1959 LandRover VIN tags quadruple in value

[John F]

I'm glad that this has been introduced, mainly because I'm sick of intrusive legislation chipping steadily away at our freedoms. If anything, it doesn't go far enough.

 

And please don't keep harking on about the OMG KODGER KAOS APOKALIPS that's going to happen, because it just isn't. It's just scaremongering based on worst-case scenarios, and this 'glass half empty' attitude is the reason that we've been saddled with so much health & safety nonsense in recent years. I don't *want* to live in a safe country, if it means I've got to constantly walk around in the equivalent of a hard hat & hi-vis jacket.

 

I agree re. the value of pre-1960 cars / VIN plates though. But surely that's the point? People don't WANT to have bureaucracy foisted upon them and are prepared to pay a premium to avoid it?

[Cavcraft]

You can bet your bottom Dixie that MOT exempt cars will rocket in price.

[messerschmitt owner]

me too - bubble car rat look for me!!!!

[messerschmitt owner]

You can bet your bottom Dixie that MOT exempt cars will rocket in price.

you may or may not have noticed but classic cars have already been going up in price faster than a Soyuz rocket!

 

Lots of stuff from the 50s and 60s that used to be reasonably priced is now unaffordable to the masses.

 

'name' makes such as Astons, Porsches, Jaguar, Mercedes, most bubblecars, all sports cars, Land Rover Series 1s, classic commercials, and so on have all reached stratospheric prices recently.

[SambaS]

It's a bloody great idea! I think free TAX no MOT and extremely cheap insurance AND a nice old classic sounds like happy motoring to me

[SambaS]

What's this car?

Bet there are a few hard on's over at retro rides as rat look will go to a whole new level on vehicles that age.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Scrap today but come november with a wash and a years free tax they will be allover Ebay like a cheap coat

[DSdriver]

Daimler 2.5 Consort?

[dollywobbler]

Do you mean Conquest DS Driver? That was my first guess but it might be one of the super-rare larger Daimlers. Regency was one of them.

 

While classics generally have gone up in price, especially really, really good examples, I don't think the entire market is rising. There's more love for the unloved - people paying more than £700 for a DAF seemed a joke only a few years ago - but there are still cheap classics out there.

[Lankytim]

"Pathetic scaremongering"? LOL! A duff bearing can cause a weel to come off some cars, can it not? Some people are incapable of maintaining a car of any age and an annual MOT is sometimes the only way that such defects come to light. It's not a dig at older classics, just a dig at the cars that will be driving around, year after year with little or no effort put into keeping them safe. An MOT isn't pointless bureaucracy, its a vital part of keeping people safe on the roads.

[messerschmitt owner]

"Pathetic scaremongering"? LOL! A duff bearing can cause a weel to come off some cars, can it not? Some people are incapable of maintaining a car of any age and an annual MOT is sometimes the only way that such defects come to light. It's not a dig at older classics, just a dig at the cars that will be driving around, year after year with little or no effort put into keeping them safe. An MOT isn't pointless bureaucracy, its a vital part of keeping people safe on the roads.

you're preaching to the converted! However, I'll do without an MoT on my pre 60 classics - none of which are complicated, and which I am more than capable of maintaining in roadworthy condition.

 

There will always be those who will not maintain their car, even an old one, but I carry my child in mine, which is a good reason for decent maintenance.

 

I also doubt there is anything on my bubblecars that could not be picked up by the average chap. Most proper old car owners know their vehicles intimitely and will likely notice problems. An MoT is only worth the paper it is printed on on the day of the MoT, not even the day after, or at the end of the year. Most proper classics (as opposed to old bangers) do little mileage (certainly sub-2000 miles), aren't driven in anger and are generally very well looked after.

 

I'm still looking for a class III MoT inspector who even knows what a Tapley meter is - tell me when you find one in my locality!

[dollywobbler]

You are to be applauded for your efforts but I worry that everyone else will just be more like me. How often do I attend to stuff only because I know an MOT is looming? It's easy to just say "I'll sort that out in a bit" and somehow never get around to it. If there were enough Police to actually pull over unsafe looking cars and unleash legal hell then it'd be fair enough, but of course they've got to face cutbacks as well.

 

Anyway, if you feel really strongly that it's a bad idea, Classic & Sports Car launched this E-petition a couple of hours ago. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34242

[trigger]

I wonder if there would be as much anger if they had chosen say, 1950 as the cut of year instead of 1960, Greg Knight who pushed this motion though is seen photographed in a 1914 Rolls Royce which would be more understandable if it was MOT free but there's still too many 1950-60 cars on the road which aren't in a fit state.

