic owners may be unable to this this in the future.
If you can afford to import a car from the States, then surely you can afford to make sure it confirms to the correct UK regulations?
It is this “I’ll get away with it so why bother” attitude that makes me think the MOT exception of 40 year old cars is a really, really bad idea. I’ve said all along that it’ll only take a couple of high profile accidents to make the powers-that-be decide that maybe classics should be strictly monitored and that, Hmmmm, some form of usage limitation would be a good compromise…
(I appreciate that pre-1960 cars have not thrown up any major issues, but now the scheme is being rolled out to cover many more vehicles, you have many more possibilities of an owner saying “sod it” and causing a problem).
I don’t normally get overly critical of people on the ‘net, and I make a point of never typing anything I wouldn’t say to someone’s face in the pub, so OP, don’t be a fool and get the damn lights sorted properly so you and others can enjoy a pretty cool car (I’ve always wanted one!).
Sorry if I’ve come across a bit harshly, but I get upset when the thoughtless actions of others puts driving the cars I love at risk.
No offence taken, though you did come down a bit hard. In my defence, driving/owning a classic is all new to me, and there are situations I hadn't even thought of if you don't get your light changed (like being rear-ended by someone who misunderstands red turning signals etc.). I don't disagree with your views. And the additional info I got on this thread was useful as well. I've got some photos I'll put up in a bit! The car's still in Miami. I’m guessing that you’re looking forward to driving it, and that you can’t wait to go out for a cruise around? Sadly, its attitudes like your that will mean us classic owners may be unable to this this in the future.
If you can afford to import a car from the States, then surely you can afford to make sure it confirms to the correct UK regulations?
It is this “I’ll get away with it so why bother” attitude that makes me think the MOT exception of 40 year old cars is a really, really bad idea. I’ve said all along that it’ll only take a couple of high profile accidents to make the powers-that-be decide that maybe classics should be strictly monitored and that, Hmmmm, some form of usage limitation would be a good compromise…
(I appreciate that pre-1960 cars have not thrown up any major issues, but now the scheme is being rolled out to cover many more vehicles, you have many more possibilities of an owner saying “sod it” and causing a problem).
I don’t normally get overly critical of people on the ‘net, and I make a point of never typing anything I wouldn’t say to someone’s face in the pub, so OP, don’t be a fool and get the damn lights sorted properly so you and others can enjoy a pretty cool car (I’ve always wanted one!).
Sorry if I’ve come across a bit harshly, but I get upset when the thoughtless actions of others puts driving the cars I love at risk.
![](https://thumbsnap.com/sc/ZnOk9O1B.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/XUAhjlcD" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/XUAhjlcD.jpg)
Good man! 
Love that colour... makes a change to see one that isn't black or red.
Hope you enjoy the car, and if you need any advice on keeping an older car on the road there are plenty of people on here who'll be able to help. You planning on keeping the Mustang stock or going down the custom route?
Mike
Love that colour... makes a change to see one that isn't black or red.
Hope you enjoy the car, and if you need any advice on keeping an older car on the road there are plenty of people on here who'll be able to help. You planning on keeping the Mustang stock or going down the custom route?
Mike
Pony interior too ... nice. The lights are a bit of a bind to do but it shouldn’t take you long. Plenty of advice here and over on mocgb.net
On my old ‘65, I keep the rear lights as was but changed the fronts obviously. On the ‘66 I had an LED set-up for the back from Mustang Project In the US that I planned to put on after the resto which was pure junk as it turned out, so got some rear lenses with the outside third Amber and rewired to suit, new wire from the brake pedal etc ...
Those amber sidelights on the front just want rewiring as indicators only. Land Rover 7” headlamps off eBay with the built-in sidelights are what you need ...
Shout if any more info needed ...
On my old ‘65, I keep the rear lights as was but changed the fronts obviously. On the ‘66 I had an LED set-up for the back from Mustang Project In the US that I planned to put on after the resto which was pure junk as it turned out, so got some rear lenses with the outside third Amber and rewired to suit, new wire from the brake pedal etc ...
Those amber sidelights on the front just want rewiring as indicators only. Land Rover 7” headlamps off eBay with the built-in sidelights are what you need ...
