Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ken T]

Trouble is sometimes your heart rules your head. If you have just spent several weeks rebuilding an engine, and want to see if it goes as well as you imagine it should, and................ 

ken

[Marks DTM Calib]

The more I think about it, there is actualy not that much less to test.

And enthusiasts or not, does not mean they are compitent.

You can bet your life its one of the only times they are put on ramp for a good check over.

[2woody]

despite what they're saying, I think this is a requirement from the "small print" of the new EU Directive on vehicle testing.

[Rods2]

The latest MOT test is due to an EU directive, so I'm sure the pre-1960 will be as well.

80% of laws rubber stamped by Parliament are from EU directives. 

[dbug]

I own a 1967 car and have found MOT testers not always au fait with the differences to modern cars.  For example my TR4A was failed on trunnion wear - only weeks after all new trunnion kits fitted by me - he said there was too much play.  I could have quite easily taken the play out by tightening up the fixing bolts and got the MOT pass, but the trunnions would have seized within 500 miles!  After an argument and threats on my part I insisted the MOT station measured the end float in the trunnions (I had to show them how to do it!! - wasn't sure if they understood feeler gauges and thous!!) - and then showed them the specification in the workshop manual - mine were in found to be spec!! - got a pass.

Doing away with MOTs on older cars wont help - better training for MOT testers is the way forward, although I accept the difficulties in knowing all things about all models.

[Nick W]

It's a very bad idea. As is the first one at 3 years.

Just look at how members here(or any other car group) worry about putting their cars in for an MOT, and the massive round of congratulations that happen when it passes!

It's often the only time that  a car gets a qualified, experienced and most of all, independent and dispassionate inspection. The owner who has spent the last 10 years rebuilding it, or owned it for 50 years is the last person who should be making this sort of decision. Plus, any failure has to be rectified, not just ignored or put off.

The only problem is that lots of the general public think their £45 gives them an intensive, critical test that means that the entire car is returned to 100% factory as new specs for the next 12 months. I hear it all the time:"I don't understand why it's broken down, it only passed it's MOT 3 months ago!"

[Vamps]

I also have doubt's, I have had a few classics over the years, sounds good to me, but there will be, and I have had, at least 1, that should not be on the road for safety reasons....... I tend to agree with the comments of it being the only time on a ramp...............also with Geofs comments about his fire engines being mot and tax exempt, there are a lot of misunderstandings around this, in some circumstances, particularly around recovery vehicles.....

[Kevin Wood]

If I owned such a vehicle, I think I'd be taking it for an MOT regardless, just to cover myself. If the unthinkable happens and you can't actually demonstrate before the beak that you've been diligent in keeping it in a roadworthy state, guess where the buck will stop?

[Lazydocker]

I'm totally against any reduction in MOT's. TBH, I'd rather they were increased to 6 monthly at half the price to make sure that every vehicle on the road is checked at least twice a year. How many people do you know that only ever have the car looked at when it's in for MOT?

Equally, on the older classics (and I mean proper classics) there is actually very little to test. The manual already states that pre-1940(?) cars are only subject to a visual inspection Or did when I was testing. I think pre 1960 is too late (personally) and it should have been earlier than that if they were adamant that it needed doing

[henryd]

I'm totally against any reduction in MOT's. TBH, I'd rather they were increased to 6 monthly at half the price to make sure that every vehicle on the road is checked at least twice a year. How many people do you know that only ever have the car looked at when it's in for MOT?

Equally, on the older classics (and I mean proper classics) there is actually very little to test. The manual already states that pre-1940(?) cars are only subject to a visual inspection Or did when I was testing. I think pre 1960 is too late (personally) and it should have been earlier than that if they were adamant that it needed doing

I know that the vintage stuff isn't subject to the shaker plates which is probably a good thing

[Olympia5776]

Just think how many old wrecks will be spruced up , taxed and insured and then have their number plates sold for a fortune .....

[Nick W]

I know that the vintage stuff isn't subject to the shaker plates which is probably a good thing

Considering the conditions that vintage stuff was designed for, I can't imagine how the shaker plates would be much of a problem.
Take Ford's transverse leaf front end: it's only attached to the car at 3 points, and one of those is the steering!

[Kevin Wood]

If a car survives out potholed roads, I can't see a shaker giving much cause for concern. Of course, prehistoric suspension setups probably won't be capable of passing the test even when in "as-new" condition.

[Dishevelled Den]

The latest MOT test is due to an EU directive, so I'm sure the pre-1960 will be as well.

80% of laws rubber stamped by Parliament are from EU directives. 

Sadly so - right past the noses of the doe-eyed masses.

[P_Russell]

MOT on my spitfire is critical to me - it prioritises my long welding list!   

I can't see the value in getting rid of the MOT because even though I suspect the real enthusiasts will do the right thing and have more knowledge of their car than the tester, there will always be those that think it's a licence to not keep things to a roadworthy standard and get get away with what they can.