40+ year old cars exempt from MOT?

[anonymous-user]

lowdrag said:

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.

What a completely bizarre post.

Arse licking, then making ridiculous and naive claims that all classic owners are caring, loving and all pink and fluffy in your Dingly Dell world so their cars are bound to be ultra well maintained, then giving an example to reinforce - but being an appallingly dangerous defect in an old car it actually contradicts your point and proves that MOT’s are important if not essential !

You have missed the point completely that you’ve shown a photo of a serious problem with an old car but have tried to use it as an argument against MOT’s

Wierd

Edited by V6Pushfit on Friday 25th May 22:19

[lowdrag]

Again, as well as your spelling, I find your tone insulting. My point was that the car was already dangerous when the MOT was carried out yet it passed with no advisory. So in this case what use was the MOT?

[b2hbm]

GoodOlBoy said:

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)

I agree with your points about periodical inspections in industry and why they were developed; because if they weren't there someone would cut maintenance back in an attempt to improve their bottom line until something blew up. No arguments there, we're in complete agreement.

But.... classic cars are generally in a different ballpark. Investors aside, no-one I know drives a classic car because they're trying to save money and most admit they have a money pit in the garage. If you want cheap motoring then you buy a modern car, not a 1970s toy. So the logic about reluctance to spend money to maintain a hobby doesn't ring true to me.

Finally I'm not sure about your last point that classics fail as regularly as moderns. I thought the basis for the current legislation was that they'd looked at the records and found that classics generally had a far better MoT record than more modern cars. Anyway, your comment prompted me to look up the latest stats on the MoT, and they make interesting reading. Here's the link for anyone interested.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Overall failure rate of 35% with the biggest single category as lighting. You could ask yourself why 18% of owners put their car in for test with a lamp out when you only have to walk around the car to check them all. I'd suspect that's more a sign of a modern car driver than an enthusiast, but we could debate that forever because I've no data to back it up.

[anonymous-user]

lowdrag said:

Again, as well as your spelling, I find your tone insulting. My point was that the car was already dangerous when the MOT was carried out yet it passed with no advisory. So in this case what use was the MOT?

No. In fact you have proved the opposite: there can be significant and potentially fatal defects in old cars, so putting them through an MOT - where there is a good chance that they will be spotted and sorted - is vital.

I have three reasons to be smug about the over 40 exemption and actively maintain the cars, but I’m not smug as I know many people that will now just get in and drive year in year out until something goes wrong.

Look at the failures or advisories on an MOT - they are for SAFETY reasons. Would you or every other owner be able pick them up routinely and deal with them? Or at best, even if you spotted something, think oh I’ll get round to it one day.

[gothatway]

b2hbm said:

But.... classic cars are generally in a different ballpark. Investors aside, no-one I know drives a classic car because they're trying to save money and most admit they have a money pit in the garage. If you want cheap motoring then you buy a modern car, not a 1970s toy. So the logic about reluctance to spend money to maintain a hobby doesn't ring true to me.

I have always taken that view myself, but a short while ago there was a thread over in the Classic Cars section of PH about someone who had inherited a classic (MGB I think), which stopped running after she had filled it with modern fuel. She knew that the previous owner had been diligent about putting an additive (presumably lead) in with every fill-up and was convinced that she must have blown the engine up as a result of failing to use the additive on this single occasion - I'm not sure that she could be convinced otherwise; hopefully she took the advice to get in touch with a local MG club - at last she had the good sense to seek advice on PH.
So here is someone with no mechanical knowledge, driving around in a fun, easy-to-drive, good looking car (assuming it doesn't have rubber bumpers ) which will now be MoT-exempt. "Those clunks and rattles are just part of owning a classic".

[warch]

rambo19 said:

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

Please tell me which ones.

Not just the big stuff, even my two Mini 1000s only did 30-35mpg. My 1275 was really poor although that was mostly down to the metro diff lowering the gearing.

My petrol land rover will do 20 to the gallon which is pretty good compared to its modern equivalent.

