UK MOTs on classics. Important news

[Remspoor]

Did you know that there was a consultation about the exemption to MOT classic cars?

https://archive.ph/DVEGY

 

[Rustybullethole]

Was unaware though not surprised. Some people just can't stop meddling. 

[lesapandre]

I did feature it here. The consultation was on I recall the modification and electrifying of classics which were exempt and how government should respond to this demand.

Here is the FBHVA response:

https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/news/article/will-classic-cars-soon-have-a-one-off-mot-and-can-it-make-owning-historic-vehicles-easier

I've not heard of any response back from Government.

The rolling exemption continues as far as I know. 

I feel it'd be unlikely that existing Historic Vehicles  as defined on the V5 will be brought back under the MoT regime. 

We'll see. If anyone has any news please do post it.

So far as the rolling exemption is concerned the consultation was not really about that in principle. 

Alas newspaper article are not news these days just wild speculation for clicks and OMG. Best to monitor the FBHVC website and the Government web pages on transport for any updates.

[sutty2006]

I do agree somewhat that a basic check is needed, for example, a brake test, steering components and lights. 3 very basic yet most important checks. Does it stop? Does it steer? Can it be seen? Fair enough. there’s arguments on both sides really. I am planning on getting my over 40 year old car MOTd but not on the system. My tester said “fuck that, we only check what you’re going to check anyway” but I’d rather have another set of eyes check my work, for peace of mind. 

[lesapandre]

Good idea. 👍 

[sierraman]

Some owners would look after it to a much higher standard than the MOT would ever require but on the other hand a sizeable amount cut all sorts of corners buying fucked bushes and joints from autojumbles, cataclysmicly shit welding jobs or if it’s even welded up at all, generally shit workmanship. I’ve seen vehicles at shows I would go to the end of the road in and others that would clearly pass the test. 
 

That said there’s not many accidents I’ve heard of but it’ll only take the one where Mr Bodgit has ‘restored’ his MGB and has a bang in it and it comes apart at the seams or the brakes fail on a hill, then it’ll all be under scrutiny if it’s given enough coverage. 

[lesapandre]

But anybody can buy a Tesla which has a 0-60 time of under three seconds. Which is more dangerous? 

'Classics' do tiny miles a year mostly. 

[riek]

Someone on here had a near death experience recently when their MOT exempt motor turned out to be catastrophically rusty no?

[lesapandre]

And the onus is on any owner to inspect it. The MoT is a one day snapshot of condition not an exemption from care.

As the FBHVA says:

"We believe the current system works, insofar that historic vehicles are not clogging up MOT centres unfamiliar with, say, the technical aspects of a 1935 Rolls-Royce." 

When the exemption was introduced these OMG  arguments were advanced but it's not really proved to be happening. 

France has it's Mot's every two years and classic cars every five years.

[Rust Collector]

Just now, riek said:

Someone on here had a near death experience recently when their MOT exempt motor turned out to be catastrophically rusty no?

We’ve also seen MOT’d moderns with collapsed subframes and axles (we’re looking at you, Mercedes, Ford and Nissan!), and the first three years of a car’s life are also exempt from inspection- a mate of mine did over 200k in his work transit before it became due for a test. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot of vehicles that lead a very tough life in their first three years.

The system isn’t perfect, but I’d prefer that the government left it alone rather than meddle and make it worse for those of us that do exercise common sense.

The last time this was discussed, I looked up the statistics for road accidents in the UK; from memory less than 1% were caused by mechanical failure, and of those the majority were due to tyres. I’d argue if anything then, maybe there should be more random checks on cars tyres by the police and/or DVSA - that would be a targeted approach supported by the available data.

[lisbon_road]

Last MOT I did, it passed, but front brake balance was on the edge.  It drove absolutely fine and pulled up evenly, but clearly wasn't right.  This shows to my mind why an MOT albeit a basic one is required.  I just cannot check brakes properly myself. 

