MOT exemption for classics ?

[J4CKO]

Not seen this discussed in GG but interested in the opinions now that cars over 40 years old wont require and MOT from May next year.

https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/2017/09/cars-bec...

I think this is a daft idea, there are some minor pros,

Classics do less mileage
Classic owners are usually (stress usually) more vigilant and capable than the average motorist.

Cons

The oldest cars on the roads will have no basic roadworthiness check
Owners can ignore problems
Owners might not spot problems
Owners might be inclined to not spend money
Even diligent owners arent as knowledgable as MOT tester who are trained and do it all day, every day.
Buying a classic will become more risky as technically you could have a car resurrected recently that hasn't had an MOT since the seventies.

I cant see why this went through ?

It isnt a massive imposition spending £40 and taking your car in once a year. FIre up that "Barn Find" shed and feel free to drive it on the road, technically it has to be roadworthy from a legality point of view but the check would most likely only be once a problem has occurred, like that rust near a seatbelt mount or spring hanger....

[J4CKO]

V8RX7 said:

J4CKO said:

Even diligent owners arent as knowledgable as MOT tester who are trained and do it all day, every day.

My Dad is a Classic Car Dealer and the reason they have been dropped is because your above statement is completely wrong - the vast majority of MOT testers haven't got a clue about Classics and were either passing things that should have failed or failing things that should have passed.

This became a hassle so they have now dropped them from the test.

I think it's a mistake as there are a many classic car owners who don't look after their cars or work on the basis that "it'll be alright" as they don't go far, they should either train Testers properly or have Specialist Testers for classics.

Have been on the end of this and agree to a certain extent, things like testing a sixties cars wheel bearing play like it was a new car, the taper bearings on our Fiat 500 were fine but were failed by the over zealous knob round the corner, took it to another one after my explanation fell on deaf ears, he also failed it on welding that had been done and passed 5 MOT's, it was like he was deliberately pulling the car to bits, took it to another one who explained about the wheel bearings and why they have a small amount of play !

However, on balance, I think it is better to have a check once a year.

[J4CKO]

diddles said:

What are the implications with transferring number plates from old cars with no MOT's? Assuming you have the reg documents for the car I wonder whether this will now be achievable?

Cant see that making a difference now, as long as you have the V5, am guessing they must have removed the MOT stipulation ?

[J4CKO]

I watched a few episodes of "Car SOS", quite good petrolhead telly, bit like Wheeler Dealers really, anyway there were cars on there that were too far good, a Fiat 500 that was like Swiss Cheese once dipped and some old Zodiac thing, that on the face of it looked ok and had been through quite a bit of work, problem was it was of the enthusiastic amateur standard, pop rivets and random bits of metal, bit of mastic and lashings of underseal.

They do things to a seemingly decent standard on this programme (some dont) so there was quite a bit of rework required as the B post wasnt really attached to the car, now an MOT tester cant see everything, but they can spot bodges and dangerous repairs better than your average owner, no vested interest in saving time or money.

That car could have easily just been put back on the road without any kind of check, it would most likely be ok, and even in an accident they werent very safe anyway, but an unsound one would be worse, its really the cracked tyres, leaking exhausts and ropey brakes that concern me, but there is scope for some right deathtraps to be spirited back onto the road with impunity.

I would urge anyone buying a >40 year old car in the future to insist on a current MOT, that needs to be part of the criteria for purchasing, an unwritten rule.

[J4CKO]

julian64 said:

This threads just simply stupid.

MOTs are a protection for nothing.

If you are driving any car historic or not and have an accident then your car will be scrutinized. You cannot mount a defence of 'I had it MOT'd last week'.

An Historic car is no less likely to fall under that scrutiny. Crash and police see you with worn down tyres, you will be in trouble. Get caught on the road with worn tyres, you will be in trouble.

The idea of excusing historic cars from tax is that currently I own four cars three of which should be historic status. I pay four lots of road tax to drive one car to work which covers about eight to ten thousand miles a year, and the other three cover less than a thousand miles a year between them all.