[vpr]

V6Pushfit said:

lowdrag said:

Again, as well as your spelling, I find your tone insulting. My point was that the car was already dangerous when the MOT was carried out yet it passed with no advisory. So in this case what use was the MOT?

No. In fact you have proved the opposite: there can be significant and potentially fatal defects in old cars, so putting them through an MOT - where there is a good chance that they will be spotted and sorted - is vital.

I have three reasons to be smug about the over 40 exemption and actively maintain the cars, but I’m not smug as I know many people that will now just get in and drive year in year out until something goes wrong.

Look at the failures or advisories on an MOT - they are for SAFETY reasons. Would you or every other owner be able pick them up routinely and deal with them? Or at best, even if you spotted something, think oh I’ll get round to it one day.

Totally agree

When I'm looking to buy an old classic I look up the old MOT's and they give so much insight into the cars='s condition and often saves me from a long wasted journey to view the car.

No more it would seem

Only yesterday a fella on a forum stated that his car had been off the road for 25 years and now he's able to jump in it and drive

[lowdrag]

I'm sorry but I do not understand the criticism. I put my car through an MOT and it passed, but in reality, unknown to me and the MOT inspector (who has carried out the MOT on my car for ten years) it wasn't fit for purpose and should have failed. Where am I at fault? And where was he at fault? We had no idea. Everything worked as it should, but very soon would not have. All this goes to prove, as I have said before, is that an MOT is only valid on the day it is issued - not before, and not later. So, since classic cars pre-1960 are already exempt where is the problem with bringing things forward? They are still classics, they don't get used much (ask Footman James - most are insured for a maximum of 1,500 per annum and most don't get near it) and so nothing has changed. Except that for some reason people are now saying this new regulation makes classic cars dangerous. I refute that.

[anonymous-user]

lowdrag said:

I'm sorry but I do not understand the criticism. I put my car through an MOT and it passed, but in reality, unknown to me and the MOT inspector (who has carried out the MOT on my car for ten years) it wasn't fit for purpose and should have failed. Where am I at fault? And where was he at fault? We had no idea. Everything worked as it should, but very soon would not have. All this goes to prove, as I have said before, is that an MOT is only valid on the day it is issued - not before, and not later. So, since classic cars pre-1960 are already exempt where is the problem with bringing things forward? They are still classics, they don't get used much (ask Footman James - most are insured for a maximum of 1,500 per annum and most don't get near it) and so nothing has changed. Except that for some reason people are now saying this new regulation makes classic cars dangerous. I refute that.

You have a huge contradiction in your post and have wrongly extrapolated your information to come up with a tangent of a point that just doesn’t fit.

So it would be good for health to never have a doctors check up because you once had a stomach ulcer you didn’t know about and wasn’t detected when you last went there?

As I said, it’s weird

Edited by V6Pushfit on Sunday 27th May 02:46

[Gary C]

lowdrag said:

I'm sorry but I do not understand the criticism. I put my car through an MOT and it passed, but in reality, unknown to me and the MOT inspector (who has carried out the MOT on my car for ten years) it wasn't fit for purpose and should have failed. Where am I at fault? And where was he at fault? We had no idea. Everything worked as it should, but very soon would not have. All this goes to prove, as I have said before, is that an MOT is only valid on the day it is issued - not before, and not later. So, since classic cars pre-1960 are already exempt where is the problem with bringing things forward? They are still classics, they don't get used much (ask Footman James - most are insured for a maximum of 1,500 per annum and most don't get near it) and so nothing has changed. Except that for some reason people are now saying this new regulation makes classic cars dangerous. I refute that.

I think your post seems to argue that the mot is not tough enough for old cars rather than not needed.

you could argue that, actually 40+ cars should have mandatory crack testing or replacement of key components.

But I can see the point that testers are not competent to test older cars, but surely that means better testing, rather than give up.

