Technical End of MOT at 40 years, for most

Currently reading:
Technical End of MOT at 40 years, for most

IanEmery

Established member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
444
Points
184
Location
Oulton Broad, Suffolk, UK

Attachments

  • IMG_6551.PNG
    IMG_6551.PNG
    339.8 KB · Views: 73
From reading this - every 500 running a 650 engine would still need a test?
 
From reading this - every 500 running a 650 engine would still need a test?


Not a worry; non-original engine only removes one point from a possible 14.
And by original I think it will mean "original capacity". It's a moot point as some 500's came with bigger engines from new. Eight points is the minimum target.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles

My car scores 13 out of 14 and it will be good if this new policy helps to keep more cars more original.

Nowever, I'm no sure that any authority will be actively interested in policing this very closely and I would be comfortable with ducking the MOT even if I scored less than 8 points.

There has always appeared to be a vociferous contingent of Fiat 500 and classic car owners in general who insist that they will continue to MOT their cars in any case. I very much doubt that many people will actually do this.

As far as I am concerned this is an excellent outcome and removes a little niggling hiccup from my annual motoring.

My last MOT due next week.:D
 
But doesn't it say the criteria for substantial change is. "Is if a vehicle has a power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original design, unless the modification took place before 1988."

Surely that includes a 500 with a 650 engine? Or am I missing something?
 
Vitesse, got it in one. It looks as if you will have to have an almost standard car to go MOT free once over 40 years. It will be up to the owner to prove the modification took place prior to 1988.

Ralph
 
Having read it again and Peter's link in his post. I am not sure how that link is relevant to whether a car is exempt from the MoT or not? That link is about whether or not a vehicle is radically altered and the 8 point rule is in regard to whether it can keep its original vehicle registration.

"The criteria for substantial change
A vehicle will be considered to have been substantially changed (and hence not to have been historically preserved or maintained in its original state and to have undergone substantial changes in the technical characteristics of its main components) if it meets one of the following criteria. Such vehicles will not be considered of historical interest and will be continue to be subject to vehicle testing.
Criterion 1
If a vehicle has a power to weight ratio of more than 15% in excess of its original design, unless such a modification took place before 1988."
 
From reading this - every 500 running a 650 engine would still need a test?

But, if the cost of a test really mattered to an owner, simply omit to inform DVLA of engine change/enlargement? How can it be policed if the car is never inspected? Maybe originality and 499cc engines will be seen as a premium after this legislation?

I do very few miles each year, certainly way less than 1000, and due to circumstances, am unable to get underneath enough to examine some parts of the car as well as I would like too so I will continue to have the cars checked over by my local, trusted, garage whether it's a legal requirement or not. (y) This work will now be to my criteria rather than MOT test standards though.

I can however see potential for trouble in changing this law especially for those looking to buy a car, and maybe not being too clued up on what to check over, as it is now a buyer can have some, although maybe limited, confidence that someone thought the vehicle sufficiently safe to issue a certificate. Some of the cars that are sold as fully restored but actually just with nice new shiny paint and new interior trim could in fact be let on the roads of Britain in a damgerous condition. :eek::eek:
 
Last edited:
The way it can be policed is if you are unfortunate enough to crash into someone or something and have omitted to tell the DVLA. Insurance companies rule number one is to find any excuse not to payout.

If you have been sensible and honest enough (which I am sure most people on the forum have) to tell the insurance company you have a 650 engine under the bonnet rather than the original 500. The classic car insurance companies are already familiar with this process, as no doubt they insure many cars that are already exempt. First thing they are going to ask for is a valid MoT in the event of a claim. Its a hell of a risk to take to save the inconvenience and £50 odd a year.
 
blimey.. 15% more power to weight limit.....
I can't even fit one of them modern 499cc engines....
 
blimey.. 15% more power to weight limit.....
I can't even fit one of them modern 499cc engines....

I'm going to fit a heavier battery...maybe several and fit lead weights in the doors.;)

Maybe there will be an increased demand for 594 engines as they were actually fitted to R's.

I have to admit defeat as Tony Vitesse has highlighted a real issue with insurance. Having read the annexed document properly, Andrew AndrewHarvey is correct.
 
I own 2 classic cars and will ask my usual MOT test garage to carry out a test of brakes, steering and suspension. I've had one MOT failure in 21 years and that was a very slight leak on a brake hose. I'd never spotted this myself and probably wouldn't have done until the leak had got worse. I decided to change all the hoses for safety, on the basis that they were probably the same age.

My local garage has told me that they haven't had any pre 1960 cars presented for a voluntary MOT. I'm sure we've all seen a few badly maintained pre 1960 classic cars at shows, and I doubt that their owners will ever present the vehicle for a voluntary test!