 

http://www.gregknight.com/hvg3.php

 

And just to give you an idea, these are just a few pre 1960 cars I've seen about.

 

1959 Humber Hawk by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1959 Austin A35 by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1955 Morris Minor by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1959 Rover 110 Pick Up with 1.8 Diesel Engine by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1958 Austin A35 by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1958 Riley One-Point-Five by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1957 Land Rover Pick Up in St. Agnes by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1956 MG Magnette Pick Up by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1955 CADILLAC 62 sedan by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1955 Austin A30 in Ipswich by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

1954 Standard Ten by Trigger's Retro Road Tests!, on Flickr

 

And these are the one's WITH a mot!

[dollywobbler]

I've been having the same thoughts myself Trig. Pre-war cars, especially Veterans, are generally much slower and much less of a risk. By the mid-1950s you'd got a lot of cars capable of motorway speeds and some ferociously complicated ones, like the Citroen DS.

[alf892]

fook me Trig............you can tell whether it is roadweorthy or not from a photo..........that is some skill!!

 

If i send you some pics can you send me some cesstificuts?

 

oh.........I can't see all of the pics

[scruff]

That Standard 10 is great

[Ian Nexus]

There is no yearly MOT here in Mississippi, just a yearly "inspection" that just checks lights and any glaringly obvious defects (as it only costs $5!) it results in a sticker that is paced in the bottom left of the windscreen. It doesn't seem to have caused any motoring chaos here, people at least have an excuse for not using indicators, my neighbor doesn't have any on the front but a valid inspection sticker!.

Untill 2001 insurance was not compulsory either, and seat belt wearing became a legal requirement recently too....its a bit like a 1960s timewarp here.

[Cavcraft]

Thinking about it now I'd be even happier with this arrangement if they make all recovery trucks have an anual or bi-anual MOT. That'd nicely kill of 70% of the chancing bottyrockets advertising shagged out Transits etc on eBay.

[gtd2000]

There is no yearly MOT here in Mississippi, just a yearly "inspection" that just checks lights and any glaringly obvious defects (as it only costs $5!) it results in a sticker that is paced in the bottom left of the windscreen. It doesn't seem to have caused any motoring chaos here, people at least have an excuse for not using indicators, my neighbor doesn't have any on the front but a valid inspection sticker!

 

That's my point too, no inspection at all in Florida or Hong Kong either and I've yet to see an accident involving some old and shitty looking vehicle.

 

Yes, I see lots of accidents involving modern vehicles but suspect that this is usually due to the inept abilities of the driver...rather than mechanical or structural failure.

[trigger]

fook me Trig............you can tell whether it is roadweorthy or not from a photo..........that is some skill!!

 

I didn't say roadworthy, but they had to have a mot as i saw them at shows or on the road.

 

My point being that these are tatty but usable daily cars, not show winning trailer queens which are less like to have problems, Cars that I've listed above as examples NEED to be moted i think.

[scruff]

I'm really not sure where I stand on this, I have a pre-60 which I use regularly and although it looks rough, I know it's good underneath as it's had a full body-off with all new brakes/TREs/blah blah. I know it inside out but I get reassurance from a professional looking at it on a nice well-lit ramp once a year. But I also have plenty of friends with MOT exempt vintage lorries who keep stuff to a high standard and haven't had any trouble from VOSA/plod/insurance.

 

I was thinking about this earlier and remembered the thread on here about the Herald which Minimad has, fully road legal in Jersey (land of no MOTs) but no hope of passing over here. I agree totally that some people are going a bit overboard on the death and disaster predictions but there will be some right old shit on the roads in a couple of years time. Then again I see some old stuff wobbling around where you seriously wonder if it got an MOT by post, so there may not be much difference after all

[Morgan84]

Well,I've seen some really nice classics,and I've seen some crap ones.The MOT test was at least keeping some of the old puddle jumpers safely in storage;the speed they travel at is irrelevant - a out of control 30 mph Austin 7 is just as dangerous as any other car it shares the road with,and it doesn't have to be fast to kill.The older classic cars were falling to bits in the 60's when they were in daily use - do you think 40+ years later they are going to be much different - they still perish with age,and parts are harder to find - that means less chance of getting one in top condition,and more chance of tied up with string,and swerve up the hedge when braking

[gtd2000]

The 6 Most Common Causes of Automobile Crashes

 

1. Distracted Drivers

2. Driver Fatigue

3. Drunk Driving

4. Speeding

5. Aggressive Driving

6. Weather.

 

Now, if unroadworthy condition of vehicle was on that list I'd change my tune.