[b2hbm]

gothatway said:

b2hbm said:

stuff

I have always taken that view myself, but a short while ago there was a thread over in the Classic Cars section of PH about someone who had inherited a classic (MGB I think), which stopped running after she had filled it with modern fuel. She knew that the previous owner had been diligent about putting an additive (presumably lead) in with every fill-up and was convinced that she must have blown the engine up as a result of failing to use the additive on this single occasion - I'm not sure that she could be convinced otherwise; hopefully she took the advice to get in touch with a local MG club - at last she had the good sense to seek advice on PH.
So here is someone with no mechanical knowledge, driving around in a fun, easy-to-drive, good looking car (assuming it doesn't have rubber bumpers ) which will now be MoT-exempt. "Those clunks and rattles are just part of owning a classic".

I get the message that there will be people driving classic cars who don't understand or care what goes on under the bonnet. Equally there are people driving modern cars who don't understand how they work but do nothing at all because "modern cars don't break down". There's probably an even bigger number driving 10-30yr old cars on breakdown maintenance alone and who look at the MoT as 12 months with nothing else to do.

The lass in your example could equally have inherited a 2yr old Lotus with leaking dampers and a broken spring, but because it's only 2yrs old there's no MoT needed. "They all do that sir (madam)"......

That may sound ridiculous but our Elise had a complete suspension rebuild at under 2 years and 10k because of those very problems. Bought new, no track days, driven carefully (by an old man) but these things still happen.

All that waffle says is that drivers are responsible for their cars, not an MoT station once a year. To V6Pushfit & Gary C, I think this is the message that Lowdrag is trying to get across with his example of a worn axle. With older cars you need to look after them on a regular basis (if you want them to work that is ) and not rely on an annual check that the car is safe to drive for 12 months.

[anonymous-user]

b2hbm said:

All that waffle says is that drivers are responsible for their cars, not an MoT station once a year. To V6Pushfit & Gary C, I think this is the message that Lowdrag is trying to get across with his example of a worn axle. With older cars you need to look after them on a regular basis (if you want them to work that is ) and not rely on an annual check that the car is safe to drive for 12 months.

Bang on and people’s mindset will have to be on regular maintenance. The issues will be when that just doesn’t happen or a car comes from long term storage and was ‘alright when it drove in’.
There’s also the issue of cars that failed the last MOT and were put away for that reason, maybe for many years - a few clicks now and they are back on the road.
There are so many scenarios that can be cited like this.

It just seems incredible to me that (as a minimum) having a current MOT is not a prerequisite to going onto age related MOT-less status. That would at least pick up the prior failures, barn finds and basket cases!

[Gary C]

An mot was never claimed to be a certificate of perfectness, but a back stop to take seriously unroadworthy cars off it. And cars tend to have more faults as they get older. But, shock horror, a two year old car has serious faults ! Maybe that's an argument to tes cars from new, not stop at 40.

My 30 year old car has an mot every year, and has picked up swelling brake pipes that I had missed.

The understandable justification only seems to be that testers can't test old cars ?, putting the onus on owners is a bit flawed and we humans tend to put things off whereas having an mot due tends to focus the mind on getting it sorted

At the end of the day though, the number of 40 year old cars is small and it will have little impact.

Won't make much difference to me, my car has had a service and Porsche for the last 30 years and will continue to do so with the mot thrown in.

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 27th May 09:47

[eccles]

V6Pushfit said:

b2hbm said:

All that waffle says is that drivers are responsible for their cars, not an MoT station once a year. To V6Pushfit & Gary C, I think this is the message that Lowdrag is trying to get across with his example of a worn axle. With older cars you need to look after them on a regular basis (if you want them to work that is ) and not rely on an annual check that the car is safe to drive for 12 months.

Bang on and people’s mindset will have to be on regular maintenance. The issues will be when that just doesn’t happen or a car comes from long term storage and was ‘alright when it drove in’.
There’s also the issue of cars that failed the last MOT and were put away for that reason, maybe for many years - a few clicks now and they are back on the road.
There are so many scenarios that can be cited like this.

