fiat500 said:

That is potentially a very real problem, and I have already seen such a Fiat 500 advertised for sale with the demise of the MOT highlighted as a benefit. This is a simple issue for the licencing authority to prevent happening; let's hope that they do. But again this would be a very limited number of vehicles as most would be literally too far gone and too cosmetically challenged to get away with it for long.

Click to expand...

Yes, and who would police that? A specialist traffic officer can judge fitness for road use against Mot requirements without dispute today. He has to work unjustifiably harder if he meets a 41 year old banger with a reckless owner to prove an issue, the balance of idiot argument has moved in the owners favour. For what national benefit is this MOT change for? Pointless.

In Australia, or NSW anyway, the rationale for the change has been to keep older vehicles alive. The difference is that here under the historic and classic vehicle registration scheme, you're required to be a member of a historic vehicle club that is authorised by the state body.

It's this club that ensures you're not running an old banger, and the government leaves it in their hands. To get your annual club registration some actually still require an mot equivalent, while some have a club registrar that looks over the car.

I think we lie somewhere in the middle of the two. I can understand the rationale here - I can afford to keep and insure a classic car for $200 per year of paperwork, while under full registration it would be closer to $1500 - ie unaffordable. At the latter cost, old cars die out on our roads and it would be a sad day when only plastic moulded bumpers are seen on our roads.

As it is, I see classic cars on historic plates and we wave as we drive by. It's a good system that I'm happy with!

The current Government has a habit of making stupid decisions which are to our general detriment, so I don't expect them to spend any time sorting out the incongruities of this policy. We can get cross about it or be more constructive. I will be making sure that my car is running at 100% whenever it's on the road. I will also continue to try to assist newcomers to the vehicle to achieve the same. I see so few old cars on the road and given the only 3% of all car accidents are attributable to mechanical failure, I'm not scared. The bigger threat to life and limb, whether in an old car or not,is the small number of lunatics who drive modern cars too fast for the road conditions.

If your car is currently taxed already as a historic vehicle i.e. road tax exempt and that is the class on your V5. I am not sure what the process will be to get an exemption from the MoT is yet. I don’t think the government or DVLA has decided the process yet, as the legislation hasn’t been passed, just agreed.

The process for those pre 1960 vehicles already exempt is to complete a V112 when initially taxing the car. I would imagine that all owners of the now 40 year exempt vehicles would have to initially fill in a V112 and then it will automatically renew when you go online annually to renew your VED.

I can’t see a sudden rush of people going to buy 40 year old vehicles just to save the cost of an MoT each year. Plus the cost of buying a 40 year old classic is going to be significantly higher than some of the newer sheds you can pick up on eBay for a few hundred pounds with a valid MoT and tax.

As Peter said you can have an MoT on any car and six months later have a major failure that could be dangerous. Personally I think classic cars are owned in the majority by people who have a decent mechanical knowledge and are more likely to look after their cars. There are probably millions of cars out there on the road today that dont have any mechanical work done on them annually, the only time they see the inside of a garage is when they go for an MoT and the owner keeps their fingers crossed it is going to pass!

The addition of a 40 year exemption really is going to be a tiny number of cars in the grand scheme of things. How often do you see a 40 year old car on the road whilst you are out and about? It make sense to me bring into line VED and MoT exemption.

Only 7% of owners of the pre 1960’s cars already exempt have bothered to have a MoT since they became exempt.

The only real flaw in the process I can see is when someone has rebuilt a barn find, there should be a requirement to have that inspected to see if it is roadworthy or not and to ensure that the work has been completed safely.

I've just had another look at the documents.

The following excerpt is of concern as it looks as though the Historic Vehicle Tax Exemption may be amended to take account of substantial changes, including increases in power ratio greater than 15%.

It looks as though they may make these vehicles subject to Tax, as they will no longer be deemed to be of historical interest!

Quote

"The process for vehicle keepers declaring an old vehicle is exempt from testing.

"Every year vehicle keepers are required to licence their vehicle. Part of this process
includes paying Vehicle Excise Duty (Vehicle Tax). Where the vehicle that year is
over 40 years old at the beginning of January then from April of that year the vehicle
keeper is exempt from paying this tax. The vehicle keeper must apply for the
exemption from tax at a Post Office that deals with vehicle tax. Further advice can be
found via the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles/vehicles-exempt-from-vehicle-tax
It is intended that alterations be made to these processes to take account of the
“substantial change” rule related to vehicle testing."

With reference to the thread about the Sport engine.
https://www.fiatforum.com/500-classic/453997-specifications-500-sport-engine.html
One of the quotes above, taken from the proposal statement, implies that any car with a more than 15% increase in power will continue to need a compulsory MOT and may therefore also be subject to road tax. Whilst many people will not be troubled by the effort or the relatively minor expense that involves, some of us will want to avoid all of that. So it would be even more useful to know how the extra 3hp of power was squeezed from 500cc. so that the bare details of engine size can remain the same in the vehicle registration document.

