40+ year old cars exempt from MOT?

[warch]

GoodOlBoy said:

warch said:

I've heard quite a few comments deriding the abilities of car owners to maintain their vehicles, which is a bit unfair. I've owned my classic Land Rover since I was 17, it's been in my family since before I was born and I'm pretty handy at maintaining it, with a record of successful MoTs to back this up. I prepare for testing and maintain all four vehicles we own, having had enough of the shortcomings of garage professionals.

You're clearly not the "target" for comments about maintenance ability, but equally you can't attribute your skill to other classic car owners.

If all classic car owners, or all car owners in fact, had your mentality and ability there wouldn't be a need for independent inspections.

Quite clearly this isn't the case, hence the introduction of mandatory annual inspections and the argument against removing them.

Fair enough, but you can still have your vehicle tested if you want. An MoT inspection is in fact quite a cost effective means of working out what problems a car has, the machine they use to test suspension wear is ideal for pinpointing the source of a rattle or knock you can't quite identify for example.

[GoodOlBoy]

warch said:

Fair enough, but you can still have your vehicle tested if you want. An MoT inspection is in fact quite a cost effective means of working out what problems a car has, the machine they use to test suspension wear is ideal for pinpointing the source of a rattle or knock you can't quite identify for example.

Ironically it's probably the people who maintain their cars in good order that will continue to have an MOT

[warch]

GoodOlBoy said:

warch said:

Fair enough, but you can still have your vehicle tested if you want. An MoT inspection is in fact quite a cost effective means of working out what problems a car has, the machine they use to test suspension wear is ideal for pinpointing the source of a rattle or knock you can't quite identify for example.

Ironically it's probably the people who maintain their cars in good order that will continue to have an MOT

True. And there will be people who'll take advantage or take the piss. I've mentioned it before on here but you occasionally come across someone trying to pass off something that's basically a modern Land Rover Defender as a classic Series model.

[HealeyV8]

Interested to see the first post of someone voluntary getting an MOT test or if you have substancial changes so have to on an old classic.
The MOT has been updated from 20th May and "fluid leaks posing an environmental risk" is now on there. Don't know about you guys but I'm always chasing minor oil leaks on my engine. Used to be call british constant under seal because it's so prevalent on old British classics.

[warch]

HealeyV8 said:

The MOT has been updated from 20th May and "fluid leaks posing an environmental risk" is now on there. Don't know about you guys but I'm always chasing minor oil leaks on my engine. Used to be call british constant under seal because it's so prevalent on old British classics.

Too true. I'm a bit worried about my Land Rover, as I'm sure it used to leak a lot more than it does these days, although I did replace the sump gasket and the crankshaft oil seal last year so perhaps that sorted it.

[CAPP0]

warch said:

HealeyV8 said:

The MOT has been updated from 20th May and "fluid leaks posing an environmental risk" is now on there. Don't know about you guys but I'm always chasing minor oil leaks on my engine. Used to be call british constant under seal because it's so prevalent on old British classics.

Too true. I'm a bit worried about my Land Rover, as I'm sure it used to leak a lot more than it does these days, although I did replace the sump gasket and the crankshaft oil seal last year so perhaps that sorted it.

I've got a non-exempt (for another 8 years) Defender, and as for leaks, "they all do that, sir". Am I going to be failed for minor weepage? I guess the answer is a good clean-down prior to the test.

[aeropilot]

HealeyV8 said:

Interested to see the first post of someone voluntary getting an MOT test or if you have substancial changes so have to on an old classic.
The MOT has been updated from 20th May and "fluid leaks posing an environmental risk" is now on there. Don't know about you guys but I'm always chasing minor oil leaks on my engine. Used to be call british constant under seal because it's so prevalent on old British classics.

Hmmmmm........ that could be interesting.......

It used to be with old British cars and motorbikes, that if its not leaking, it's because its got no oil left in it.........

[TooMany2cvs]

HealeyV8 said:

Interested to see the first post of someone voluntary getting an MOT test or if you have substancial changes so have to on an old classic.
The MOT has been updated from 20th May and "fluid leaks posing an environmental risk" is now on there. Don't know about you guys but I'm always chasing minor oil leaks on my engine. Used to be call british constant under seal because it's so prevalent on old British classics.

And the fail criteria is a 75mm diameter pool in 5 minutes.

If you're even remotely close to that, the ticket is the LEAST of your issues.

[CAPP0]

TooMany2cvs said:

HealeyV8 said:

Interested to see the first post of someone voluntary getting an MOT test or if you have substancial changes so have to on an old classic.
The MOT has been updated from 20th May and "fluid leaks posing an environmental risk" is now on there. Don't know about you guys but I'm always chasing minor oil leaks on my engine. Used to be call british constant under seal because it's so prevalent on old British classics.

And the fail criteria is a 75mm diameter pool in 5 minutes.