The Vauxhall Viva gets a basic test, so the examiner checks brakes and so on, the stuff I can't do or it is good to get a second opinion on.  No way am I putting it through the system as the hand brake was always so hard to get working properly so he does a quick check 'between MOTs' (that means squeeze the ones on either side so no time is lost) for a bit of cash.  Good enough for me. 

I'm not sure I am suggesting a change, I'm just saying what I do. 

[lesapandre]

Yea I take my 40+ exempt in for a 'MoT' - goes up on the ramp and gets a brake test. Really useful.🩺

What it would not pass is any modern emissions test - it's a 43 year old diesel 😂

I very rarely see a 40+ yo vehicle on the road - when did anyone last see one not at a show? 

[danthecapriman]

As said, there’s arguments on both sides.

Me personally, I don’t bother having either of my exempt cars tested. I don’t think the current test is suitable for cars that old. But…     
I do look after my stuff. There’s absolutely no way I’m the sort to buy an exempt car and use it as an excuse to run around and be a cheapskate just because I’ve managed to score a loop hole in the system to avoid paying the £50 test fee! 
Imho, if something is genuinely in need of attention it gets it and that’s that. 
I have however got my local trusted garage to give a once over to the Capri after I put it back on the road. They put it up on their ramp and visually checked everything, then put it on their rollers to test the brakes. No issues, as you’d expect. But after that amount of repair and rebuild work was carried out on the car it was a sensible decision to get a second set of eyes to just check. Things can and do get missed by everyone. I won’t be getting it checked annually though.

I do and always have thought the current MOT rules are a bit crap though, even when I was working in a garage repairing failures. There’s very much a ‘OMG won’t someone please think of the children’ mentality with the MOT, but if you consider that a new car can be exempt from a test for its first 3 years… there’s no mileage limit on that and it’s entirely possible that car could be over 100k miles at its first test. Brakes wear out, tyres wear out and get defects, suspension components wear out, bushes wear out… all those things could easily be on a vehicle that’s within its first 3 year exemption period. Yet nobody is crying about that. And there’s far more of those vehicles on the roads than a 40+ year old classic. 
Also remember, the MOT is only as good as the day it was carried out. You could drive away having got a pass, clip a curb and bend a suspension arm or damage a tyre and carry on running it like that for a year before it gets found. 
Another favourite was plastic sill covers as fitted to many cars over the last few decades. What’s under them? Fuck knows because the tester isn’t allowed to remove them. There could easily be gaping holes in the sills but because it’s not visible it’s ok!? (Yes, I’ve seen this!).

Besides all that, and this applies as much to the owner of an exempt classic as much as a new modern, the owner and driver of any vehicle on a public highway is ultimately responsible for the vehicle. If you get seen driving a defective vehicle your fucked. And rightly so. Be it a rotten 50 year old Mini that’s just been pulled out of a field and ‘it’s ok it’s exempt m8’ just being driven around or a new car that’s been abused and not in a fit state because ‘it’s still new m8 I don’t need an mot’. The driver is responsible.

Anyway, let’s look at what other countries do and don’t have problems…

 

[GeordieInExile]

1 hour ago, sutty2006 said:

I do agree somewhat that a basic check is needed, for example, a brake test, steering components and lights. 3 very basic yet most important checks. Does it stop? Does it steer? Can it be seen? Fair enough. there’s arguments on both sides really. I am planning on getting my over 40 year old car MOTd but not on the system. My tester said “fuck that, we only check what you’re going to check anyway” but I’d rather have another set of eyes check my work, for peace of mind. 

Agreed. It baffles me that my little Panda can be deemed unroadworthy because the wiper blades aren't working well enough but a classic could have a rotten chassis, be burping endless black clouds out and be able to go about its business perfectly legally. 

A car is either roadworthy or it isn't, surely - age doesn't come into it. 

[HMC]

Well age does come into it based on how and what is tested and the parameters used, if its tested at all. Eg the amount of free play permissible in cam and peg steering. An interesting point is how a tester that is recently qualified would assess this. 

[lesapandre]

But the effectiveness of the test does. Few classic cars will perform as moderns do. 