It just seems incredible to me that (as a minimum) having a current MOT is not a prerequisite to going onto age related MOT-less status. That would at least pick up the prior failures, barn finds and basket cases!

For a lot of people regular maintenance is just the oily bits, the good thing about an annual test like the MOT is that it checks things like seat belt anchorages or where your suspension mounts, things that don't get checked regularly, or not fall into the remit of regular maintenance.

[CAPP0]

Just done another one. Taxed another bike (already f.o.c) about a month ago, but the MOT expired this month. Cancelled the tax onto SORN at the start of last week, just went back on and re-taxed and hey presto, no MOT and got the set-declaration page again.

Still not sure what will happen about the one I posted a few pages back, that was UK registered last year but is a 1976 bike. We'll see; not due until July.

[GoodOlBoy]

b2hbm said:

I agree with your points about periodical inspections in industry and why they were developed; because if they weren't there someone would cut maintenance back in an attempt to improve their bottom line until something blew up. No arguments there, we're in complete agreement.

But.... classic cars are generally in a different ballpark. Investors aside, no-one I know drives a classic car because they're trying to save money and most admit they have a money pit in the garage. If you want cheap motoring then you buy a modern car, not a 1970s toy. So the logic about reluctance to spend money to maintain a hobby doesn't ring true to me.

Independent inspections are not only about preventing cost-cutting by owners/operators, although this does take place of course. They have been established by experience and expertise to produce an independent set of minimum (safety) criteria that are to be universally applied and hence able to be audited. The ISO range of standards would be perhaps the best known to most people. The MOT has developed exactly on these lines. The annual MOT being the audit equivalent.

Many, if not all, owners lack either the knowledge, expertise, facilities or equipment to carry out their own inspections, and that's before we get into the subject of spending money.

I don't know anyone who buys a classic car to save money. I do know of many owners who try to save money after they've bought it ! Go to any large classic car gathering and I'll show you dozens of examples.

Let's see how many of the 120,00 plus classic car MOT failures last year, voluntarily submit their cars next year. I'm guessing not many.

[mph]

vpr said:

Totally agree

When I'm looking to buy an old classic I look up the old MOT's and they give so much insight into the cars='s condition and often saves me from a long wasted journey to view the car.

No more it would seem

Only yesterday a fella on a forum stated that his car had been off the road for 25 years and now he's able to jump in it and drive

I agree, being able to view the MOT history on the DVLA website was very useful. I assume, like me, you've lost count of the number of over-described classics that turn out to have repeatedly failed the MOT, often on some quite serious issues.

The other argument levelled is that the MOT testers are incompetent and hence the MOT is a waste of time. Given that these incompetent testers manage to identify several hundred thousand defects on classic cars every year, imagine what would happen if they were competent.

It's rather like saying my doctor gave an incorrect diagnosis so let's ban doctors.

[anonymous-user]

mph said:

It's rather like saying my doctor gave an incorrect diagnosis so let's ban doctors.

My very sentiments earlier - to the photo of the worn shaft and odd opinion resulting.

[Gary C]

V6Pushfit said:

mph said:

It's rather like saying my doctor gave an incorrect diagnosis so let's ban doctors.

My very sentiments earlier - to the photo of the worn shaft and odd opinion resulting.

It's a good analogy but maybe better would be

Your over 70 and I don't know about old peoples problems so let's not bother eh?

[anonymous-user]

Gary C said:

It's a good analogy but maybe better would be

Your over 70 and I don't know about old peoples problems so let's not bother eh?

Over 40 yes!
Being able to look up the MOT history on cars for sale will also be a thing of the past so sellers can hide issues and play ignorant.
All in all it’s s bit of a cock up whichever way you look at it. As I have said I theoretically benefit from not having to put 3 cars through the test but is it all good for the hobby/interest/sector? - no way!
A great shame the government went against the good advice of the lobbying parties and enabled this - all towards drone MOT Inspectors.

Be good to have an MOT inspector give their view on here....