Why should I have to pay for four lots of road fund for that? Its just a sensible realisation that for every battered old 25 year old mini making it to work every day as a daily driver (not sure I believe this) there are a couple of hundred historic cars kept in dry garages doing next to no mileage. The historic cars I own have more than paid for their share of the road over the years they've paid.

Who said anything about VED ?

And as for your comments on the MOT, may as well abandon it completely for all cars based on your reasoning, again, nobody said it is a defence against anything but it is better than nothing, which is what is happening for really old cars, one that are probably more prone to faults.

An MOT is an attempt at a pre-emptive spotting of faults BEFORE they result in an accident, of course any driver is responsible for the state of their car but a forensic examination after the fact to establish the cause of an accident is too late.

[J4CKO]

Efbe said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Tuvra said:

I was stuck behind a Ford Zephyr or something equally as st in traffic the other day, it ended up giving me a headache the fumes coming from it were so bad. I genuinely don't get the fascination with driving old crap cars I really don't. It's like driving around in a 2017 ST line Focus in 40=50 years time, I mean why???

Just as not all modern cars are as dull as a Focus, not all old cars are as crap as a broken Zephyr.

would rather be in a broken Zephyr than a '17 Fiesta any day of the week!. What a horrendously crap shopping trolley!

At least the Z is interesting, even if rubbish.

It is only interesting as it is old and somehow has survived, it isnt viable transport, its a museum piece, history, lovely and I was possibly conceived in one but have one for a few days and see how you get on,

A Fiesta is a competitive modern small hatch, why is it "horrendously crap" ? is it because it is popular and numerous, or because it doesnt fulfil the role of motor car ? Have you driven one, guarantee its a whole heap more fun than a Zephyr to live with.

Is there a Rose tinted Spectacles group buy going on ?

[J4CKO]

steveL98 said:

In my local area, I can count nine regular drivers of old cars that are 40+ (the cars).

There are a good few more who commute in '80's cars (including me) and I predict that when people are more aware of the rolling 40+ thing with no tax or MOT, demand for cars with historic status (or due to get it) will increase, but not so much for the 'classic' thing, but for the no hassle and cheap way of getting around. Not everyone wants a new car or the financial commitment to own one. My colleague at work here has sold his 2010 Berlingo and bought a '71 MGB GT for regular use and says he wished he'd done this ages ago.



I'll be retiring in a few years, and I'm considering buying a car like an early Golf GTI as they are easily maintained and will be in great demand soon.. £££!!!

They are easily maintained, if not full of rust, had a few and they do eventually succumb, get a good one and pretty usable still, wit a MK1 I would want upgraded brakes. Would love a well sorted 1.8T engined MK1 or 2 myself.

[J4CKO]

steveL98 said:

J4CKO said:

steveL98 said:

In my local area, I can count nine regular drivers of old cars that are 40+ (the cars).

There are a good few more who commute in '80's cars (including me) and I predict that when people are more aware of the rolling 40+ thing with no tax or MOT, demand for cars with historic status (or due to get it) will increase, but not so much for the 'classic' thing, but for the no hassle and cheap way of getting around. Not everyone wants a new car or the financial commitment to own one. My colleague at work here has sold his 2010 Berlingo and bought a '71 MGB GT for regular use and says he wished he'd done this ages ago.



I'll be retiring in a few years, and I'm considering buying a car like an early Golf GTI as they are easily maintained and will be in great demand soon.. £££!!!

They are easily maintained, if not full of rust, had a few and they do eventually succumb, get a good one and pretty usable still, wit a MK1 I would want upgraded brakes. Would love a well sorted 1.8T engined MK1 or 2 myself.

This one was a £4k bargain from a sports car dealer in Fife, with no obvious rust, suspension work (check the -ve camber), racing seats, belts and a roll cage. The motor is stock but a few items may change in time. It was built as a daily/hillclimb/track car but never used in anger.. Its lovely, a real time warp in terms of sound, feel and smell. Even just sitting in it evokes all kinds of memories for me.. This is why we love our classics.

That is a nice one, I like a roadster but the GT looks so right, especially when done like that, last one I saw though was holding up traffic just outside Bath with a nice plume of steam from under the bonnet.

Like the idea of those brand new ones with MX5 engines and stuff, just such a lot of money.