Shout if any more info needed ...
uk66fastback said:
Pony interior too ... nice. The lights are a bit of a bind to do but it shouldn’t take you long. Plenty of advice here and over on mocgb.net
On my old ‘65, I keep the rear lights as was but changed the fronts obviously. On the ‘66 I had an LED set-up for the back from Mustang Project In the US that I planned to put on after the resto which was pure junk as it turned out, so got some rear lenses with the outside third Amber and rewired to suit, new wire from the brake pedal etc ...
Those amber sidelights on the front just want rewiring as indicators only. Land Rover 7” headlamps off eBay with the built-in sidelights are what you need ...
Shout if any more info needed ...
I probably will shout out to you for help when the car gets here. And time to join MOCGB as well I guess :-). I put it off for a while. Thanks so much for the advice and the link!On my old ‘65, I keep the rear lights as was but changed the fronts obviously. On the ‘66 I had an LED set-up for the back from Mustang Project In the US that I planned to put on after the resto which was pure junk as it turned out, so got some rear lenses with the outside third Amber and rewired to suit, new wire from the brake pedal etc ...
Those amber sidelights on the front just want rewiring as indicators only. Land Rover 7” headlamps off eBay with the built-in sidelights are what you need ...
Shout if any more info needed ...
I think you ARE going to need to do the lights, as while the MoT laws have changed, the registration ones haven't and you need an MoT to register it still.
Better though, as once passed, it's good - and it's only really the lights ... is it drums or discs at the front?
From looking at the pic of your interior, it looks like your car had AC from the factory but that it has since been removed (the controls within the car anyway). Is it still with the car? It would be worthwhile having it if it is as if it was ticked on the paperwork when the car was ordered along with the Pony interior, the centre console was different and missed off the door part - see pics below ...
If you had the part that is missing in your pic, you could reattach an at least it would fill that void (you might not want to connect up and get the part in the engine bay working as the compressor weighs a ton anyway)
Pony interior centre console with and without factory aircon
I can't work out why the one on the right has a black detail to the centre console though - maybe he removed his aircon but then wanted a full console but couldn't get a wood effect one!
Better though, as once passed, it's good - and it's only really the lights ... is it drums or discs at the front?
From looking at the pic of your interior, it looks like your car had AC from the factory but that it has since been removed (the controls within the car anyway). Is it still with the car? It would be worthwhile having it if it is as if it was ticked on the paperwork when the car was ordered along with the Pony interior, the centre console was different and missed off the door part - see pics below ...
If you had the part that is missing in your pic, you could reattach an at least it would fill that void (you might not want to connect up and get the part in the engine bay working as the compressor weighs a ton anyway)
Pony interior centre console with and without factory aircon
I can't work out why the one on the right has a black detail to the centre console though - maybe he removed his aircon but then wanted a full console but couldn't get a wood effect one!
Edited by uk66fastback on Monday 21st May 13:51
uk66fastback said:
I think you ARE going to need to do the lights, as while the MoT laws have changed, the registration ones haven't and you need an MoT to register it still.
Better though, as once passed, it's good - and it's only really the lights ... is it drums or discs at the front?
From looking at the pic of your interior, it looks like your car had AC from the factory but that it has since been removed (the controls within the car anyway). Is it still with the car? It would be worthwhile having it if it is as if it was ticked on the paperwork when the car was ordered along with the Pony interior, the centre console was different and missed off the door part - see pics below ...
If you had the part that is missing in your pic, you could reattach an at least it would fill that void (you might not want to connect up and get the part in the engine bay working as the compressor weighs a ton anyway)
Pony interior centre console with and without factory aircon
I can't work out why the one on the right has a black detail to the centre console though - maybe he removed his aircon but then wanted a full console but couldn't get a wood effect one!
Wow, I never even questioned that, thanks. I don't know is the honest answer, I'll try to find out. And based on this thread, it feels like getting the lights and MOT done is a minor expense but worth it considering the cost of the car. Better though, as once passed, it's good - and it's only really the lights ... is it drums or discs at the front?
From looking at the pic of your interior, it looks like your car had AC from the factory but that it has since been removed (the controls within the car anyway). Is it still with the car? It would be worthwhile having it if it is as if it was ticked on the paperwork when the car was ordered along with the Pony interior, the centre console was different and missed off the door part - see pics below ...
If you had the part that is missing in your pic, you could reattach an at least it would fill that void (you might not want to connect up and get the part in the engine bay working as the compressor weighs a ton anyway)
Pony interior centre console with and without factory aircon
I can't work out why the one on the right has a black detail to the centre console though - maybe he removed his aircon but then wanted a full console but couldn't get a wood effect one!
