Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MOT Exempt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • stevec2004
    replied
    A MOT means absolutely nothing as far as I am concerned as apart from obvious things like a bulb out most parts in the test are "in the opinion of the inspector" or "excessive play" which means something different to everyone.As an example I bought a 73 Mustang,which failed a MOT test back in 1991 with loads of what would be called minor type failures now but was enough to keep the owner from trying to repair it for 20 years and he advertised it for sale on here.I bought it,but by now the wording of the test has changed.In those days a bit of play in a ball joint or wheel bearing was a failure nowadays it can be a pass and advise so I pumped every ball joint and bearing full of grease, changed all the fluids and cleaned up earths on lots of electrical parts it passed it's first test for 20 years.It's still on the road now and is driven around 3000 miles a year and I have only just replaced any ball joint.

    Leave a comment:


  • ALLAN R
    replied
    Originally posted by Anaconda View Post

    Blimey you are behind the times! Many modern headlamps are sealed units in so far as you can't change a bulb. Just replace one on a RR Sport, 2.5k!
    This is where modern cars are becoming absolute nonsense.

    The best bit for me with an MOT was a chance to walk under the car whilst it was on the lift (I had a friendly garage mechanic who liked Mustangs). This gave me a chance to thoroughly examine the underside myself. On a couple of occasions he would point out a slightly slack bush, such as an idler arm, saying it was ok for now. I would immediately replace it and also do any stuff I spotted, like flaking underseal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anaconda
    replied
    Originally posted by alastairq View Post
    As an addendum.....I can sympathise to an extent with owners/users of moderns..having headlamps or sidelights out..given the extreme difficulty of rectification imposed by some manufacturers....especially when half the front bodywork has to be dismantled just to sort a blown lamp? Perhaps it is time for a Regulation demanding manufacturers make things incredibly easy for the lay-owner/user to replace a light unit /bulb/candle, on new vehicles?
    Blimey you are behind the times! Many modern headlamps are sealed units in so far as you can't change a bulb. Just replace one on a RR Sport, 2.5k!

    Leave a comment:


  • likaleica
    replied
    It is certainly a good idea to have a car checked annually by a Mustang mechanic. But IMHO an MOT is a waste of time for a well maintained Mustang unless you want a whole list of spurious fails or irrelevant "advisories." This is simply because most present day MOT testers have no clue about the idiosyncracies of Mustangs or classic cars in general. The last time my properly maintained 1968 Mustang had a compulsory MOT the clot who inspected it listed 4 advisories - mainly common Mustang foibles . In any event, does the computerised VOSA system accept vehicles that are MOT exempt ?

    Leave a comment:


  • alastairq
    replied
    As an addendum.....I can sympathise to an extent with owners/users of moderns..having headlamps or sidelights out..given the extreme difficulty of rectification imposed by some manufacturers....especially when half the front bodywork has to be dismantled just to sort a blown lamp? Perhaps it is time for a Regulation demanding manufacturers make things incredibly easy for the lay-owner/user to replace a light unit /bulb/candle, on new vehicles?

    Leave a comment:


  • alastairq
    replied
    The MoT is a useful tool for identifying whether a ''prospective'' vehicle has got some structural corrosion [that complies, or otherwise, with the MoT regulations]....Or, how much corrosion has been attended to, in order to pas an MoT? Also worth remembering, if a vehicle fails an MoT due to corrosion.....and then passes.....exactly how, or to what standard, has that corrosion been dealt with?
    Also worth remembering, that the MoT tester has very limited access for checking for corrosion. The biggest enemy of the tester must be, the presence of extensive use of plastic sill covers? [Speaking as a 'victim' of a vehicle with 11 months MoT....but almost non-existent sills once I removed the covers.......mind, the vehicle did have a full chassis...but bodymount rules????]

    However, the MoT itself has an inordinately high level of street credibility....mainly achieved by an almost complete misunderstanding of the test itself, and its limitations, by the driving public.
    In this respect, I myself would make use of the MoT as a selling point..if I were selling.

    But I am acutely aware [as an 'enthusiast'] that the presence of a valid MoT is no confirmation of a vehicle's current roadworthiness...ie, compliance with the Law......

    I make use of local DVSA roadside checks as a confirmation I've done my bit......more often than not being waved past by the Police....and having to beg for a check-up by DVSA examiners. This is free....I am a retired pensioner, so free is better than 40 quids. which might be irrelevant to anybody living south of Watford Gap?

    The only real issue older vehicles have endured regarding MoT exemption is....the 'grey' period between an MoT expiring....and the next due date for taxation. For it is at this date, that the Declaration of VHI is made to DVSA, for exemption from Mot. [Either online, or hardcore, using paper forms and a post office].

    Every time a vehicle is MoT'd, then this grey length of time is extended...for the system reads of a current MoT in force....so no Declaration of VHI is possible.......and so it goes on.

    My tame MoT tester queries why anybody with a vehicle over 40 years old, would not want to withdraw from the system?

    My local Police Trafpol inform me [and anybody with even a vague interest....more vague than that displayed by the ''shouldn't be allowed' brigade.....[to be spoken with a proper Dandy Nicholls accent]''........that, following these frequent DVSA roadside check campaigns......over 80% of all vehicles stopped and examined, are actually, unroadworthy......[in respect of the Law] in one way or another. That means, any vehicle from brand new, backwards.

