Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[colwyn500]

We're well established now with the wonderful pre-1960 exemption.

Some of the "sayers of doom" have been disproven as I haven't seen any statistics that would indicate that it has made the roads any less safe and I haven't seen any "bangers" on the road (apart from mine )

Many people here said that they would continue to MOT their cars anyway; I would only do that if I planned to sell it.

Do you MOT your pre-1960 vehicle?.....Honestly?

[Ray White]

I have always liked to have a second opinion; especially from someone who is a qualified mechanic so I thought it would at least give me peace of mind to have my Austin checked out. Unfortunately, the M.O.T. inspector couldn't even be bothered examine the car properly. He knew I always presented my cars in sound condition and so gave it a cursory glance "brakes OK?" .
It was a formality.

He was of the opinion that as my car was exempt, it wouldn't make any difference whether it passed or failed; I would still be driving it around regardless. Of course I got a "pass" certificate but there seems little point in wasting my time and money in future.

[peter scott]

I was against its removal and have continued to have my car tested because in the event of a collision there should be less hassle regarding the question of the car's state of repair. This applies to police prosecution as well as insurance claims.

Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[colwyn500]

[Bitumen Boy]

[alanb]

Both my sons are qualified motor technicians and MOT inspectors so they make sure my car is ok.
_________________
old tourer


Morris 8 two seater

[Ray White]

Points taken on board.

I too was against the exemption; not for the reasons given here but because I didn't want to rely on the mechanical competence of others. When this subject was discussed on the Austin Seven Friends Forum, opinion was divided and the debate became quite heated.

[ka]

I was in favour of the exemption for a few reasons:
I had to brief the tester what to look for, and what was 'acceptable' play.
An MOT is worth the paper it is printed on for about 10minutes, or until you start the engine and pull away from the testing station.
Any defect that makes the vehicle unroadworthy is illegal regardless, MOT or not.
The Insurers were in the consultation group, and agreed with the exemption.

I do accept that a second pair of eyes to check the vehicle over is never a bad thing, when I have carried out any maintenance, I have a cup of tea/sleep/break and recheck all my work anyway. There are some horror stories about Morgans and wheel failure, so I check after each journey, and recheck when greasing.
_________________
KA

Better three than four.

[ukdave2002]

I was against the abolition for 2 reasons:

1) most of us don't have a ramp and a qualified mechanic who can check the vehicle over, when did you last walk under your car?

2) in the event of an accident, whilst I accept an MOT is only valid at the time of the test, it demonstrates an intention, i.e. That the owner is a responsible individual, intense tin carries quite a lot of legal sway.

Finally I have had pre war cars MOT'd by very young NT's who would have spent 99% of their time testing 5 year old euro box's, in my experience and every time , they firstly were interested in the car, then consulted the Testers Manual were quite clear on what they had to test and got on with it. They would want me to operate the controls, common sense, but always charged less than £30 as I help and the test is much mor simple.

All that said, as the MGA was only regestered in the UK in Dec 2012 it has never had an MOT in its 58 year life perhaps I shoud book it in !

Dave

[Ray White]

[michael1703]

I've always said I was going to still mot my car and haven't.

The bit about the mot only being a bit of paper and not valid is also true

I'm an mot tester, I've mot'd cars and then reversed out of the workshop,pressed the brake and....... Blown bulb

Some components do have an unpredictable amount of use in them but a second set of eyes on brake and steering components is invaluable

Whilst I agree with Peter Scott I also think new cars should have yearly mot tests rather than no mot in the first 3 years

Most of the cars driving round with blown bulbs and bald tyres are under 3 years old

[Ray White]

Michael, I can only claim to have been an M.O.T. tester's assistant in the dim and distant past so not very up to date but like others have stated, it would appear that some testers are unfamiliar with some aspects of old cars.

Forgive me for asking but are you chaps trained to look out for cracks in Austin Seven steering arms, for example? I have to ask because most Sevens still have cracked steering arms and if they are not picked up on the test, the fault may only show up when it is too late.

New replacements are available from our cherished suppliers at a reasonable price.

[Phil - Nottingham]

No I do not - I have 2 out of 7 that are exempt. I never had that much confidence in what they picked up in the past and what they also missed too but sometimes they did like a loose TRE nut or out of balance brakes. But slight lift in a king pin that has had this lift for 20 years is not much use and neither is it dangerous as excessive lift or play is subjective and depends on the design.

The MOT also missed as did I, a badly worn bottom ball joint on a Rootes Arrow I once owned that had passed 1 week earlier but popped out its joint as a turned out a car park and the front McPherson strut with wheel went 45deg out vertical.

I was not going fast but 15 mins earlier I was doing 40 mph round a sort of double helix slip road in Derby with very tight curves that almost need full lock. The joint was really rusty/corroded and had been like that years - the other side was not much better.

More recently my Not exempt LR S3 failed because of "excessively" worn steering box. It turned out that the box was fine but the idler arm fixing nut was loose (a not uncommon fault on Series LR's) so it was slack on the idler splines

Just because a car has an MOT certainly does not mean its roadworthy even on the day or even safe and even if its deemed not roadworthy for an MOT does not mean its unsafe. For the majority of cars even very new ones and their owners who cannot even spot a blown headlamp bulb or worn out tyre its very good idea but its use on old cars is not really relevant IMHO though it may save some unsuspecting new and gullible owner but not one who is not bothered about complying or ignorant and those that find other ways round the law anyway as they always have.

There seems no surge in horrendous accidents caused by an unroadworthy MOT exempt car either but of course 10 years on it may be different and whilst only one will be sad it will of course attract all the media attention.

Virtually all classic car owners I have met are conscientious and if they cannot do their own servicing/repairs they take it to someone they trust and more importantly know what the are doing.
_________________
Rover P2
Rover P4
Rover P5 & P5B
Land Rover S2 & S3
Morris Mini Traveller Mk2

[Bitumen Boy]

It always seemed to me that the problem of testers being unfamiliar with older vehicles could have been easily solved when testing stations went over to the computerised system. All that would be needed is a simple checklist that could be printed off as required when the vehicle is entered onto the system at the start of the test. If written with active assistance from clubs and specialists, giving pointers of things to look out for and proper specifications - similar, perhaps, to the sort of articles that appear in classic magazines often enough - it could enable even the youngest testers to perform a thorough, accurate safety check on virtually any classic car. These checklists, looking at the copiously illustrated magazine articles previously mentioned, need not take up more than 1 or 2 sides of A4 paper if written in good plain English and laid out properly, so it would hardly be a burden on the system or the testers.

[ka]

An interesting concept, but how would you describe the acceptable play in a 'cup and cone' track rod end?
_________________
KA

Better three than four.