The 'E' Type Forum

As the current MOT runs out on 18th May I had my car tested today. I always get it done as soon as possible just in case I’ve missed something that needs more than a few days to sort out.

So far in 18 years of ownership, nothing has, but you never know.

Now my car possesses an MOT for the two days between the expiry of the old one and the new rule that exempts it from ever needing one again.

I spoke to the tester. Since pre 1960 cars became exempt he’s had no older cars to MOT. It seems the first exemption has been widely used. I predict the same will happen for the 40 year rule, and that fills me with dread. I don’t dread the thought of a 200 bhp E-Type with less than perfect brakes, leaking shock absorbers and tyres worn to the canvass. I worry about Austin Maxis, Vauxhall Vivas and Ford Cortinas brought out of retirement from Grandad’s garagewith no health check, no tax and probably no insurance. I see grief ahead.

I understand what you're saying but don't agree that the problem would be confined to the, shall we say, "lesser" marques. There are careless and unscrupulous people involved in all aspects of the classic car industry, which is what it has become.

Frankly, some of the things I've read on this forum fill me with fear as to the consequences of some of the things people do.

I've think the problem is still likely to be the tweaked superminis that we see spitting out chunks of clinker whilst scraping their sills along the ground and probably insured as 1litre shopping trolleys.

Regards

Are you talking about my 1965 1275 Morris Cooper S ?

I do not share Chris Fell's concerns. To tax a car you will still need insurance, and if people were not bothering to insure their Viva or whatever, then the lack of an MOT would not be deterring them under the present system from driving their cars . And when did you last see a Viva, Cortina or Maxi other than well kept ones at car shows?

I , similarly, doubt the value in scrapping MOTs for 40 year olds. However, the majority(must be over 95%) of accidents are caused by poor driving and very few caused by kingpin collapse on Morris Minors.

I believe the real worry is any car over 40 years old that has been languishing in a garage for the past few years since it failed it's last MOT because of extensive corrosion, faulty brakes, suspension etc.
These cars can now be insured cheaply, taxed FOC and legally driven on our roads and motorways.
How dangerous is that.

Don't think that could happen Simon, although I could be wrong. Thing is, although you don't NEED an M.O.T, if you take an M.O.T and fail it, you are listed as MOT failed until you pass one, and can't insure the car.
So even now, if you choose to take a mot and fail, you can't then drive until you pass. So safer not to take it, although you CAN do a pre-mot test, and if you're told it wouldn't pass, you can still insure etc.
Info care of Steve!

While I am not certain I believe that exemption will not be automatic but the keeper will have the option to request an mot exemption when they renew their tax. The VHI exemption applies to vehicles over 40 years old that are "not substantially modified" although larger vehicles and buses will continue to need an mot. It is unclear to me whether the exemption needs to be renewed annually. Even if exempt you can continue to submit the car for an voluntary MOT test. I shall continue to get mine mot tested each year.

My E had an MOT when i got it. I drove it about 200 miles before dismantling it and discovering the full extent of the rot. It was so rusty the front boot floor panel (above the IRS) was completely detached from the wheel arches, on both sides. Ooerr.

My car has been imported and is not quite ready for the road; still needs painting and interior, but it does run. It is not ready for an MOT, but I am champing at the bit to get it registered.

It is insured under an off road policy, but if I changed that to an on road policy could I now register it?
Thanks,
Paul

It has been discussed elsewhere that a insurance company now had a clause exempting agreed values if you do not have an MOT , stating they will only honour market value .
So anyone intending not to MOT i would recommend they check their policy first .

Hi Steve..where was this discussed befor.....what company was it refering to.. Steve

Steve ,

This was the reference . My insurance renews in June so i have no personal confirmation of the same .
http://www.lotuselan.net/forums/lotus-t ... ml#p292070

Jeremy wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:50 am

My E had an MOT when i got it. I drove it about 200 miles before dismantling it and discovering the full extent of the rot. It was so rusty the front boot floor panel (above the IRS) was completely detached from the wheel arches, on both sides. Ooerr.