Additionally I think that use of the 540cc kit and substitution with 594cc engines might become more popular as these may not change the power output so significanty as would a 650cc engine.

I have even read some scare-stories (and I think that's all they are) about registration numbers possibly being taken away and replaced with "Q"-plates.

In reality, perhaps most people will remain very coy (ie. tell a lie ) on their application form for exemption, and sign to say that the vehicle remains substantially according to the original specification.

fiat500 said:

With reference to the thread about the Sport engine.
https://www.fiatforum.com/500-classic/453997-specifications-500-sport-engine.html
In reality, perhaps most people will remain very coy (ie. tell a lie ) on their application form for exemption, and sign to say that the vehicle remains substantially according to the original specification.

Click to expand...

Not aimed at you Peter but anyone thinking about doing that. As I said previously it’s hell of a risk to take. Your insurance will be invalid as you are driving a car on the road without having paid the correct VED or having an MoT when you should have done. If you are unfortunate enough to have an accident and that was adjudged to have been your fault, then I am sure the financial implications of that would be far greater than the inconvenience of having an MoT.

Remember all it could take is a something as simple as one of the brake wheel cylinders popping and you are left with no brakes. It has happened to me before in my 500.

I am sure insurance companies will be more than thorough in inspecting historic MoT exempt vehicles that have been involved in any accidents.

Remember we have our very own accident assessor on the forum and it won’t take him long to spot a 650 engine He’s got enough of them!!!!!

Vitesse said:

Not aimed at you Peter but anyone thinking about doing that. As I said previously it’s hell of a risk to take.

Click to expand...

Although I do have a version of Pinochio's nose, I never lie (he lied ).

As long as it keeps going I will be sticking with the engine I have until the MOT runs out in 12 months. But I want to steer clear of MOT's and paid-for road-fund licences, so depending how the legislation is finally worded I may eventually turf the 650 engine out.

But having now run with the big-boys I would want to "subtly" increase my power so that I can "honestly" sign any form to show only minimal increases in cubic capacity, if anything. I am pretty sure they will not be demanding that we get the car's output checked on a rolling road.

I know we are all worried (or should be) if there is some system that they may introduce (at our cost) such as full vehicle examination and even put the car on a dyno is possible... after all SVA is paid for by the car builders not the Gov and it ain't £25
After all 15% increase is not a lot when dealing with a 500...

But what about the impacts on other car owners...I have a VW Splitscreen Van... and how many have larger engines even just to punt along at a reasonable speed let alone the ones that run sub 20seconds 1/4 mile times...

The impact if they do decide to get tough on this will be dramatic... it could see classic car prices plummet, especially for low to mid range vehicles where engine swaps and mild tune ups are common place... Mini's VW's Triumphs, Fords, how many have low power outputs as standard and a few tweaks will easily take you over the 15% increase..
in my case a 479 base output is 13bhp
and a later F/L 499 is 18.2bhp
so even just fitting that gives 40% increase in power...
and a 13bhp is downright dangerous...

I can understand the underlying issue, particularly Mk1 Escorts fitted with Subaru running gear or Minis being fitted with Vauxhall 2L engines which I believe it is to stop as clearly they are a way to avoid Road tax and now it would include no MOTs.

The solution.. I have no idea but it will be decided by someone else not the general users of classic cars.

Pinocchio ? Peter!
It’s a crazy ruling and clearly doesn’t take into account little low engine capacity cars like the 500. But I suppose they had to pluck a % figure out of the air from somewhere?

When you look at the numbers a 499 engine is 18bhp, a 650 is 24bhp. When you think it’s only a 6bhp difference it sounds like nothing. In percentage terms it represents a 33% increase, which sounds quite a lot. If you told someone that your managed to get a 33% increase in engine power out of your car, they would probably be quite impressed, until you tell them it’s a Fiat 500!

In theory to keep within the regs and only have a 15% increase you need to aim for a massive 20.7 BHP. Even a 594 engine wouldn’t fit with the new regs, as we currently interpret them, unless it was in an 500R of course.

Vitesse said:

Pinocchio ?

Even a 594 engine wouldn’t fit with the new regs, as we currently interpret them, unless it was in an 500R of course.

Click to expand...

Yes it would; I would fit a 24IMB to de-rate the engine....honest!!!!!:chin:

Guys, I'm not in the same league as some who can rebuild an entire vehicle for pleasure and so on. I have read this with interest, and have friends who have had roadworthy tests on their kit cars. My frank opinion is that if such items are your chosen pride and pastime an Mot should not put you off and is affordable enough. A sensible flat rate Road tax also. As this is a rolling 40 years it will collect more and more 'modern' cars and they all should attract the same servicing and checks as they do now, if not indeed more.

