The elephant in the room thread.

macplaxton

carchaeologist wrote: »

Pre 1960 in the UK are now, or will be soon be MOT exempt Del.

They have been exempt since 18 November 2012.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they have changes the rules in the UK re MOT in that cars before 1960 will be exempt from MOT as many of these cars were only driven to the MOT station and back each year.

UK DfT wrote:

a) Pre-1960 licensed vehicles make up about 0.6% of the total number (35.2m) of licensed vehicles in Great Britain.
b) Only involved in just 0.03% of road casualties and accidents.
c) Evidence shows that the initial MOT test failure rate declines by the age of vehicle after the vehicle is 13 years old.
d) Two-thirds of them are driven under 500 miles a year.
e) Their initial MoT test failure rate (10%) is only a third of that of post-1960 manufactured vehicles.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Cars manufactured (as opposed to registered) before 1973 were exempt from road tax (but they had to apply, with MOT). This has been extended to cars built before 1st Jan 1974.

It was in UK Budget papers back in March, but this has not been extended yet. It is due to come in from 1st April 2014

Sam Russell

If a car has to be tested every year, then it is no big deal. If the test is appropriate to the car/year I cannot see how anyone can complain. However, the emmissions lement that is part of the current test is far too stringent and would be inapproprite for a car over 10 years let alone a classic.

swarlb

mountai wrote: »

I put an MGA through the NCT last year. I discussed with the examiner (who in fairness had a knowledge of old cars) an approach that I was happy with. Obviously , omissions were not tested. He judged the suspension on the old "Bounce" factor rather than shaking the sh1t out of it on the plates. The chassis and steering components were inspected on the hoist and the brakes on the rollers. When he drove it out, he made sure that she centered herself on the steering as well. I did this test after a complete stripdown and rebuild , and was happy to pay the feeat .Most NCT places have "Senior" mechanics who would treat cars in a respectful manner and I for one think that a bi-annual test for Classics is not unreasonable. I would caution anyone who buys a car that is "Test Exempt" to at least get a competent person to examine such a car. In fact I would avoid a seller who promotes the idea -- "Exempt"-- as a selling point. BTW has anyone contacted Myles ???.

Did you do this for your own peace of mind. Or did the NCT actually give you a 'pass certificate' that would stand up as a selling point for example.

macplaxton

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, the emmissions lement that is part of the current test is far too stringent and would be inapproprite for a car over 10 years let alone a classic.

Personally I don't think it is. All vehicles tested are not expected to have emissions any lower than they were when they were new.

Assuming voluntary presentation, and leaving diesels & cats aside for a minute:

Anything pre-1/1/1980 is visual check only. (GB/NI it has to be pre 1/8/75)
Anything 1/1/80 to 30/9/86 is 4.5% CO / 1000ppm HC (GB/NI 1/8/75 to 31/7/86 is 4.5% CO / 1200ppm HC)
Anything 1/10/86 to 31/12/93 is 3.5% CO / 750ppm HC (GB/NI 1/8/86 to 31/7/92 is 3.5% CO / 1200ppm HC)
Wankel engines are exempt (GB/NI A Wankel engine pre 1/8/1987 is visual check only. From 1/8/87 to 31/7/92 is 3.5% CO / 1200ppm HC)
Two-strokes are exempt

I've had a 1980 car tested in the UK with 1.2% CO / 118ppm HC. I've had other cars of similar vintage miles inside the limits set. I've never had any problems with emission testing the wife's 2000 Pug 106 on an NCT test here (I've taken that down myself the last 3 times). My opinion is if any car is maintained correctly, it will fly through an emission check.

mountai

swarlb wrote: »

Did you do this for your own peace of mind. Or did the NCT actually give you a 'pass certificate' that would stand up as a selling point for example.

Purely for my own peace of mind. Subsequently I sold the car back into the UK , although the car was exempt for MOT (pre 1960) I sold it with an MOT Cert.

Sam Russell

macplaxton wrote: »

Personally I don't think it is. All vehicles tested are not expected to have emissions any lower than they were when they were new.