 

I'd suspect that a lot of crashes today are also a result of perceived invincibility with all of the extra safety measures.

 

If people did have to drive around in shit-heaps, held together with bailer twine and papier mache, I'm sure they'd be driving much more conservatively

 

I can still remember my dear old dad taking me up to Edinburgh in his MK1 Cortina when I was around 5 years old (same age as the car I think too?) which didn't have any brakes at all - he was taking it up for repairs... we did have to do a few left turns on a red light as a result lol

[messerschmitt owner]

 

My point being that these are tatty but usable daily cars, not show winning trailer queens which are less like to have problems, Cars that I've listed above as examples NEED to be moted i think.

so, why is a car that is never used and all polished in better nick than one that is used and tatty?

 

I don't follow your logic. Often it is the tatty daily driver that is overall in better mechanical condition.

 

I'd argue that the car used for a couple of hundred miles a year is likely to be in worse mechanical than one used for 10,000 miles a year. And, looking at the pics you took, most of those cars were being improved upon by their owners apart from the the Standard at the bottom, and even then neither you nor I know what mechanical condition it is in.

 

For a bunch of old car enthusiasts, you really are a blinkered, opinionated bunch at times.

[HillmanImp]

For a bunch of old car enthusiasts, you really are a blinkered, opinionated bunch at times.

 

All I can see is you being blinkered. We all know you maintain your cars properly and you will be one of the people who will be okay not having an MOT. What you cant seem to comprehend is a lot of other people are not the same and will drive round in a car until it falls to bits.

 

I do agree your point that you cant tell how a car is by looking at photos of it. As an example look at my lovely looking Lancia:

 

 

Now look at the floor on my lovely looking Lancia. This had an MOT and was still in regular use until last October

 

 

The other side was the same. This all pulled away by hand and the inner sills are not even attached to the floor, the mounting point for the subframe was corroded etc. There was no good metal the entire length of the floor. If this car had not had an MOT inspection how long would the previous owner have been driving around in it until the car folded in half?

 

I know that the main causes of accidents are tiredness, speeding, drink etc, thats not being disputed here. The fact of the matter is that there will be people out there who will now drive around in unsafe cars which will not get problems picked up on a test. I know that a test is only telling you that a car is safe at that particular time and it can be unsafe the next day but a test does mean that major defects get picked up that might not normally get noticed by an owner with little or know mechanical knowledge (or they may just not care). I cant see what's blinkered and opinionated about that, its just a fact. True it probably mainly themselves the car owners are putting at risk but I don't really want to see any more unnecessary deaths on the road.

 

There is also the point that if a car is unsafe then the police will spot it and be able to pull it over. How many police are competent mechanics? Most can only spot obvious failings and how many would have pulled over a car a nice looking as my Lancia and looked for serious structural failings.

[John F]

That's all well & good, but the MoT doesn't spot hidden structural rot.

 

For example, I discovered that the bottom of the offside A and B pillars on my Maserati were shot to pieces when I removed the perforated sill (which was not spotted at the MoT itself, since it was behind sill covers).

 

BUT isn't this all getting blown out of proportion? At most there might be a couple of thousand additional pre-1960 vehicles on the road if this MoT exemption goes ahead... but I suspect the overwhelming majority will carry on driving comfortable, safe, "stylish" and "reliable" modern cars (or comfortable, fairly safe, truly stylish and often reliable 20-year old shite ) rather than pay over the odds to suffer in some dowdy 60-year old nail just to save £50 a year. And the cost of maintenance, if they *really* want to involve themselves in an accident.

[Pete-M]

The only reason I like things to have MOTs is because although I consider myself to be reasonably good at looking after my old sheds I've missed plenty of things over the years and they've been picked up at MOT time. Corroded brake lines, inner sills etc.

 

If a car is actually working properly and driving well how much time do you spend underneath it looking for faults? Maybe a quick glimpse every now and then if I'm anything to go by.

 

That Lancia is a good example. When I worked with stretch limos I took a '95 Cadillac Fleetwood stretch for the MOT (9yrs old at the time). To look at the thing from outside you'd think it was an absolute minter, not a spot of visible rot anywhere. It drove as you'd expect a stretch Yank to, a little bit woolly but otherwise felt ok. Went very well indeed (Corvette engine), steered and stopped pretty well too. It needed 14 ft of structural welding repairs around the sills, 7ft down each side was utterly shot and the steering box mountings were just about to make a break for freedom. Lying on your side trying to peer under the thing it looked fine, but once you could see it properly it was obviously fucked. I've known plenty of 2000> Lincoln town cars to be equally rotten.