At least I won't have to subject my cars to the one man, shaker MOT ramp that's recently been installed at my local garage. I can imagine my poor 500 being shaken off the ramp and ending up on top of the tester!
 
I did a random MOT check on a few cars in the Goodwood Revival parade; so at least two of them had no MOT. Every other car I checked had done minimal mileage between the recorded MOTs and in most cases this was less than 150.

So it might be argued that an MOT is pointless for a car which is used so infrequently. Equally, could it be said that inactivity is a car's worst enemy?

Anyway, I'm off for an MOT at the end of this month. A quick tip for anyone else doing that; KwikFit can do it for as little as £25 if you book ahead. Use the code 5MOTSEP17 during this month for another £5 discount. They can't supply you with tyres or repair your brakes, exhaust or window wipers, so any cynics who think that they will rip you off....don't panic. But equally, make sure all these things are up to scratch ecause if it fails you are obviously on your own with the repairs.
 
This topic was given a lot of coverage in the British motoring publications in recent times. Many expressed the view that removing the requirement for an MoT on classics over a certain age was maybe not such a great idea.

Some people simply won't do any checks/maintenance. Sales of replacement brake parts dropped significantly after the announcement.

Others will continue to maintain their vehicle to the best of their ability but even the best mechanics can miss something. There's also the human tendency to be a little lazy, put things-off 'till later, short of time (MoT arrives suddenly!), over-confidence in previous maintenance/repairs ('It was fine when I last checked it, haven't covered much mileage since last service, it'll be fine!).

Biggest worry was should an accident occur where a fault on an 'un-tested' classic was deemed to have caused the accident, the Government might try to ban classic vehicles from general usage on the roads.... Insurance companies might try to decline to pay-out on a claim involving an 'unroadworthy' vehicle, or introduce a requirement for a voluntary Mot or Engineer's/Garage report from a marque specialist....

The magazine editors advised considering putting the vehicle in for a voluntary MoT to cover yourself regards roadworthiness if you were in any way unsure of your ability to correctly maintain/check the vehicle.

Personally I welcome a 'second pair of eyes' looking over my vehicle, just in case I've missed something.

However I'm not going to trust someone else to work on my car. :eek:

Al.
 
Totally agree with you Al---I put my 'aperth worth into the consultancy and voiced my concern over the removal of the MOT. In my opinion, if you are going to use the car on the Queen's highway, it should have an annual, independent, professional check-over (a MOT!).However, despite the bulk of opinion saying KEEP the MOT, the government decided to do away with it for cars over 40 years old---WRONG--for all the reasons, and a few more, that you stated Al.
banghead.gif
thumb.gif
 
Just a thought, an MOT is only applicable at the time of the MOT. A vehicle could be deemed unroadworthy the day or week after test. The MOT does not protect you in any way if your vehicle, vintage, classic or not, is classified by the Police as unroadworthy after an accident. In saying this I will still MOT my classics.

Ralph
 
You tend not to hear of serious accidents being attributed to mechanical failure in private vehicles, even less so in older cars. I think it is very odd that we can cut open and reweld our cars and significantly modify the engines and chassis components already, without needing to have the work checked at all. There will be clowns who will drive unsafe cars, but few people will go or get far in dodgy classics. Road safety is more affected by driving ability and style. I think the biggest factor that influenced the Government decision, having already strongly moved in favour of abolishing the MOT, was the ludicrously small mileage most cars achieve in a year. Does anyone MOT their sub-3 year old car? Of course not, so why do so with your mollycoddled little jewel of a 500? :)
 
Last edited:
My worry on this is not the "classics" such as the 500, but the vehicles that will soon be eligible, some people will exploit it.

Here in France, the CT(MOT) is every two years. Vehicles over 30 years old can be registered as "collection", at which point they only require a CT every five years. Registering as "collection" is non-reversible and brings with it some restrictions, mainly insurance related (restricted kilometerage, no commuting or buisness use), it also leaves you at the mercy of the government should they change the rules (previous rules restricted vheicles to their home and neighbouring departments only, unless attending a show, weekends and bank holidays only).

While these rules are fairly sensible, the are being exploited, in particular by the "young traveller" community (young people 18-25 who work seasonal jobs while living in camper vans), 30 years isn't very old when it comes to vans/trucks like the Mercedes 308, Iveco Daily, Ford Transit etc, some of these are looking pretty ropey 4 years after their last CT.


Personally, all my vehicles are registered as "normal", even those over 30 years old, if the rules were the same as the new UK ones, I think I'd go for a check every couple of years, depending on use.

As already said, two pairs of eyes are better.
 
Would this allow vehicles which are currently SORNed to come back on the road without a test?

If so, this seems like a horrible idea. Most of these cars were taken off the road because they couldn't pass before they spent 3 years sitting in a field.
 
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.
 
Back
Top