Assuming voluntary presentation, and leaving diesels & cats aside for a minute:

Anything pre-1/1/1980 is visual check only. (GB/NI it has to be pre 1/8/75)
Anything 1/1/80 to 30/9/86 is 4.5% CO / 1000ppm HC (GB/NI 1/8/75 to 31/7/86 is 4.5% CO / 1200ppm HC)
Anything 1/10/86 to 31/12/93 is 3.5% CO / 750ppm HC (GB/NI 1/8/86 to 31/7/92 is 3.5% CO / 1200ppm HC)
Wankel engines are exempt (GB/NI A Wankel engine pre 1/8/1987 is visual check only. From 1/8/87 to 31/7/92 is 3.5% CO / 1200ppm HC)
Two-strokes are exempt

I've had a 1980 car tested in the UK with 1.2% CO / 118ppm HC. I've had other cars of similar vintage miles inside the limits set. I've never had any problems with emission testing the wife's 2000 Pug 106 on an NCT test here (I've taken that down myself the last 3 times). My opinion is if any car is maintained correctly, it will fly through an emission check.

I got a 10 year old car tested and it failed on emmissions. Took it home and dropped back with just an extra 12 miles on it. No work on it whatsoever. It passed. Failure was on 'lambda'. No-one outside of the NCT can test for it with certainty and it appears to be quite random. It is affected by nearly everything in the management system of the car, with no certainty as to why it is out. High = hole in the exhaust - or could be the MAF, or it could be a leak in the vacuum lines or it could be .....oh yea, the cat . The first thing most mechanics do is to change the lambda sensor (because it says 'lambda' on the fail sheet), which may or may not be the cause but usually is not the cause. Lambda is used as a measure of complete combustion which has little relevance to road safety.

Brakes - yes; Lights - yes; steering - yes; structure - yes; seat belts - yes; tyres - yes; suspension - yes.

But that is enough for safety. An annual check keeps everything right before it gets too bad. Remember - 25% of all 4 year old cars fail their first test.

delthedriver

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a car has to be tested every year, then it is no big deal. If the test is appropriate to the car/year I cannot see how anyone can complain. However, the emmissions lement that is part of the current test is far too stringent and would be inapproprite for a car over 10 years let alone a classic.

I believe the genuine enthusiast would have no issue with a simplified NCT or Classic Roadworthiness Cert. appropriate for cars over 30 years.

As Carchaeologist correctly pointed out pre 1960 cars in the UK do not require a MOT, which is sensible in that it is highly unlikely that a car of those years are more than likely collectors show pieces and are likely to do only a couple of hundred miles per year.

Do I detect there is a general consensus of opinion that we need to do something to protect the genuine enthusiast from the cowboys who are likely to create a problem for everyone. Is there a governing body who can lobby the Minister for Transport ???????? Any ideas????

delthedriver

corktina wrote: »

surely there is no way you could insure that without lying about what it is (Ie by stating it as a Granada Saloon or estate).

Correct, the vehicle is uninsurable!:)

swarlb

delthedriver wrote: »

I believe the genuine enthusiast would have no issue with a simplified NCT or Classic Roadworthiness Cert. appropriate for cars over 30 years.

As Carchaeologist correctly pointed out pre 1960 cars in the UK do not require a MOT, which is sensible in that it is highly unlikely that a car of those years are more than likely collectors show pieces and are likely to do only a couple of hundred miles per year.

Do I detect there is a general consensus of opinion that we need to do something to protect the genuine enthusiast from the cowboys who are likely to create a problem for everyone. Is there a governing body who can lobby the Minister for Transport ???????? Any ideas????

The IVVCC, which is a member of FIVA, should be one body in question. Do we actually have a Minister for Transport who cares !!
The other problem I see down the line is to do with emissions. The recent news that we (humans) are more or less 95% responsible for climate change, might just impact without us having a say at all. All that needs to happen is someone, somewhere, to make law that any cars over (say 7 years, should be taken off the road permanently)
I read somewhere that the Icelandic volcano that grounded aircraft, spewed out the same levels of toxins in a few days, that industry would do in a few decades. And that there are many, many active volcanos all over the world spewing out stuff on a daily basis.
Very easy to penalise us on the grounds of health/safety/climate and make money in the process, than it is to shut down a few volcanos.

delthedriver

swarlb wrote: »

The IVVCC, which is a member of FIVA, should be one body in question. Do we actually have a Minister for Transport who cares !!
The other problem I see down the line is to do with emissions. The recent news that we (humans) are more or less 95% responsible for climate change, might just impact without us having a say at all. All that needs to happen is someone, somewhere, to make law that any cars over (say 7 years, should be taken off the road permanently)
I read somewhere that the Icelandic volcano that grounded aircraft, spewed out the same levels of toxins in a few days, that industry would do in a few decades. And that there are many, many active volcanos all over the world spewing out stuff on a daily basis.
Very easy to penalise us on the grounds of health/safety/climate and make money in the process, than it is to shut down a few volcanos.