 

I don't care what it is, if it's on the road around me and my family I want it to be MOTd and at least to have someone with a clue looking over it properly once a year minimum. Not being a spoilsport, and I take on board that enthusiasts look after their cars better than company car drivers etc.

 

Anyway. I still reckon no MOT is fucking daft. Reintroduce the rolling tax thing, don't drop safety regs.

 

Much love, Lynn.

 

[gallondrunk]

Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. As pointed out earlier, other countries have very lax inspection standards and it isn't complete chaos there.

 

There'll be a few chancers who dig the nearest pre 1960 crock out of a field and drive it around, but there are plenty of cars with bent MOTs as well. There's always going to be unroadworthy vehicles around, MOT or no. In terms of numbers, it'll probably make next to fuck all difference, so why not try it?

[Pete-M]

There'll be a few chancers who dig the nearest pre 1960 crock out of a field and drive it around, but there are plenty of cars with bent MOTs as well. There's always going to be unroadworthy vehicles around, MOT or no. In terms of numbers, it'll probably make next to fuck all difference, so why not try it?

 

Retro Rides.

[jonny69]

And, looking at the pics you took, most of those cars were being improved upon by their owners apart from the the Standard at the bottom, and even then neither you nor I know what mechanical condition it is in.

The Standard belongs to a mate of mine, a pretty skilled fabricator. It was a rotten barn-find and he meticulously rebuilt the bottom half of the car, after a LOT of head scratching on how to keep it looking exactly as it was found. It's running a warm 1275, pretty sure it's got my old twin SUs on it, I forget what the axle was out of but it's wider than the original and longer geared, (Spitfire?) front discs and I can't remember what the wheels are off.

 

He drives it to work every day and loves every minute of it and it cost him about £36.75 in total

 

There'll be a few chancers who dig the nearest pre 1960 crock out of a field and drive it around, but there are plenty of cars with bent MOTs as well. There's always going to be unroadworthy vehicles around, MOT or no. In terms of numbers, it'll probably make next to fuck all difference, so why not try it?

 

Retro Rides.

I do sort of take issue with that because, of the regular posters on that forum, you can count the number of people with pre-'60 cars on one hand. I'm one of them, but the rest are mainly late 70's, 80's and 90's motors. Many of them aspire to something older, but they are generally a younger crowd and they either can't afford older cars or they aren't practical for them. I don't remember that many pre-60 vehicles at the Retro Rides Gathering either. I know there is a little friction towards Retro Rides on here, but I think it's unfair to generalise them in that way

[messerschmitt owner]

There's always going to be unroadworthy vehicles around, MOT or no. In terms of numbers, it'll probably make next to fuck all difference, so why not try it?

 

Retro Rides.

I do sort of take issue with that because, of the regular posters on that forum, you can count the number of people with pre-'60 cars on one hand. I'm one of them, but the rest are mainly late 70's, 80's and 90's motors. Many of them aspire to something older, but they are generally a younger crowd and they either can't afford older cars or they aren't practical for them. I don't remember that many pre-60 vehicles at the Retro Rides Gathering either. I know there is a little friction towards Retro Rides on here, but I think it's unfair to generalise them in that way

 

why not, hey, it isn't like they're not all having a go at people with old cars in general in the above posts!

 

Rusty old nails have a habit of dying and being scrapped before they cause too much problems.

 

Good cars will be good cars regardless. For many owners, the lack of MoT checks will actually make them pay more attention to their vehicles.

 

Somehow, I think the world is going to go on as before and some of us will still have old vehicles to drive rpund in, while those that choose not to, won't.

 

I don't care about the ringing of Minis and Land Rovers. At the end of the day, that could be stopped in one fell swoop by checking of vehicles and their legality It's just that no one has chosen to.

 

Older vehicles are simpler and easier to spot - engine bays are full of empty space, brake lines are all visible, there are no electronics, mostly everything is easy to get to, especially on cars with chassis. And those vehicles that do have hidden components - such as the hydraulic lines in the inner sill of a Citroen DS - will never be spotted by the MoT man anyway, at least not until there's a green puddle on the floor next to the car.

 

Don't panic! The chances of meeting one of the perhaps a thousand or so dogs on the road will be negligible. I know, I own cars of which there are less than 1000 left and can go weeks, sometimes months, without seeing another - and I'm doing 30,000 miles a year all over the country.