Practically Classics Forum

Did I here that there were plans to make classic mots every two years?
i read all the mags if i get a chance. One of them was on about really old stuff not needing a test.
Have i got the wrong end of two sticks?

My recollection is that there were proposals to test new cars after four years, not three as at present, and then every two years thereafter and also to exempt pre-1965 vehicles from testing altogether. Nothing much has been heard about either recently, so it may have been kicked into the long grass.

that sounds like it.
the mot always comes round quick but im not sure that two years between is good either.
Pre 65's without mots sounds dangerous but it would cut down on the old yearly bills.
Thanks

I would still get my classic's done each year, just to be safe.

france its mot every 2 years, ive not killed anyone.

We only have them when the car changes hands or when ordered to by the Police.

You can drive your car for 30+ years without an RWC (MOT) provided the Police don't find anything to complain about.

Pity the poor saps in New Zealanad, they have a test every six months!

I reckon two or three years is reasonable.

The Problem with a no MOT for older cars is this..

If your like me and have a 100% track record with my MOT man for the last 8 ( 11 gosh how time flys just checked my MOT book ) years and my 7 classic cars. EG they are kept right up togeather like alot of us active Classic owners that's perfectly good.. I would personly prefur to have a brake test at the very least and I am happy to pay for that.

The problem is this..



In some peoples eyes it's still runs therefore it's safe!!

nothing wrong in running a classic on a budget and keeping it going.. but really an MOT even a very basic test is still needed in my view point.. on a costs basis that's me £350 a year better off .. but worth every penny in my eyes , to know it's good to go.

If the owner is legally liable for any issues resulting from a vehicle that is unsafe there should not be a problem. In fact - in our circles it can make owners even more maintenance aware. Two of my vehicles are actually MOT exempt - one because it is fully tracked and the other because it is permanent 6x6 and cannot go through an MOT testing station for this and other reasons. Both get rigorous maintenance check at regular intervals, full services every year and thorough checks before taking on the road.

I am personally against two year testing. I am a tester & a classic car owner & although i,like many of you maintain my cars with my own & others safety in mind unfortunately some owners don't.
A good example of this was a 1947 Vauxhall 14 that i Mot'd the other day. This had been bought by the current owner a year ago & looked perfect from the top ( a real show winner). When i got under the car it was a different story.
The front half of the chassis was a separate unit that bolts to the body just behind the rear doors & the rear chassis is an integral part of the body, where the two join there is a number of bolts securing the two. Some unscrupulous person had patched the join to cover the fact that there was no inner sill/chassis left around the bolts. This time for Mot the rust had spread past the bodge & the two halves could break apart if caught wrong or involved in an RTA. So although i dont like paying each year for the test (yes i too have to pay) i think it is required to stop this sort of thing from happening. Luckily for this customer (not the failure or the bill they are going to incur) they found out about the problem before someone got injured or worst still killed.

Corrosion especially can catch you out very quickly unless you're under the vehicle every couple of weeks.

Case 1: Nissan Sunny coupe, passed the MOT with only minor stuff (Track rod end and a couple of minor bulbs). 11 months later (unfortunately a wet year so didn't get much under time), looking to book the next MOT, had a good look over. The idea being any bits that needed doing I could do in plenty of time. Rotted inner wings. Taken straight off the road after I changed my trousers, even though in the eyes of plod (on paper) I could have still driven it

Case 2: The Disco. Bit of minor surface corrosion on one of the seat belt mountings in the rear wheel arch (a bit of peeling underseal so I thought) stood up to a few good thumps, so I believed it was solid. Thought I'd tidy it up before winter, so attacked it with an electric drill and a scotchbrite disk. Ended up replacing a 6x6" piece to fix that one, as the vibration just made it crumble.

Yes I keep my vehicles looked after, but a second pair of eyes and a decent vehicle lift are worth the hassle once a year