    Which can be anything, from a single brake light being out [failure to maintain....or, rather. cannot be bothered to check regularly?], to tyres in poor condition [more likely on new,or nearly new vehicles, apparently ]...poor brake performance, busted bodywork, you name it....[not forgetting, insecure loads??]

    Getting one's pride 'n joy checked by a 'professional' once or twice a year, doesn't cover the other 363 days, when the vehicle is potentially being used.

    What's really needed is, for owners to take a far greater, deeper interest in the vehicles they are proud to be seen to own.....to take a greater responsibility for that vehicle's upkeep.

    Why not MoT it once a month???


    Leave a comment:


  • alastairq
    replied
    After Brexit your driving licence won't be valid anyway!!!
    Somewhere, I still have my old International Driving Licence......[which, for the youngsters, pre-dates the UK's entry into the Common Market...as it once was]

    Leave a comment:


  • rider
    replied
    Every car should have an annual inspection irrespective of miles travelled and where that is done should only matter depending on how competently it is done. For anyone unable to check the cars out themselves or diagnose likely causes of bumps, rattles and noises then a garage that runs a MOT test is a sensible option. It'd probably even shift a car when selling easier having a stack of previous MOT certificates. The only issue with MOT tests is if the car fails it may well not be insured to drive from the testing station even if the old certificate has not technically expired. So why take the chance of that, I'd just ask the garage to check over the suspension, tyres and brakes,

    For myself, I do all the servicing and underside inspections at home once a year with oil servicing every even year (which for my classic cars is every 1,000 miles) . I also have a five page service document that I fill in for each of my cars where everything is gone through and ticked off or signed off with comments that include any specific recommendations for the next annual check. When I do major jobs like a recent one was to fit a new timing chain I always do a write up with pictures and comments and add this to the cars box file. I think that's going to be a much more detailed record of what has been done to the car for any future owner than any amount of MOT certificates and garage invoices could ever provide.

    Leave a comment:


  • ALLAN R
    replied
    Originally posted by JCMaunder View Post
    Great discussion... thanks for all the input. This seems to be a bit of a “Marmite” topic. It is healthy to see all the sides of an argument so we can make calculated choices.
    John, I wouldn't worry about an MOT to drive in Europe next year. After Brexit your driving licence won't be valid anyway!!! Also because we drive on the wrong side of the road and have the steering wheel on the wrong side they are going to expect us to buy left hand drive cars if we want to go to Europe. I mean come on what idiot would buy and drive a left hooker car in Britain????

    Leave a comment:


  • JCMaunder
    replied
    Great discussion... thanks for all the input. This seems to be a bit of a “Marmite” topic. It is healthy to see all the sides of an argument so we can make calculated choices.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anaconda
    replied
    Originally posted by Musti View Post
    No it doesn’t show categorically that the car has been maintained but it suggests it has been. If one year there’s an advisory and the following year that advisory doesn’t appear it suggests the car has had a repair or been “maintained and cared for.” If I was buying a classic I would like to see MOT history for piece of mind, right, wrong, agree or disagree that’s my thoughts, not that the OP is selling it was just my thoughts.
    Not picking on you, just happened to quote you.
    If you pay to have your classic serviced then they should be checking everything anyway so then paying them for additional MOT is a waste of money. I can see the value of paying for a "MOT TYPE" of test if you service your own car. My cars are staying off the MOT system and if I feel I need to pay someone to check it over I will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anaconda
    replied
    Originally posted by JCMaunder View Post
    I agree that the MOT does not prove any maintenance has been carried out. I still get an MOT because I cannot bear the thought of having to convince my insurers, if making a claim, that it’s not required! I want a simple life.
    I understand your concern but has there ever been such a case? Its only a guess but most claims on classic cars are probably because they have been stolen so road worthiness would not come into play. I "think" that no insurance company will turn down a claim because a MOT exempt car hasn't got an MOT, on the other hand they might turn down a claim if its unroadworthy MOT or no MOT.

    Leave a comment:


  • Musti
    replied
    No it doesn’t show categorically that the car has been maintained but it suggests it has been. If one year there’s an advisory and the following year that advisory doesn’t appear it suggests the car has had a repair or been “maintained and cared for.” If I was buying a classic I would like to see MOT history for piece of mind, right, wrong, agree or disagree that’s my thoughts, not that the OP is selling it was just my thoughts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stang65
    replied
    Originally posted by Anaconda View Post
    none of my insurance companies or breakdown services state the car needs an MOT
    There was a case reported in the VMCC mag a few months back of a member whose car was refused attention by the recovery service for not having an MOT (was reported due to obvious knock-on to VMCC eligible motorcycles). It turned out the breakdown service shouldn't have refused and they later apologised, but that didn't help the guy stuck at the roadside. I just can't be bothered to argue in the case of a breakdown when I can do an MOT at my convenience. Also a fresh pair of eyes may spot something that needs attention which I haven't, so it's a cheap way of getting a check where you know what's involved.

    Leave a comment:


  • JCMaunder
    replied
    I agree that the MOT does not prove any maintenance has been carried out. I still get an MOT because I cannot bear the thought of having to convince my insurers, if making a claim, that it’s not required! I want a simple life.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X