I own a Morris Minor convertible. It was registered in early 1960.
Recent government legislation has allowed cars built before 1960 to be exempt M.O.T.s. I have enquired and it seems my car was built before 1960, so, now all I have to do is to send the proof off to the DVLA and my car will be exempt from M.O.T.
The question is should I? Is it better to have a safety check once a year, so that I know a professional engineer has examined the car and has decreed that it is safe to be on the road?
Or shall I keep an eye on it myself, particularly brakes, steering and suspension and have any remedial work carried out as and when necessary?
This is a link to Motor Sport magazine:-
www.motorsportmagazine.com/road-cars/opinions/the-real-cost-of-mot-exemption/
|
|
Wasn't the exemption for old cars more to do with testers' capabilities and what they could be expected to know? It does seem silly to apply modern standards to cars where testing the lights means measuring the wick in the candles. On the other hand, a reasonable quid-pro-quo might be to restrict use of vehicles without modern safety equipment - and hence exempt from the requirement for an MoT - to daylight and good weather.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 26 Apr 13 at 10:15
|
>> Is it better to have a safety check once a
>> year, so that I know a professional engineer has examined the car and has decreed
>> that it is safe to be on the road?
I think it's better to have a safety check. MOT testing stations can put the car on a hoist and inspect the underside more closely than an individual without a hoist. For example, at one MOT test it was discovered that my car's rear springs were both fractured ~ the bottom coil which had fractured was obscured in the lower spring support. I hadn't noticed it, either when driving or when looking under the car when it was over my inspection pit.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 26 Apr 13 at 10:33
|
If it fails an MOT, then that's on record with all that entails (got my tin-foil hat on here).
I'd suggest getting a friendly MOT station to give it a safety check now and then.
I like to think I'm thorough in checking my motors, but I once missed a broken coil spring - about 100mm off one end.
|
Yes, duck out of the nonsense of the modern MOT if you can.
It is also an excellent idea to ask another pair of eyes to look over your car, to act as a check that your servicing and maintenance regime is up to the task.
If you can find a garage that has been around long enough, ask them to do an MOT as it was in the early 80's; a very pragmatic check to make sure lights, wiper, horn, etc all worked, that the wheels were held onto the body correctly, that nowt was dropping off underneath and that the brakes worked correctly.
As an aside - it's funny how most drivers think they are perceptive and can tell about vehicle handling, but they don't detect something as fundamental as a broken spring!
|
Duncan wrote: "so that I know a professional engineer has examined the car "
You're slipping NC!!
|
>>You're slipping NC!!
Thanks!, yes professional engineer indeed!
|
For a car with modern type brakes, there is a good argument to getting it put on the rollers and brake tested MOT style. I once had a car fail an MOT on brakes and you'd not have felt the problem under normal usage, but it pulled (I think to the right) on an emergency stop.
The vintage car has cable brakes and the efficiency of the front brakes is so far below modern standards as to make MOTs a bit of a game. It stops well enough if you use the back brake too as that is a legacy from only 5 years earlier when front brakes were not fitted at all! On the last few MOTs, a Tapley gauge was used - but I had to drive etc as the controls are a bit odd unless you are used to old Morgans.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Fri 26 Apr 13 at 12:59
|
>>a legacy from only 5 years earlier when front brakes were not fitted at all!
Yes!, before vehicle engineering was at all systematic or scientific some awful and unsafe decisions were taken. If you're going to do without braking on any axle, delete the rear brakes!
Edit - that was partially why I said early 80's MOT tests - roller brake testing had just become part of the MOT, but, a lot of the later sillines hadn't been dreamt of.
Last edited by: Number_Cruncher on Fri 26 Apr 13 at 13:04
|
One over-riding argument would be if insurance companies none the less start asking for MOT certificates.
I think it depends on your general DIY competence. If you are a hands-on type classic owner, the kind who can talk intelligently to the MOT tester while he points things out to you, then I'd say don't bother.
But if you don't do any work yourself, and aren't very technically knowledgeable about your car, but just like to drive it, then it might be safer to get it tested.
A compromise would be perhaps a 2-year inspection by a friendly independent or classic specialist, not a full MOT as such, just a good look while up on the hoist and a brake test.
Lots of things are pretty obvious once a tester has pointed them out, it's just that knowing that the fail-safe check is there makes one tend to not notice them.
I got an informal advisory recently because the brakes were a bit imbalanced - not badly, but they could be better. I could have found that for myself - braking hard in an empty carpark with my hands off the wheel and it obviously pulled a bit.
So a self-imposed "MOT-type test" might be a good idea once in a while. What about having a checklist, like a real MOT, to impose the discipline?
|
To M.O.T. Or Not To M.O.T.? That Is The Question - WillDeBeest