Jeremy : I had my FHC for 14 years before I rebuilt it in 2007. It had passed an MOT every year . When I dismantled it, I dicsovered that the left hand lower engine frame was virtually severed by corrosion ( probably from battery acid ) at a point under the battery which is very difficult to see because of the undertrays ......the value of MOT certificates is perhaps overstated, and what has become ridiculous is that many failure points now are not related to immediate safety at all . The classic example of this is balljoint gaiters, which when split eventually will lead to excess wear , but which have no functional significance at the time of inspection

I am all in favour of informal examination, but not the ridiculous bureaucratic exercsie which the MOT has become. I am heavily coloured in this view by having represented the family of a man killed by a Renault HGV on the day after its inspection when a steering column UJ parted the day after its MOT. Why was this not spotted ?

The utterly ridiculous answer is that the HGV examiners were prohibited from tilting the cab ( essential for any meaningful examination of suspension/steering etc ) because this would constitute "dismantling the vehicle".

MOT Certificates ...... not worth the paper they are written on

Couldnt agree more Christopher.....not worth the paper they are written on......If you maintain you vehicle yourself then you know exactly what condition its is in....if you dont maintain yourself then have it professionally serviced and thoroughly checked each over each year by someone that understands this type of vehicle this will be far more thorough than an mot......last year a friend drove home from the mot station with an advisory of slight play in the steering...when i checked it over for him both steering mounts were delaminated.......Steve

Steve and Christopher both make good points. They, and I hope, the rest of us forum members keep our cars in good Nick. Certainly when I got mine it had an mot. But the brakes were awful, the fuel line leaked and I could go on. However I get mine MOT checked by a local man who is also a classic car fan. Sure he might miss something....but then so might I. The MOT ain't perfect but it is or should be an independent eye with hopefully an objective view. Without any independent check there is always the danger of saying...I'll fix it next week or month. Sooner or later there will be a failure that leads to an accident and then all hell will break loose when it is revealed the car had not been MOT checked for X years....and we will all suffer...

MOT doesn't exist in N.A. with no particular carnage. I'd be way more worried about some idiot on their cell phone and "driving". Problem has become greater here than impaired driving.

Frankly im appalled that anyone could suggest that having an MOT was anything other than a positive factor to the safety of yourself and other road users. Ive read comments here on this topic saying that because they look after their cars in their own garage, then it must be absolutely fine. Do they have MOT equipment in their garages, i doubt it. So how can anyone say that their brakes work 100% efficiently without having an MOT. Like many of you, i have driven many E-types and been shocked at how they drive, and in particular, can’t stop as intended. All cars, over 3 years old MUST have an MOT. Ask my local MOT garage who is also a classic car restorer and he will tell you some horrific stories. Many of those cars are now exempt. Also, having an MOT is an excellent way of showing to a future buyer this car has certified mileage, and been peroperly and carefully maintained. There really is no arguement here, other than laziness because new legislation allows it. I rest my case.

I think you guys are getting all worked up over nothing.

In my jurisdiction we stopped the equivalent of annual MOTs over 20 years ago. Statistically there was no change in the roadworthiness of vehicles. Regular reviews are conducted comparing the one State that still has MOTs with the other States that do not an again there is no statistical difference in in roadworthiness.

I appreciate the concern about having unroadworthy vehicles on the road but that position is not supported in jurisdictions where MOTs are not conducted.

Garry

paulsco wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:04 pm

It is insured under an off road policy, but if I changed that to an on road policy could I now register it?

I don't believe you can register it without an MOT because as far as I'm aware the DVLA requirement for a valid MOT as part of the registration process hasn't gone away.

Two possible future ongoing uses for a 'voluntary' MOT:

It serves as ongoing official verification of the mileage - maybe useful as part of the car's history should you ever come to sell, and likewise maybe useful for demonstrating back to your insurance company that you are keeping within your annual limit.

Should you ever have an accident, heaven forbid, it maybe serves as useful verification that in the 12 months prior to the accident your 50-year-old 150mph car had been independently assessed as meeting modern roadworthiness requirements.

Apart from the faff of having to get the MOT arranged, I'm coming round to the view that at 35'ish quid it's one of the better value (only?) bargains in the motoring world....