My worries are not about a few £££ for MOT and Tax...
it is that the powers that be then have a distinct group of motor car owners all grouped nicely together taking advantage of the rules for being Free of MOT and Road Fund... We may be lucky leaving the Eurocrats behind, as we will not be dragged into mass euro rules.... Look at modified cars in Germany... and as pointed out if you have a Classic in France....
I remember hearing that "Heavily Modified" classics would loose their classic status and receive a Q plate (this is always a looming fear) and even if you returned the car to Std Spec the Q plate would be irreversible...
Originally if you imported a classic car from outside of the EU you were I believe subject to a 5% duty if the car originated in the EU, however now it is much harder and you have to show in some cases it being "Of historical Interest"

I know many people from other countries that are jealous of the way classic cars are viewed in the UK, once registration documents are lost in some countries the car is effectively scrap.... but they ship them to the UK, and are able to register them and then they export them back home...

I do not believe that the powers that be would do anything that would not ultimately either save them or make them money at some point... What they give with one hand they will take with the other.. always the case....
So as the growing number of Tax and MOT exempt cars increase what a nice little group of vehicle owners that can be targeted easily... or am I just cynical?

A guy called Keith , in Australia, who goes on huge tours in his very old cars just posted this food for thought on another forum:


"Most contributors on this forum are based in the U.K. and you are in an environment that has not placed any restrictions on the use of your cars. Instead of worrying and whining about things that may very well not happen, why not get out there and start up your classic engines and enjoy your motoring.
Your government has given you a great boon in the removal of the useless MOT test. It may have been needed back in 1960 to remove clapped out and badly maintained cars from the road, but not any more. Cars of today do not allow the average home handyman to do much in the way of repairs or diagnosis to their vehicles.
You, the owners of these classic cars are the experts, not a young computer operator at your local testing station. Be grateful that this has finally been recognised.
Happy motoring!"

At the risk of upsetting a number of forum members, not all owners of classic cars are experts. 40 year old cars if used on the public highway DO need an annual check-over--I will concede not a "full" MOT, but an inspection of the parts that most owners can't get at UNDER the car. Not many classic car owners have ramps/pits which enable them to give good inspections of the car. Our government is famous for 'knee-jerk' reacting to a situation--if a classic un-inspected car has an accident in which innocent, unconnected to the car, people are killed, there is a fair chance that they will descend on the classic car scene like a ton of (stupid, not thinking) bricks.
Just to give an example---the plane crash at Shoram was caused by (a) the pilot not presenting a flight plan to the organisers of the air-show and, (b) the organisers not asking for a flight plan---the result of that crash is that despite the fact that the UK had probably the best safety record involving air-shows in Europe, we now can't have an air-show if it involves flying over people--ask the jared-off people of Dartmouth about that fact! A classic "let's not have a good think about it and look at the whole situation, but have knee-jerk reaction that will look good" reaction. The outcome is that a lot of classic aircraft, now that they can't be used for air-displays, will have lost their 'raison d'etre' and may be lost for ever.

A voluntary, annual check by a professional mechanic will be a very wise thing for a non-mechanically-minded person to arrange. This is likely to be even more useful than an MOT if done by a specialist garage. But the number of mechanics remaining who can give a worthwhile assessment over the range of classic cars available must be dwindling quickly. This might even be a factor which has focussed thoughts towards MOT exemption.
Since so many classic cars are lucky to travel a couple of hndred miles a year, you would be very unlucky to have an accident in one of them which was caused by worn or faulty mechanical parts. It is far more likely that cars will experience problems directly attributable to lack of use.
I think classic car clubs have sufficient influence to be able to avert "knee-jerk" reactions in the very sad but very unlikely event of a significant tragic accident caused by an everyday classic car like the Fiat 500.
If I have caused any accidents in my car I apologise to those people who became distracted by the blue comet that whizzed past them, but they should keep their eyes on the road.

I visited my tester, Steve, yesterday to chat over another matter and this subject came up. His concern is what will happen when there is an event, accident or whatever, which involves a large insurance claim amount? Will an insurance company be willing to meet a claim without proof that the vehicle involved was in a road worthy condition? We all know how they wriggle now! Steve went on to tell me that he has issued road worthiness certificates to showman's engines in the past, this may be where I go in the future, as an act to cover my a**. Basically this certificate is an MOT with a different title!

I'm coming in to this thread late, but I think there's a lot of room for interpretation (and a need for some honesty amongst owners) needed.

My car, for example, has been converted from 499cc to 595cc and, with the addition of a much more impressive carb, the BhP has been significantly improved (pretty much doubled, in fact, from original spec).

My insurance company is aware of the mods (the car's value has been significantly increased over the last 18 months), and the DVLA/DVLC are now aware that it's a 595cc and not an 499cc engine.

This means that, officially, it still needs an MoT after the new regulations are in place. However, I'm sure that if I didn't draw attention to it I could fly under the radar. All fun and games until you have an accident, or the car's stolen and your insurance is invalidated.

I'm sure I'm one of many in the same situation. I for one will continue to MoT.

Pete