Edited by uk66fastback on Monday 21st May 13:51
While I've got your attention, any comments on the underside of this car? Photos attached. And thank you again in advance.
![](https://thumbsnap.com/sc/Qt4bp7Ny.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/w6kGDzsI" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/w6kGDzsI.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/TLlTZBvD" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/TLlTZBvD.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/Pv8DnrHP" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/Pv8DnrHP.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/nOcW5Uok" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/nOcW5Uok.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/6dCtoUrJ" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/6dCtoUrJ.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/WoqbJlpi" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/WoqbJlpi.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/JgDDt9ng" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/JgDDt9ng.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/756fTZMl" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/sc/756fTZMl.jpg)
Am I supposed to be looking for anything in particular with that underside? I see the usual odd dent - maybe on the floors's sheet metal area on the driver's side? I see one in the box section on the same side - usual careless use of the jack down the years. The sill edges look good (and original).
The floor seems to have had a recent coating of epoxy as they are all too willing to do Stateside, and they've removed or covered the dual exhausts (which look fine) but not the propshaft. Defo drums at the back as well, which they ALL had, even the K-codes. My '66 was upgraded to Wilwoods front and rear which was vast overkill as the weight distribution means drums are more than sufficient at the back ... (but they looked good!)
I see the rear handbrake mechanism there with the two cables ...
I'm hoping they are maybe original floorpans but unless the car was either a garage queen from new (unlikely) or a CA or AZ car, it's likely the front floors have been replaced. Northern state cars just didn't survive very long even though the metal is far thicker than anything you'll ever see on a Japanese car ... Detroit or Chicago cars lasted comparatively no time - they are over 50 years old now of course.
Did you have concerns over the underside then at all? Minor holes would be nothing to worry about I would think. Is the car's history known in any details - the (to some) important Mustang numbers might tell you something. Have you decoded the VIN plate?
The floor seems to have had a recent coating of epoxy as they are all too willing to do Stateside, and they've removed or covered the dual exhausts (which look fine) but not the propshaft. Defo drums at the back as well, which they ALL had, even the K-codes. My '66 was upgraded to Wilwoods front and rear which was vast overkill as the weight distribution means drums are more than sufficient at the back ... (but they looked good!)
I see the rear handbrake mechanism there with the two cables ...
I'm hoping they are maybe original floorpans but unless the car was either a garage queen from new (unlikely) or a CA or AZ car, it's likely the front floors have been replaced. Northern state cars just didn't survive very long even though the metal is far thicker than anything you'll ever see on a Japanese car ... Detroit or Chicago cars lasted comparatively no time - they are over 50 years old now of course.
Did you have concerns over the underside then at all? Minor holes would be nothing to worry about I would think. Is the car's history known in any details - the (to some) important Mustang numbers might tell you something. Have you decoded the VIN plate?
I made the purchase based on a recommendation about the seller from another fellow local Mustang owner who vouched for the exporter's genuineness (and a couple of other people who knew of him and his cars). Plus I was scared to lose what looked like a pretty good deal from someone I could trust (the latter was a bigger factor in making the decision). So I didn't do the usual VIN checks etc. This is my first classic.
As time goes by though, I learn more and, I have more questions, and if I'm totally open about it, I become more religious :-D. But it's been paid for, and I can ask the questions, but all I can do now even if I find out something is wrong is prepare for it, write it off as experience and hopefully flip it, get my money back and move on.
Based on the reference checks I've done, I'm hoping I'll be ok. Wish me luck! And thanks for the cursory glance. At least it looks like there's nothing glaringly broken. You're right, I didn't really point you in the right direction. Your comments were still helpful though and I appreciate your time.
As time goes by though, I learn more and, I have more questions, and if I'm totally open about it, I become more religious :-D. But it's been paid for, and I can ask the questions, but all I can do now even if I find out something is wrong is prepare for it, write it off as experience and hopefully flip it, get my money back and move on.
Based on the reference checks I've done, I'm hoping I'll be ok. Wish me luck! And thanks for the cursory glance. At least it looks like there's nothing glaringly broken. You're right, I didn't really point you in the right direction. Your comments were still helpful though and I appreciate your time.
uk66fastback said:
Did you have concerns over the underside then at all? Minor holes would be nothing to worry about I would think. Is the car's history known in any details - the (to some) important Mustang numbers might tell you something. Have you decoded the VIN plate?
