MOT Exemption

[gbb483]

My Stag came with an MOT and the battery was slopping around in the tray as there was no securing bar. The handbrake was cr4p as the fittings inside the drum were solid.

But I will need to sort the wipers out as well. Note to self - get some parts from the usual suppliers before there is a rush on them.

[richardthestag]

I agree with the fact this govt will also want to remove Road tax and probs ULEZ exception for our Stags.
I kinda agree with the MOT exemption being removed as I purchased my latest Stag from Abinger Hammer motors 6yrs ago and it was exempt already but got Abinger Hammer Motors(sadly closed now but a Stag specialist) to perform an annual roadworthiness check, which is how the Classic MOT test should be.
I hope common sense will prevail on this, but unlikely.

really nice idea but in general, and I do come across this quite a lot, mot annual test and annual servicing should not be confused. If a garage can perform a service and check at the same time then fabulous. but the MOT isn't that.

Folk who smoke around in a dangerous rot box claiming "mot exempt init" have failed to appreciate that they are responsible for ensuring the roadworthiness of their car every time they drive it on the roads. The mot is only a snapshot in time, once a year event. A brake light bulb could fail 10 minutes after the test and a particularly picky PC B'stard is going to write you a ticket for unroadworthy vehicle. In this age where council and govt are becoming increasingly anti private car why give them any excuse.

Also and this is a big one for me, mot history records are my go to when looking at a car to buy. you get a good record of how well the car has been maintained from one year to the next, pick up snippets written between the lines and can also verify the mileage. This is as relevant for a cheap runabout as it is for a classic car. no mot on record for 15 years and I would generally walk away, simples.

when looking at a car for my lad "reliable runner" etc "one careful owner" and all that malarkey. mot history read like war and peace with a fail sheet every year followed shortly after by a pass. the most recent test was abandoned as the car over heated during the test. it then passed a week later. "yeah chap, looking for something a bit more together"

[Triumphman]

I think it's better to have a mot however, not sure if our cars will pass the emissions test.

[flying farmer]

What a lot of people don't realise is your insurance is invalidated if you are involved in an accident. Many years ago a member of the local TR club was involved in a fatal accident in his daily driver where his passenger died. He had one bald tyre, and although the police investigation said it was not a contributory factor as the road was dry, his insurance was invalid. It took 8 years to come to court ( not unusual apparently) and he was made bankrupt by the insurance company reclaiming the payout to his passengers widow.

Yes, a bulb failure technically makes a vehicle unroadworthy, but that could have happened at any time. Things like bald tyres and knackered bearings, ball joints and suspension bushes and that usual problem of chronically corroded braking systems don't happen overnight.

I get all my fleet MOT'd every year, that suspension shaker shows up problems you can't find by jacking the car up. However I am always present in the MOT bay as some of the younger testers are clueless about stuff like hazard warning lights and the number of rear view mirrors required

[jakesmig]

.....................
Also and this is a big one for me, mot history records are my go to when looking at a car to buy. you get a good record of how well the car has been maintained from one year to the next, pick up snippets written between the lines and can also verify the mileage. This is as relevant for a cheap runabout as it is for a classic car. no mot on record for 15 years and I would generally walk away, simples.

when looking at a car for my lad "reliable runner" etc "one careful owner" and all that malarkey. mot history read like war and peace with a fail sheet every year followed shortly after by a pass. the most recent test was abandoned as the car over heated during the test. it then passed a week later. "yeah chap, looking for something a bit more together"

...................
I've had my Midget since '98 and my current Stag since '06 and they have gone through their MOT's at the same garage. Because I know the staff there well I generally sit in the car and do the dummy stuff when directed, I am always present during the test. After the test the inspector generally shows me any area where he has a concern.
In all that time I had one failure, the Stag, with a worn ball joint.
In the majority of my MOT's it can be seen that the cars recorded an MOT failure within the week preceeding the test, a ploy I'm told helps keep the garage within mandatory failure requirements.
My point in relating this is that there isn'y much point in basing your judgement of a car on its MOT record.

PS. The inspector and I always agrue over the play in the front bearings.

[SteveD]

+ 1 for an annual MoT test and an annual service to check on the things that gradually creep upon you unnoticed.

[marshman]

I think it's better to have a mot however, not sure if our cars will pass the emissions test.

Yes they will, can and do pass the emissions test. If they don't they should be sorted out anyway - the money you save in improved fuel consumption will probably pay for the work over the course of a year.

You may find the mixture has to be weakened a tad to get it through on a "worn" engine the richened up a little after to get it to run nicely but emissions should not be an issue - it never was on my Stag or any of my other classics.

[APS]

1.1 Types of test
The emissions test to which a vehicle is subject will depend upon its date of first use (i.e. date of registration or date of manufacture if used abroad before first registration in the UK) as follows:

• For vehicles first used before 1 August 1975 a visual test will be applied.

• For vehicles first used on or after 1 August 1975 a metered test will be applied.

[marshman]

For completeness as APS says cars first used on or after 1st August 1975 will be tested and should have CO levels of 4.5% or less and HC levels of 1200 or less.

Cars prior to that should not emit visible smoke.

Although my (ex) Stag was an early MK1 with early Strombergs - no temp compensators, vent valves etc. I used to get them to check the actual emissions as a check on correct mixture setting and CO readings were always around 4% and HC 800ppm.

My Dolly Sprint, first registered 1st August 1975 !, and running its original twin SU HS4 carbs will easily run/idle as low as 2.5% CO, but for best on road performance sits at around 4%. Its a similar story with my '61 Warwick GT (runs a Standard/Triumph 4 cyl 2litre engine on twin SU's)

As I said a healthy engine should not be a problem, if it is a problem get it sorted - will save you money in the long run and make the car road legal..

NOTE, on a car with twin pipes, such as the Stag, they are supposed to measure each exhaust and average the results.

[staggering]

I will never understand why any owner wouldn't get an MOT purely on the basis that if you have a very serious accident, esp involving a fatality, all insurance companies and the police will go through every aspect of the car in finite detail. If you haven't had an MOT in recent years trying to prove roadworthiness and any modifications meet all regulations for not requiring an MOT are not worth saving 50 quid and a second opinion once a year

[jbuckl]

I have a different view:-

The road is increasingly not ok to drive on.

The daily’s get motd because they have to.

The testers seem to be very poor these days.

picking upon stuff that is insignificant, missing stuff that might be significant.

most of us on here I suspect don’t skimp on car maintenance.

however there’s many that do skimp / ignore car maintenance… that’s why there’s a test.

if I was able to report about roads and get them shut until fixed…. Well, we would not be on many roads! ….