If you're even remotely close to that, the ticket is the LEAST of your issues.

Answers my question then, if that's correct?

[TooMany2cvs]

CAPP0 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

HealeyV8 said:

Interested to see the first post of someone voluntary getting an MOT test or if you have substancial changes so have to on an old classic.
The MOT has been updated from 20th May and "fluid leaks posing an environmental risk" is now on there. Don't know about you guys but I'm always chasing minor oil leaks on my engine. Used to be call british constant under seal because it's so prevalent on old British classics.

And the fail criteria is a 75mm diameter pool in 5 minutes.

If you're even remotely close to that, the ticket is the LEAST of your issues.

Answers my question then, if that's correct?

https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/m...

[LordBretSinclair]

warch said:

If you have an accident because your car isn't fit for the road you're insurance won't pay out. I imagine insurance companies will be looking at incidents involving MoT exempt vehicles very very closely to see if they can avoid having to pay out.

Pure unsubstantiated guesswork on your part - worthy of your favourite paper The Daily Mail.

Were's the evidence it happened with pre 60s vehicles involved in collisions ????

[vpr]

I'm good with spanners and always look after my old cars but come MOT I'm under it with the examiner and invariably there's something that needs sorting.

[warch]

LordBretSinclair said:

warch said:

If you have an accident because your car isn't fit for the road you're insurance won't pay out. I imagine insurance companies will be looking at incidents involving MoT exempt vehicles very very closely to see if they can avoid having to pay out.

Pure unsubstantiated guesswork on your part - worthy of your favourite paper The Daily Mail.

Were's the evidence it happened with pre 60s vehicles involved in collisions ????

Aah the Friday afternoon troll!

[lowdrag]

warch said:

Aah the Friday afternoon troll!

I think many of will take that comment as a personal insult. LordBrett has been around for years and has contributed hugely to many posts on this site. When he makes a comment it is invariably well thought out, and his reply is exactly the same as I have posted. All this hyperbole (look it up) about people driving unfit cars is so far from the truth that it is laughable. People who have cars over forty years old care about their cars. We are not your usual thugs driving stolen vehicles. We own them because we love and cherish them. I published this photo on another site today:-



The problem was found one month or so after the car was given a clean bill of health at its MOT. I've owned the car over thirty years, am on the fourth ring binder of bills for the maintenance of this car (and another today by the way) yet I was driving a dangerous car and didn't know it. And nor did the MOT examiner either.

When the pre-1960 rule came out, there was very little said here. Now that the law has changed to 1978, people are getting on their soap boxes. For good or for bad, that is now the law. Get used to it. Your ranting wont change it.

[InitialDave]

warch said:

LordBretSinclair said:

warch said:

If you have an accident because your car isn't fit for the road you're insurance won't pay out. I imagine insurance companies will be looking at incidents involving MoT exempt vehicles very very closely to see if they can avoid having to pay out.

Pure unsubstantiated guesswork on your part - worthy of your favourite paper The Daily Mail.

Were's the evidence it happened with pre 60s vehicles involved in collisions ????

Aah the Friday afternoon troll!

Cite an example of an insurance company not paying out where a vehicle was not in roadworthy condition.

[BertBert]

I thought the idea was to make the mot ever more stringent. You can't do that easily if you have to build in more and more exemptions for old cars. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Bert

[TooMany2cvs]

BertBert said:

I thought the idea was to make the mot ever more stringent. You can't do that easily if you have to build in more and more exemptions for old cars.

Of course you can.

The MOT has long been full of "check this if first reg after x/x/xx, don't check if before".

Here's a fine example:
Front fog lights - testable post 1/3/2018 (new in recent changes)
Rear fog lights - testable post 1/4/1980 (longstanding)
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/m...

Emissions vary massively on reg date, too. So do brakes.

[InitialDave]

It does make for an ever more complex maze of requirements, though. I expect most classic owners have had to have "no, that's actually fine because XYZ" conversations with a tester, even under previous rules.

[rambo19]

Many pre 1978 cars will barely manage 30mpg even at 40mph

Please tell me which ones.

[GoodOlBoy]

Periodical inspections by an independent qualified person are an everyday part of modern life, not just in motoring, in everything from Catering to Heavy Industry. They've developed for a reason.

The reason being that owners/operators can't be relied upon to maintain the necessary standards. Perhaps we should exempt pre-1970's passenger lifts from annual inspection, or even pre-1970's aircraft. After all they're owned by enthusiasts.

I'd agree that in the case of classic cars, the numbers, and hence the risks are relatively small, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

I'm heartened that many of the people who will benefit from this legislation have the common sense to argue against it.

Classic cars fail the MOT just as regularly as modern cars which somewhat undermines the theory that all classic cars are lovingly maintained by saintly owners, while the rest of us are the " usual thugs driving stolen vehicles." (that's hyperbole - I looked it up)