Pre 1960 classics & MOT

[plasticpig]

I was talking to an MOT tester at the weekend and he was telling me that they still get plenty of pre 1960's classic car owners who want an MOT inspection for their P&J. The reasoning of the owners appears to be that they want an expert opinion on the safety of their car. Seems like a very sensible attitude to me.

[Mr. Magoo]

plasticpig said:

I was talking to an MOT tester at the weekend and he was telling me that they still get plenty of pre 1960's classic car owners who want an MOT inspection for their P&J. The reasoning of the owners appears to be that they want an expert opinion on the safety of their car. Seems like a very sensible attitude to me.

Exactly what I will be doing....I don't want to be the first to find out that the 1929 brakes are not doing the job.

[guru_1071]

all our pre 1960 cars will still continue to get an mot before they are used.

1934 riley passed on Saturday

[Riley Blue]

I don't know any owners of pre-1960 cars who is going the no-MOT route, all I've asked so far (mainly Riley Motor Club members) are having their cars tested.

[a8hex]

I thought the gubberment had back tracked on this one and agreed that pre-1960 cars would continue to need an MOT. I thought there was a discussion here about it a while back.
My XK went through its MOT recently.
Don't fancy being on the road if 120+MPH cars are allow out to play without someone checking they're likely to be OK.

Edited by a8hex on Tuesday 23 April 21:20

[mgeee]

Not getting mine tested.
Before you jump on me I own a restoration garage.

[fossway]

Probably covered before but how does this effect the transfer of a registration plate from a pre 1960 car. Does it just need a V5 and a tax disc, even if it is not on the road?

[Slidingpillar]

Original plates should stay on old cars {climbs off soapbox}

Actually you can still transfer them - but the car needs an MOT first, even if it is exempt.

[Riley Blue]

The question is: would you buy a pre-1960 car with out an MoT? I've read of several instances where a pre-60 car has been dragged out of a barn, got into running ordered and been offered for sale, no MoT inspection being done.

I would never an MoT exempt car without insisting it be MoT'd first.

[dpp]

mgeee said:

Not getting mine tested.
Before you jump on me I own a restoration garage.

I'm sure you are a good mechanic but do you have a brake tester, I think it's worth going for an MOT just to check the brakes are working properly.

[Riley Blue]

dpp said:

mgeee said:

Not getting mine tested.
Before you jump on me I own a restoration garage.

I'm sure you are a good mechanic but do you have a brake tester, I think it's worth going for an MOT just to check the brakes are working properly.

Rust would be my biggest concern by far. Good brakes in a rotten car is an expensive fix, poor brakes in a sound car will be much cheaper to remedy.

[RichB]

I will get mine tested but what it means to me is that I can do it when I want. My MOT expired in January when the car was effectivly tucked up in the garage. The new rules meant I could tax it in March and will get it MOTd later this month.

[Riley Blue]

Once tested, will it then need a test every year as it'll be on the VOSA database?

[M3John]

I still plan to get mine tested.

Maintenance wise she is tip top but, it's really the only grantee'd point in the year that i can get the car up in the air and have a good poke around.
It's also nice to go and have a social with my dads mate that owns the test station.

[clarkey]

I'm sure I read recently that some insurance companies are insisting that pre-1960 cars are MOT'd still. Could be wrong though.

[alpinemauve]

In addition to the safety aspect I like paper trails. In five years time i will be more inclined to buy a car with 5 recent Mot certificates with mileage on as opposed to a car that has no indication of miles covered over the 5 years. It would be very convenient on a 100k mile car to loose the old mots and re-introduce it as 50k miler in 5 years time.

[mgeee]

dpp said:

I'm sure you are a good mechanic but do you have a brake tester, I think it's worth going for an MOT just to check the brakes are working properly.

Even if you have a car tested its not a guarantee the brakes won't fail the next day.Ive had it happen, not the next day but few weeks after.

[S0 What]

mgeee said:

dpp said:

I'm sure you are a good mechanic but do you have a brake tester, I think it's worth going for an MOT just to check the brakes are working properly.

Even if you have a car tested its not a guarantee the brakes won't fail the next day.Ive had it happen, not the next day but few weeks after.

LOL just had a customers car pass an MOT, inc brake test but the brakes were TBH ste, so i wipped the drums off re-adjusted the shoes and changed the fkuid, result, brakes way better and no nose diving under braking.
The moral is, just cos it goes for an MOT it dont make it safe, some people obv have liitle or no feel for what is safe and whats not but dont spout the old "i'd onlt feel safe if it has an MOT" cos 90% of the real stters i've driven have had an MOT

[mph]

I wonder if the powers-that-be looked at the statistics of how many pre-60 cars failed the MOT before introducing this idiotic legislation.

I'd put money they didn't.

Bad enough the cars that are in regular use, but at least there's a fighting chance they'll be somewhere close to MOT standard.

What about cars that have just been dragged out of storage and got running - or amateur restoration projects ?