There are very few if any 'cheap' 40+yo vehicles about these days so little saving on 'avoiding' the MoT.

'The burping of black clouds' - visible smoke can be a moving traffic offence - they can still get pulled and fined.

Though a sleeve-valve Daimler and a Trabant will do that notwithstanding 😂

[sierraman]

It’s not perfect I agree, look at the number of things like Vectras/Mk3 Mondeo where the brake pipes go over the tank, corrode and cannot be readily seen on the inspection. There’s not really a way round that though. 

[lesapandre]

1 minute ago, HMC said:

Well age does come into it based on how and what is tested and the parameters used, if its tested at all. Eg the amount of free play permissible in cam and peg steering. An interesting point is how a tester that is recently qualified would assess this. 

Wonder how the brakes would perform on a rolling road your new Austin? It's not fair to compare 100 year old technology with modern performance.

[HMC]

8 minutes ago, lesapandre said:

Wonder how the brakes would perform on a rolling road your new Austin? It's not fair to compare 100 year old technology with modern performance.

True! interestingly enough im at my most alert and cautious driving (eg possibly compared to others not texting, not tailgating, everything might be a hazard) it due to its limitations and the lack of any secondary safety features.  

Also i feel like a successful gear change take so much focus that i have a lie down  (+/-  an IV drip) when i reach my destination 😂

[UltraWomble]

49 minutes ago, lesapandre said:

But anybody can buy a Tesla which has a 0-60 time of under three seconds. Which is more dangerous? 

'Classics' do tiny miles a year mostly. 

Mostly yes they do, though there are a large number of bikes and cars on the road with dubious identities taking advantage of the "Tax and MOT" exemption that are being used as daily drivers.

I know of several bikes being passed off as classic Honda C90's / C70's that are not except maybe the front forks and a VIN plate, likewise the Land Rover brigade have their fair share of cars of dubious origin ( as do Mini's and Fraud's) 
Im not sure that this basic check will clamp down on vehicles that are clearly being ring a ding dinged, but at the very least will impose some basic safety on a Raleigh Burner fitted with a pit bike engine being passed off as a vintage Honda Plag.

 

EDIT:

Not the best example as this one seems to have had 2x MOT in its current iteration - fuck only knows what the tester thought he had in front of him, clearly not a C90

[lesapandre]

The change proposed by consultation was just that - to seek to bring some order to this modification issue. 

[danthecapriman]

Just now, HMC said:

Well age does come into it based on how and what is tested and the parameters used, if its tested at all. Eg the amount of free play permissible in cam and peg steering. An interesting point is how a tester that is recently qualified would assess this. 

It’s surprising (shocking to me!) just how many garages don’t actually know anything about old classic cars.

Ive been to places where none of the mechanics know how to adjust a carburettor! They don’t know how or why you adjust timing! I’m not a mechanic anymore but I do know these things which makes me as the car’s owner more qualified and experienced to look after it than them. Ask me how to work on a modern though and I’d struggle.

But if you think about things, carburettors and adjusting timing went away in the early 90’s. Why do the mechanics of today need to know!? 
But this is why there’s an exemption. The technology in exempt cars isn’t able to be tested by the one size fits all test procedure and the people working on cars for a living now are skilled in different ways. Unfortunately that means the old stuff gets left behind and misunderstood and nobody knows how to fix it, or what tolerances to measure it against. 
The guy I used for MOT’s told me he’s glad there’s no classic’s coming in for MOT anymore because he was always shit scared of damaging something or failing it unnecessarily and getting in the poo when the owner complains to the ministry.

Sure, you could have a two, three, five or whatever yearly test on basics like lights, brakes, structural integrity that’s tailored to classics but, as that same tester said - what about time & cost!? Running moderns in and out for MOT all day everyday is timed per test and you get a fee paid for that. 
Start interfering that with some odd short tests for classics and it starts messing up the day’s workload and money taken. MOT test centres are a business after all, and I can’t see there’s a huge amount of meat on the bone even with the current MOT price for them.