Not particularly. I'm trying to learn myself on this journey and I'm just paranoid I guess. I keep reading all kinds of horror stories. But I feel like I should have asked about the car's history some more. Seems like an obvious thing to have done...Do you have the VIN details ... ? It's simple to decode if you have.
For a '67 onwards you can get a Marti Report, which will give you the official details of the car as it left the factory.
You can't get these for a '65-66 though which is a shame. So the VIN (metal plate on the door shut) will give you some details. If you could get these from the US owner it would be more info.
People go on about matching numbers - but for engines of this era, there were no know individual numbers given to each car. So someone might have an engine from 'around' a certain date, but they have no way of knowing if it was THE engine the car left the factory with.
The car is probably an A code or maybe a C code and that was dictated by the the two or four-barrel carb on the engine - there are other codes - the K-codes is the desirable (and expensive) one. SO someone might have an A-coded car originally but have fitted a four-barrel carb - in which case it isn't 'numbers matching' but that is not really a Mustang thing anyway, despite what some believe.
The door tag was two sets of numbers - one is the number of the car and the other has the trim details on. If you have those numbers, I'd be interested to see them.
For a '67 onwards you can get a Marti Report, which will give you the official details of the car as it left the factory.
You can't get these for a '65-66 though which is a shame. So the VIN (metal plate on the door shut) will give you some details. If you could get these from the US owner it would be more info.
People go on about matching numbers - but for engines of this era, there were no know individual numbers given to each car. So someone might have an engine from 'around' a certain date, but they have no way of knowing if it was THE engine the car left the factory with.
The car is probably an A code or maybe a C code and that was dictated by the the two or four-barrel carb on the engine - there are other codes - the K-codes is the desirable (and expensive) one. SO someone might have an A-coded car originally but have fitted a four-barrel carb - in which case it isn't 'numbers matching' but that is not really a Mustang thing anyway, despite what some believe.
The door tag was two sets of numbers - one is the number of the car and the other has the trim details on. If you have those numbers, I'd be interested to see them.
Edited by uk66fastback on Monday 21st May 16:46
Do you have the VIN details ... ? It's simple to decode if you have.
For a '67 onwards you can get a Marti Report, which will give you the official details of the car as it left the factory.
You can't get these for a '65-66 though which is a shame. So the VIN, metal plate on the door shut 0 will give you some details. If you could get these from the US owner it would be more info.
People go on about matching numbers - but for engine of this era, there were no know individual numbers given to each car. So someone might have an engine from 'around' a certain date, but they have no way of knowing if it was THE engine the car left the factory with.
For a '67 onwards you can get a Marti Report, which will give you the official details of the car as it left the factory.
You can't get these for a '65-66 though which is a shame. So the VIN, metal plate on the door shut 0 will give you some details. If you could get these from the US owner it would be more info.
People go on about matching numbers - but for engine of this era, there were no know individual numbers given to each car. So someone might have an engine from 'around' a certain date, but they have no way of knowing if it was THE engine the car left the factory with.
uk66fastback said:
The door tag was two sets of numbers - one is the number of the car and the other has the trim details on. If you have those numbers, I'd be interested to see them.
Just called the exporter and asked for it. He'll message it to me shortly :-). uk66fastback said:
The car is probably an A code or maybe a C code and that was dictated by the the two or four-barrel carb on the engine - there are other codes - the K-codes is the desirable (and expensive) one. SO someone might have an A-coded car originally but have fitted a four-barrel carb - in which case it isn't 'numbers matching' but that is not really a Mustang thing anyway, despite what some believe.
Sorry to be pedantic but that's the wrong way round, an A-code is a four barrel car, and C-code two barrel.uk66fastback is completely correct that matching numbers means little in Mustangs except K-codes and Shelbys. You can enjoy the car for what it is regardless. The VIN should have been asked for to ensure it's not a t-code though - these were originally 6-cylinder cars but a lot have been converted - at our local mustang meet at the weekend there were 3 there (2 x '65 and 1 x '66). If the conversion is done properly it's nothing to worry about but because it's so extensive (all steering, axle, front suspension, brakes, transmission, radiator, engine etc.) it worries people and affects resale values adversely. Hopefully with what you say about the seller this would have been mentioned if it was a converted car (I've never heard of any issues but technically a full conversion should fall fowl of the 8-point rule). Before using the door plate to decode the car check it to the VIN on the inner wing as the door may have been replaced in the past without the plate being removed.
Hopefully it's as nice as it looks in the photos.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff