important MOT Testing Exemptions Consultation VERY IMPORTANT

[.303fan]

Looking forward to the rolling 40 years MOT exemption.  Just get a insurance and free road tax and no out of SORN inspection or MOT needed. Just changed the 2.25 petrol to a 2.25 diesel in my 1975 land rover and lets get rolling! 

 

[mtskull]

Not exactly playing Devil's advocate myself but, having spent many years in the motor trade (a long time ago) and having recently become involved with the maintenance of some heavy-ish preserved vehicles, I am of the opinion that no vehicle used on the road should be exempt from MOT testing unless it is operated by an organisation with the capability and responsibility to subject it to a stringent routine maintenance schedule, e.g. The MoD and emergency services.

A case recently came to my attention, of a preserved vehicle from the 1950's which is MOT exempt and in use on the road. One day, the owner complained that the brakes were poor. To cut a long story short, it transpired that the front brakes were not working at all (cylinders all seized), the rear brake cylinders were working (but leaking) and one rear hub oil seal had failed, allowing oil to contaminate the linings on that side. So, only one wheel with effective braking on a vehicle which weighs over eight tons and is capable of over 60mph. How long the vehicle had been used on the road in that condition is anybody's guess but my point is that a rolling road check as part of an MOT test would have flagged up these issues long before the vehicle became the deathtrap that it was.

Yes, I know that you all maintain your vehicles to an impeccable standard but there are also people with older vehicles who will do the minimum that they can get away with. The requirement for an annual MOT test raises the standard of that minimum and, let's face it, is a relatively inexpensive way of obtaining a pretty comprehensive roadworthiness check for your own peace of mind.

Edited March 21, 2018 by mtskull

[Maurice]

mtskull, I am from abroad , but can tell you that we had to go to MOT  every year with our pre 1950 vehicles , it was troublesome , because none of the MOT stations had a clue about the regulations of the older vehicles , 4x4 vehicles could not even do the brake test , so there where loads of complaints from well maintained vehicle owners , and finally the 40 + year old vehicles are exempt , I have not yet come across one unserviceable vehicle at rallies.

[CMP-Phil]

Hi

Well it is spring and the beginning of the MV (antique vehicle) driving season.  So yes it is time to give your vehicle a through saftey inspection.  This should be happening reguardless of requirements for MOT, DOT etc. inspection.  It just takes a couple of examples of MVs or other antique vehicles having break failure in a parade with injuries resulting and stuff is going to hit the fan.

I will agree when we had required inspections here in New Hampshire, the people at the inspection station had no idea how inspect my military vehicles, they just were not qualified to do it properly.  In every case over a 20+ year period of these sham inspection I got inspection stickers without them inspecting or at most they would ask to see if the lights worked.  Our state system now exempts all vehicles over 40 years old.

Unfortunately I have seen a number of cases when brakes on military vehicles involved in Club events had brake failure.  Run aways on long hills while traveling in convoy, inability to stop at stop lights.  Some cases it was the same owner who just could not grasp the concept that they had to repair, adjust or replace their brake system.  Strange that they never noticed that after the 2nd brake failure that a couple of us with big trucks always seemed to be in line ahead of them in parades or convoys we figured it was better for them to run into us instead of somebody driving a Jeep.

 One of our long time CCKW drivers recommends the following.  "Everytime you start your truck, while it is warming up a little STAND ON THE BRAKES" his logic is it far better to have the peddle go to the floor while you are sitting still. As part of my own spring inspection is test my brakes on our dirt road, on a straight section at 30MPH I stomp on the brakes just hard enough to lock the brake, then release pull over and looks at the marks did all four wheels lock evenly.

Thanks for bringing the topic up, you just gave me the topic for my Tech Tips section of our clubs newsletter.

Cheers Phil

 

 

 

 

 

[10FM68]

The trouble is that not all drivers can be trusted.  I am keen on elderly Land Rovers and, quite often, if I see one about, or for sale, I pop its details into the DVLA website and look at its MOT history.  More often than not, even enthusiasts' vehicles' MOT records are appalling - with fails in most years.  It seems its sent in for an MOT, it fails on several points, the garage puts them right and issues an MOT within a day or two, often with several advisories which then appear the following year, and off it goes for another year of indifferent maintenance from the owner .  And, all too often the failures are chassis rot, brakes or steering related.  If I were insuring a vehicle exempt from an MOT I would demand proof of roadworthiness in any case, whether it be a formal MoT or a qualified engineer's report.  And no matter how diligent we are in our own maintenance, it never hurts to get someone else to give our vehicles the once over, it is easy to miss something.

There was an "immaculate" Volvo 245 for sale on the Classic car website recently.  It looked superb and had a write-up to match.  It had failed its first attempt at an MOT every year since 2008.

10 68.

[.303fan]

I am as i stated happy for the MOT excemption, i am also for more roadside checks to make sure vehicles are up to a roadworthy standard. I have been given a 1975 s3 land rover civillian for my wedding gift, i did get it delivered by flatbed as it stood for 8 years after it was someones toy. The brake drum was 2mm thick, redone all copper plumbing aswell as new shoes, drums and the front anchor plates as they were a bit corroded. Seen a 101fc ambulance fail its MOT as a steel brake pipe failed during the brake test, the owner needed help with replacing the lines and i had the tools and next round it passed it. I have spotted a crack in my swb chassis, it will be inspected by cleaning the gunk ofd, screwdriver test and welded up, it was missed during the MOT though.

[Nick Johns]

On 12/18/2017 at 8:26 PM, John Comber said:

.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Nick Johns

[Nick Johns]

More clarification on 40 year old vehicle MOT exemptions

https://www.britishmotorvehicles.com/news

[TooTallMike]

Hi all,

For your information I submitted a request for clarification to DfT regarding the term "reasonably available" and eventually received the following in reply:

"[MG question] 1. Can you please define what “reasonably available” means in relation to the following context “changes that are made to preserve a vehicle, which in all cases must be when original type parts are no longer reasonably available” 
 
[DfT response] In respect to your first question, some thought was given at the time the guidance was drafted as to whether “reasonably available” should be defined. It was decided that as what “reasonably available” meant would vary in relation to every part for every vehicle model type, that a strict definition of the term would not be helpful. Individual vehicle owners are best placed in each instance to determine what “reasonably available” means in relation to their particular circumstances."

Make of that what you will!

I do not propose to poke this particular anthill any further.

 - MG

[TooTallMike]

On 3/24/2018 at 6:57 PM, 10FM68 said:

If I were insuring a vehicle exempt from an MOT I would demand proof of roadworthiness in any case, whether it be a formal MoT or a qualified engineer's report.

As an aside to the general topic I don't believe insurance companies care one way or the other whether a vehicle they are covering is roadworthy. They will happily take your money. If the vehicle is found to be unroadworthy following an incident they will simply invalidate the insurance.

 - MG

[.303fan]

Changes to a vehicle, if i cram a 300tdi with automatic in to a series 3 lwb as a disability adaption, including left foot accelerator for a amputee or convert a 101fc ambulance with a 3.9 V8 with automatic gearbox for the same purpose, how will that stand when they hit 40 years of age? 

[gritineye]

 

21 hours ago, TooTallMike said:

I do not propose to poke this particular anthill any further.

 - MG

But one day ,the ants might come after you Mike, forwarded is forearmed !

[Jordi]

I have just read this with some intrigue. I have recently purchased a (non-MV) 1975 ERF. 

Whilst strictly speaking it requires an MOT the response from the Historic Commercial Vehicle Society was “we don’t know”, as many members have been able to tax non-mot’d post 1960 trucks with no issue. I always thought either at the post office or online if you could’t prove it had an MOT it wouldn’t allow you to tax it. Possibly a glitch in their checks when a truck is listed at private light goods / personal use / historic exempt???

The idea that it should also meet current legislation is extremely daunting, not to mention expensive. 

As mentioned by many, we just average people, not millionaires with a money tree. 

I am lucky in the fact i do have access to a commercial vehicle workshop, pit and brake tester to ensure it is safe to use and meets the acceptable standards to be road worthy, brakes, tyres, lights, etc....

I hadn’t actually confirmed the MOT aspect prior to purchase as I already know a few people with 70s trucks running as MOT exempt, school boy error on my behalf. 

A lot more research required on my behalf now to find out exactly which aspects of the MOT i need to comply with. 

It is a chassis cab so i have a blank canvas so to speak but like many of you i don’t want to lose its originality. 

[Jordi]

Addition to the above post, i found this guide to the HGV MOT. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hgv-inspection-manual

Going off the guide it doesn’t seem too much additional work for a normal classic truck to meet the requirements. 

There are still exemptions to some rules and requirements depending on a vehicles age. 

I shall read and digest. 

[TooTallMike]

On 10/14/2018 at 8:09 PM, Jordi said:

Addition to the above post, i found this guide to the HGV MOT. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hgv-inspection-manual

Going off the guide it doesn’t seem too much additional work for a normal classic truck to meet the requirements. 

There are still exemptions to some rules and requirements depending on a vehicles age. 

I shall read and digest. 

Hi,

Firstly I'm sorry to say but it is extremely unlikely your truck is test exempt. The recent changes to the law seem unfair but they are quite clear as far as dates are concerned. The claim for test exemption when taxing the vehicle is a self-declaration and as such you can declare a vehicle to be test exempt even if it not, just as you could with the old V112G. The reason it is a self-declaration is so that the responsibility is placed solely on the person who declares it. If you choose to falsely declare it is at your risk.

The latest update to the HGV tester's manual indicates that your truck will be tested against the regs which were in place when it was built and the spec to which it was built. Therefore it should be perfectly capable of passing a test just as it could when new. There are a few items which have changed such as under-run protection and improved lighting/reflectors which are mandatory and must be retro-fitted, but all of these are detailed in the manual you have linked to and are not hard to comply with.

Regards - MG

[LarryH57]

According to what I have read of the rules, it would seem that .303fan  (in his post at the top of page 24) cannot claim MOT exempt if he has changed his 2.25l petrol enging for a diesel engine, in his 1975 Land Rover

[ruxy]

2 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

According to what I have read of the rules, it would seem that .303fan  (in his post at the top of page 24) cannot claim MOT exempt if he has changed his 2.25l petrol enging for a diesel engine, in his 1975 Land Rover

Arguable possible ,  however IMHO  - not a  "Substantial Change"

RULES.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/670431/vehicles-of-historical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf

Providing his - 2.25 diesel is a 2286 cc Solihull lump ,  not out of something like a Daihatsu.    Probably such as a slightly later  2.5na is also acceptable.   Of course  RULES  should be in plain English (they are) and easily understandable  (not)  ,,

 

 

 

[.303fan]

It indeed is a 2.25 5MB lump i rebuild from holiday and birthday money. It will be mated to a late 2a gearbox (one of the rare full syncro units) 

Dash will be made from computer panels and all stuff i can find. 

[Tony B]

On 3/14/2019 at 4:09 PM, ruxy said:

Arguable possible ,  however IMHO  - not a  "Substantial Change"

RULES.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/670431/vehicles-of-historical-interest-substantial-change-guidance.pdf

Providing his - 2.25 diesel is a 2286 cc Solihull lump ,  not out of something like a Daihatsu.    Probably such as a slightly later  2.5na is also acceptable.   Of course  RULES  should be in plain English (they are) and easily understandable  (not)  ,,

Don't be silly! If laws and regulations were crystal clear how would lawyers make a living? 😕

 

 

 

[LarryH57]

Substantially Changed ? Now where have I heard those words before?

[Slimjim176]

Hello experts!

 

Questions regarding a Simca Sumb...

I realise this is an old thread, but hopefully can get some advice from those with experience of these two questions, as I have previously asked the DVLA but they could not answer:

- Has anyone determined what of meant by 'running gear'? I have asked the DVLA but they could not answer the question, ave could only suggest that I make changes, then submit a report and they will determine whether the truck should keep its Historic status, which seems risky

- If the original V8 petrol engine and 4-spd gearbox are not reasonably available (i.e. difficult to find in the UK, and would probably cost more than I paid for the truck), and I decide to replace with a later diesel engine, that is equivalent in cylinder count and displacement to those fitted to later models of the truck by the French army (but not the actual Renault engine), would that result in keeping Historic status but require an annual MOT?

Effectively the engine is being changed to one that matches the fuel type, capacity and cylinder count (if not make), of a variant of the Sumb

I'm not concerned if it does then require an MOT, as I prefer too know that it is roadworthy, although I will take absolute care with all required maintenance. 

 

Thanks in advance for any experience. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Slimjim176