40+ year-old cars no longer need a MOT

[whisky-dave]

Heard this on the TV last night seems a strange idea, but not having a car it's less likely to affect me but I'm not convinced it's the good idea some have claimed it to be.

[Jethro_uk]

I think the idea is such cars are almost exclusively going to be exhibited rather that seriously driven.

Bearing in mind there are a myriad of offences that can be committed by driving an unroadworthy car on a public road - MOT or no MOT.

[Nightjar]

Up until now, it has been cars built before 1960. Making it 40 years means about 300,000 more vehicles will be exempt. The argument is that cars of that age are generally preserved vehicles that are well maintained and rarely used. However, an additional reason appears to be that most of the modern MOT isn't applicable to cars that old, which makes it difficult for garages to test them.

[tim...]

though most of its not applicable to cars that are 30 years old either

so getting your car from 30 to 40 is going to be difficult

tim

[harry]

Good news. My Roller is just forty years old. No road tax to pay either.

It's just a matter of the petrol.....

[T i m]

Hopefully that'll be our kitcar next year (that we built 30+ years ago) but I'm not sure we will ever be MOT free because it comes under the 'modified / re-bodied vehicle' category?

I think the reallocation to 'Historic Vehicle' (or whatever the re classification is) can apply to our kitcar because it's on the original registration.

I'm pretty sure my Electric car was except the MOT at the time I was using it regularly (again, 30 years ago) because the suggestion was the MOT stations would know how to deal with it.

That said, from an EV POV it was no more sophisticated than a milk float and the basic vehicle was a mix of Mini and Reliant parts so pretty strait forward to test those bits (and lights etc)?

Cheers, T i m

[Max Demian]

What does it use, five star leaded?

[nothanks]

.. snipped

Interesting! Many (many!) years ago I built a Spartan (based on a Mk1 Spitfire that was rotting around me) and an NG TD (based on a rotten MGB). I wouldn't build another kit car, but I'd love to restore something interesting - XK120/140, D type, TR3/4, T type ... etc.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

They're still normally driven to the event. Which can be many miles away. Plenty 40 year old cars are practical to drive anywhere - unlike perhaps pre WW2 ones.

And I own one - not quite 40 years old - and think it a nonsense any vehicle should be allowed on the roads without an annual safety check. Nor do I see why an old vehicle should be VED exempt either. They make use of the roads in exactly the same way as any car doing the same sort of annual mileage.

[tabbypurr]

No old car could pass modern safety standards. It's how it is. The further you go back the more unsuitable the MOT tests are. Go back far enough and cars don't even pass some of the most basic requirements.

The mentality also changes. Drivers of history pieces are normally well aware of the vehicle's limitations & issues and drive them accordingly, which is a very different approach to the average driver.

Some people think old cars should be as safe as new. It can never happen, nor need it.

NT

[The Natural Philosopher]

Time to resurrect my 1972 FrankenSpit then...hehe. That was a load of fun

[harry]

No, the engine is very low compression so unleaded is fine. It's the amount. It has an almost seven litre engine.

Working on it is a nightmare.

[harry]

I built and NG TD V8 with a Rover SDI engine. Dangerous device, grossly overpowered.

[Brian Gaff]

Not sure. I understood that one cannot apply today's safety standards to old cars, not that the car should not be as safe as it can be for its vintage of the design.

Brian

[T i m]

Cheers. ;-)

I remember them (and used to buy all the Kitcar magazines around at the time).

My mate had his restored (for way more than it was worth at the time), mainly because it was his Dads.

I'd have to say building our (Rickman Ranger) was fairly easy because:

1) I'd done all the work required on other vehicles over the years. 2) The Ranger was a fairly 'easy to work on' kit (because of the distance off the road and it's non 'performance spec) and most stuff included and built on a ladder chassis, so you could get a rolling chassis ready then drop the body on. ;-) 3) I was very comfortable with vehicle wiring and working with fibreglass (building fibreglass canoes and making moulds for RC model boats etc). Also from helping Dad fir out fibreglass dinghies and cruisers when I was a kid. ;-) 4) The Mrs was very much a part of the whole project, from selling her Mini to put towards the cost of the kit to building it ... and not just making the tea but actually manning the spanners, wire brush, pressure washer and paintbrush. As a treat I let her lap the valves in (on the kitchen worktop) and she changed the water pump unsupervised because I was distracted watching some Rallycross on the TV. ;-)

One of the (big) reasons I wanted a kitcar was because I was fed up (in those days) chasing rust on monocoque's. The Ranger just went though it's 30th MOT and there has never been a mention of rust in any of them. Ok, I appreciate many cars are crushed these days that have a perfectly rust free body (even some older vehicles) so not for rust but because of some stupidly cheap (to make) piece of electronics has gone wrong ... but I'm pretty sure the donor MkII Escort wouldn't still be free of rust at 40 years old. ;-)

The biggest kitcar I ever had to deal with was towing my mates Cobra home for him on a 4 wheel transporter trailer behind my Sierra Estate. I'm surprised it didn't pull the back off or push me though a wall. ;-(

OOI it took 'us' about 3 months (evenings at weekends) to build the Ranger and some of that was because we built it in the back yard, didn't have the luxury of a nice fully equipped workshop and so were often working in the rain (no so bad if working underneath or inside it). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Who said they should? An annual safety check to make sure everything safety related works as designed make even more sense on a car which could be laid up all winter.

Err, do you know when the MOT came in - and what its purpose was?

If you are talking 100 year old cars, maybe.

So perfectly safe to take an old car with bald tyres and faulty brakes on the road, is it? because it will be driven carefully?

Bit different from saying old drivers should be banned because they drive slowly...

Making sure an old car has brakes etc that work as intended, and isn't going to have the suspension collapse through rust seems eminently sensible to anyone who isn't trying to win a few votes.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

If it has the RR V-8, it was designed for 5 star petrol.

Only to someone who can't be bothered learning things.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

That's because you built it badly.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Quite. And many aren't. Pick any 40 year old car and look at its MOT history. You'll find many fail for various reasons. Without that check they'll be driven with those faults.

[T i m]

And why when they conducted a straw poll on TV on the subject recently I believe the majority of said classic car owners said they would put their cars though the MOT (equivalent) test voluntarily.

That said, I didn't with the electric car because:

1) It only did 30 mph and had a 20 mile range. 2) It had a box section steel chassis that was easily visible / inspected. 3) I could (and did) inspect all the other components like steering, suspension, lighting and brakes.

Cheers, T i m