[Supernaut]

3 minutes ago, UltraWomble said:

the Land Rover brigade have their fair share of cars of dubious origin

No no no.

Those are clearly just coil spring conversions on Series Land Rovers. It's obviously a super easy and straightforward job, hence it's so ubiquitous. 🤣

[barefoot]

My friendly local garage put my 944 through a ‘training’ mot, which I’d not come across before. Everything was done as per a real mot even down to the printout, but it didn’t show on the system. The failures and advisories were then attended to, it was tested properly and resulted in a nice clean pass. 
The t2 on the other hand hadn’t been tested, only inspected by a vw specialist for five years. When it was finally tested again this year, I got an advisory for flowers dangling from the mirror.

[horriblemercedes]

1 hour ago, Rust Collector said:

We’ve also seen MOT’d moderns with collapsed subframes and axles (we’re looking at you, Mercedes, Ford and Nissan!), and the first three years of a car’s life are also exempt from inspection- a mate of mine did over 200k in his work transit before it became due for a test. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot of vehicles that lead a very tough life in their first three years.

 

I think that one of the issues with that Triumph was that it had failed an MOT for horrendous rot, then became MOT-exempt and was simply used without any repairs. 

 Of course, you are still obliged to keep your car roadworthy even if it doesn't need an MOT. I think this is mostly a non-issue as 99.9% of MOT-exempt cars will be and generally do very few miles and not at busy times. 

[Bren]

I suspect lots of garages will get caught out testing older stuff - testers not having the knowledge of older vehicles.

I would imagine most classic owners know their way around their vehicles and those that don't can afford to pay somebody.

I suppose it's a way of getting rusty / rotten examples off the road - but it might also affect the numbers of people involved in the hobby.

But to be honest I am surprised this has not happened before now - in our quest to go green I have always wondered if we would get to the point where classics and motorcycles would be subject to emission tests.

[horriblemercedes]

8 hours ago, Bren said:

I suspect lots of garages will get caught out testing older stuff - testers not having the knowledge of older vehicles.

I would imagine most classic owners know their way around their vehicles and those that don't can afford to pay somebody.

I suppose it's a way of getting rusty / rotten examples off the road - but it might also affect the numbers of people involved in the hobby.

But to be honest I am surprised this has not happened before now - in our quest to go green I have always wondered if we would get to the point where classics and motorcycles would be subject to emission tests.

Until recently, all cars had to have MOT tests. The MOT exemption is a modern thing - first it was just pre-1960 cars and now it's 40+ years of age. 

 

They won't have to pass emissions tests. There's no emissions standard for cars over a certain age, so there's no criteria to apply. You could test it, find out what it produces but as there is no comparison data, it's meaningless. 

[chadders]

3 minutes ago, horriblemercedes said:

Until recently, all cars had to have MOT tests. The MOT exemption is a modern thing - first it was just ore-1960 cars and now it's 40+ years of age. 

 

They won't have to pass emissions tests. There's no emissions standard for cars over a certain age, so there's no criteria to apply. You could test it, find out what it produces but as there is no comparison data, it's meaningless. 

You could just decide on an absolute emissions limit for them all, if they're above it they fail. 

Simple but unfair, whatever that means in this context.

[brownnova]

45 minutes ago, danthecapriman said:

The guy I used for MOT’s told me he’s glad there’s no classic’s coming in for MOT anymore because he was always shit scared of damaging something or failing it unnecessarily and getting in the poo when the owner complains to the ministry.

This is why I use the same guy for my MoTs each year on the old tat. He been mechanicing for many years and has a Mk1. escort so has old car sympathy… but… he is in his late 60s now, and I dread him retiring. 

[horriblemercedes]

2 minutes ago, chadders said:

You could just decide on an absolute emissions limit for them all, if they're above it they fail. 

Simple but unfair, whatever that means in this context.

That would just be a fuel economy test though, no? 

 

Total volume of gases is just a product of the amount of fuel that is consumed. The mix is what is tested