Government MOT exempt discussion forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there is a growing pressure to have mandatory tests and all road going vehicles. however as we still under EU directives ( hence MOT's being dropped) and for for seeable future. we may need to look to insurance companies to simply offer a 2 tier system .aside from noting any unroadworthy car may in any case make insurance invalid.. an annual check on basics .brakes . wire function. lights.horn. and suspension.steering and body structure would be good for road safety. ( not taking my granddaughter out in any car with no MOT!)
agree that some modifications especially for safety .eg modern tyres . brakes . ( possibly emissions) ought not necessarily change class of vehicle . some parts will and are becoming rare if not impossible to source.
though my own classic car spends very little time on road ( under a 100o miles a year at moment) .never goes out in rain.snow or storms etc and soaks up huge amount of time and money ( wife is considering using flame thrower on it soon) it is still a 40 year old piece of machinery and needs to be driven carefully.( I assume mine is made of glass and everybody on road -aside marked traffic police car- is a complete idiot and will try and ram me at some stage or simply fail to notice I am on road .
can see there are several argument each way. data for old cars incidents per miles versus modern etc . however. if we could arrange maybe with local garages ? insurance companies ? etc for classic -historic tester certification. thus aware things such as windscreen wipers on curved windows will NOT give 100% wipe action on a scree. common sense and ability of tester to assess state of a vehicle .wiring . corrosion.leaks etc can hopefully have a cheaper MOT test ? though whom can really argue with say under a pound a week to have a yearly check carried out.
I do enjoy all forms of cars. as do I think vast majority .not only owners . custom cars. hot rods. american. vintage . historic and classic .all have own appeal. would be surprised if our government still ignore MOT tests when we leave EU . however it cab create way round it but with current EU so anti UK unlikely will get hands untied soon.
possible other ways can be found by car clubs? listing members with without MOT . giving stickers for screen out replacing old license disc with a sort pf copy but saying licenced for road use by ..name of club' so we can see whom has not MOT . thus social pressures can be applied too. my car for example has brake fluid on top of rear axle .normally instant fail . as assumed leak..however tester saw car .its condition .master cylinder full. so simply asked question before issuing an MOT. had i work don brake system.( he didn't mention leak) I said yes have bled brakes though rear was a bugger as on top of diff. he then asked d when dod i do that? i said yesterday as that was true .then I asked if there was a problem fearing brakes not up to scratch. he laughed .said we wondered about the fluid on top of diff casing. but with a full reservoir and many application of pedal .we were unable to get any more fluid or find a leak. seems i has simply not mopped that area. so great testing guys. just imagine if i had a leak ..say not tightened billed valve fully?
having a really heavy car and suddenly finding no brakes ? heart stopping moments and potential life stopping too. diatribe over .have a nice day all
 
I can see points in favour of both arguments. Yes, it would seem sensible that complex machinery with many safety critical systems and capable of high speeds would benefit from safety testing, perhaps especially our kind of (relatively) ancient machinery, if only to have another eye go over points a caring owner may have missed - everyone makes mistakes after all. However, as has been pointed out, the American states that don’t have testing don’t, as far as I know, have many more accidents due to mechanical failures. There was also a recent very tragic case in which a p6 de dion elbow failed, causing loss of life, involving a car with a valid mot. On an older car then, I would suggest that regular owner inspections should be done, whether a car has an mot or not. I certainly intend to present Ulrich for an mot each year, but to supplement this with careful inspections of my own.
 
I might be missing something but my understanding was that the current MOT is due to be changed and will be a lot stricter to cover modern vehicles and all their safety equipment so if this is the case it will be impossible for older cars to pass the new MOT even if you decide to take it in for MOT when exempt.
This means you now have a car thats failed an MOT which it will never be able to pass I think we do need a yearly check for roadworthiness for older vehicles for safety, and insurance companies will want something so they can asses values in case of a claim I have heard of someone with a pre 1960 motorcycle being stolen and the insurance company only willing to pay out a fraction of the true value as they said that they had no way of telling the true condition and roadworthiness without a current MOT
So we need a MOT/roadworthiness certificate /or whatever the powers to be call it for older vehicles and a completely separate system to the current and any new MOT.
This would be for peace of mind that your car is in a safe condition and to pick up on anything that might need attention soon and to stop insurance companies from having any argument regarding value if the worst should happen
 
roy willson said:
I might be missing something but my understanding was that the current MOT is due to be changed and will be a lot stricter to cover modern vehicles and all their safety equipment so if this is the case it will be impossible for older cars to pass the new MOT even if you decide to take it in for MOT when exempt.
Click to expand...

That's not going to happen.
 
I really don't have a dog in this fight, but, in California, known everywhere as the "Nanny" state, we have no inspections of any kind at any time regardless of the condition of the vehicle. Regular car insurance companies will often request you stop by their office so they can look over the car, if used, and will check lights, wipers etc. Having said that, we experience few accidents with older cars and we have some real toilets running around. The weather may play a role in this because without serious rust issues, the cars are not so bad even when not cared for. I did, however, appreciate the MOT certificates that came with my Rover, somewhat reassuring.
 
I think its not too bad a job. If you fall foul of anything just MOT the car ( at the moment). I will MOT all my cars anyway regardless.
Luckily My Cobra replica hails from 1987 so that falls into the category of a genuine VHI.
My works to the Rover have been carried out to comply with the 8 point rule, and comply with this anyway.
A jag diff is probably going to be acceptable as it is not altered suspension or steering.
 
A jag diff can also be period correct, and with a different ratio could be argued as more efficient.
A ZF box should be seen as more efficient in their terminology.
A larger engine of the same type is absolutely fine.

The modified within 30 year rule is rolling so cars modified now will eventually gain historic status again as I read it.
+1 to MoT our cars anyway, especially if modified in my opinion. It's nice to have your hard work validated too, for peace of mind and extra confidence in driving it.

Jim
 
At present, I only get to 9 points; 5 for the base unit, 2 for steering and 2 for axles. I may be able to argue about the uprated anti roll bar, but how far I would get is anyone's guess. Fitting the jag diff, does worry me a little as I will arguably only have 7 points :oops:

With this new system, if it goes ahead, the "Type and method of suspension," is the same, just uprated to make it work better. Engine is still a Rover V8, and 5 speed gearbox and jag diff will certainly make it more efficent, and safer (LSD). Also, I did fit an LT77 back in the 80's so it could be argued that it was a period upgrade. Lets hope they don't mess it up now :)

Where's me welder :cool:

Richard
 
Richard, you are counting too many fingers, you only need 8 points to comply with an 8 point rule :D

PS Their category axles and running gear refers to steering and suspension, it does not mention final drive.
 
Last edited:
The rules seems incredibly generous to me nearly anything worth doing can be argued as improving safety or emissions. For example that would include EFi conversions and anything offering higher gearing (reduced fuel consumption). Larger engines of the same type etc already covered.
 
cobraboy said:
Richard, you are counting too many fingers, you only need 8 points to comply with an 8 point rule :D

PS Their category axles and running gear refers to steering and suspension, it does not mention final drive.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I have to disagree CB, the present system states that these parts of the vehicle must be original. Mine at the moment only has the base unit, axles and steering, i.e. 9 points. If I put the jag diff in, then the rear axle is no longer "original," and I am down to 7 points. This may very well be open to interpretation, but I wouldn't like to test it :) The new system seems to allow changes, and all of my mods are covered, including adding a higher ratio, Limited Slip Diff.

Richard

Part Points
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) 5
Suspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1
 
quattro said:
Hmm.. I have to disagree CB, the present system states that these parts of the vehicle must be original. Mine at the moment only has the base unit, axles and steering, i.e. 9 points. If I put the jag diff in, then the rear axle is no longer "original," and I am down to 7 points. This may very well be open to interpretation, but I wouldn't like to test it :) The new system seems to allow changes, and all of my mods are covered, including adding a higher ratio, Limited Slip Diff.

Richard

Part Points
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer) 5
Suspension (front and back) - original 2
Axles (both) - original 2
Transmission - original 2
Steering assembly - original 2
Engine - original 1
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but by introducing the 8 point rule into the conversation we are really mixing two sets of legislation. The 8 point rule is for registration purposes and is different from the new MOT exemption rules.
Like you I want to try to comply with both, but TBH I don't foresee any probs with either. The main thing with any changes is to have documentary evidence that your insurance company has received and accepted notification of any modifications. Providing you have this and MOT the car I believe you will have made every effort to be correct.
 
cobraboy said:
I see what you are saying, but by introducing the 8 point rule into the conversation we are really mixing two sets of legislation.
Click to expand...

Aha, I had somehow got the impression that the new system was actually replacing the old 8 point system :oops:
 
What about the 15% increase of power to ratio......if you change the engine that increases the power to weight ratio 15%more than standard, your vehicle doesn't fall into the mot exemption. Also any major modification after 1988 including engine will exempt it too. I'm trying to copy and paste downloaded document to site but it's a bit difficult. But it's on dvla website. This is separate to the points system. This does not roll on so if you have modified your vehicle with post 1988 parts that increas power to weight ratio to 15% or more it will never be mot exempt... ever.....
 
Leigh said:
What about the 15% increase of power to ratio......if you change the engine that increases the power to weight ratio 15%more than standard, your vehicle doesn't fall into the mot exemption. Also any major modification after 1988 including engine will exempt it too. I'm trying to copy and paste downloaded document to site but it's a bit difficult. But it's on dvla website. This is separate to the points system. This does not roll on so if you have modified your vehicle with post 1988 parts that increas power to weight ratio to 15% or more it will never be mot exempt... ever.....
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • vehicles-of-historical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf
    241.7 KB · Views: 14
If you read it all, it says that those power increases are exempt if it increases the efficiency. So if you can prove that a blown 4.6 is more efficient than burning fuel than the standard 3.5... :) (it was certainly more efficient than the 3.5 without the blower). Just a thought :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top