Climate change, bring it on! Hopefully the fine weather will continue for the rest of the year!:)

MercMad

carchaeologist wrote: »

It was, late 1982.
P100s from 1979 had cortina front underpinnings, with bigger wheels, and different (unique) front wings to accommodate them. Rear axle was a transit style setup on a strong chassis.

The car above is a Sierra, and not an early one either, all of which had McPherson strut front suspension as opposed to the Granada and Cortinas double wishbone on a large subframe.

The Mk3 Granda which used a similar suspension set up as the Sierra wasn't introduced until 1986.

Hard to say what's going on with that add!!

....its is strange but the fact that this is a pickup means it wouldnt be subjected to the high tax anyways, so thats hardly a reason. If he used Granada bits then they'd have to be from a MY86 car so I really cant see what part of the car is 1979 !

Very strange.

delthedriver

MercMad wrote: »

....its is strange but the fact that this is a pickup means it wouldnt be subjected to the high tax anyways, so thats hardly a reason. If he used Granada bits then they'd have to be from a MY86 car so I really cant see what part of the car is 1979 !

Very strange.

Mind Boggling!

manta mad

mountai wrote: »

BTW has anyone contacted Myles ???.

he knows about the thread !

When a person who takes out insurance fills out the form ( or gives details on their car/tractor/truck ect ) their info that they give is a binding contract to the insurance ..
so if anything happens and a claim has to be made . your details are what you have been insured on . so if it aint what you said or you dont have any modifications amended on your policy ..you wont be covered !

Remember ..its you who give the details , not the insurance company !

so the onus is on you !

mountai

manta mad wrote: »

he knows about the thread !

When a person who takes out insurance fills out the form ( or gives details on their car/tractor/truck ect ) their info that they give is a binding contract to the insurance ..
so if anything happens and a claim has to be made . your details are what you have been insured on . so if it aint what you said or you dont have any modifications amended on your policy ..you wont be covered !

Remember ..its you who give the details , not the insurance company !

so the onus is on you !

So therefore, he is aware that a number of cars that are insured by AXA , are not what they seem to be?. Does the Ins Co not have a "Duty of Care" responsibility to all third parties, to ensure they are not exposed to claims that might arise from accidents involving such vehicles?.Should they not, at least cross reference Reg Nos with the data bases which would expose this fraud. Insurance Cos actively encourage the reporting of fraud . Seems to me a bit one sided , report when they are exposed, but when there is a cash flow in their direction no encouragement to expose !!!???

corktina

All AXA know is what their clients tell them, and they don't tell them anything is iffy about their cars,

delthedriver

mountai wrote: »

So therefore, he is aware that a number of cars that are insured by AXA , are not what they seem to be?. Does the Ins Co not have a "Duty of Care" responsibility to all third parties, to ensure they are not exposed to claims that might arise from accidents involving such vehicles?.Should they not, at least cross reference Reg Nos with the data bases which would expose this fraud. Insurance Cos actively encourage the reporting of fraud . Seems to me a bit one sided , report when they are exposed, but when there is a cash flow in their direction no encouragement to expose !!!???

but when there is a cash flow in their direction no encouragement to expose !!!???

Surely not!
Insurance Companies don't make money like this, nor are they in the business of promoting nor supporting fraud,imho:) I am sure neither Mr. Myles nor AXA are promoting fraud:)

dr.fuzzenstein

mountai wrote: »

So therefore, he is aware that a number of cars that are insured by AXA , are not what they seem to be?. Does the Ins Co not have a "Duty of Care" responsibility to all third parties, to ensure they are not exposed to claims that might arise from accidents involving such vehicles?.Should they not, at least cross reference Reg Nos with the data bases which would expose this fraud. Insurance Cos actively encourage the reporting of fraud . Seems to me a bit one sided , report when they are exposed, but when there is a cash flow in their direction no encouragement to expose !!!???

Yes, absolutely, it is only reasonable to expect that an insurance company should have to scrutinse every single car they insure for correct chassis, engine, suspension, wheels, air filter, exhaust, carburettor, engine management, etc...
In Ireland anyways, because people here will tell any amount of horsesh*t to save themselves a penny. And are genetically programmed to be incapable of seeing what is wrong with that.
But what is unique about this country is the complete lack of understanding of the concept of personal responsibility, meaning that actions you take yourself, and knowingly so, can come back to bite you in the ass.
Instead people here will buy a Porsche 911 and insure it as a VW Beetle. And if anything happens try to blame the other driver, the Gards, the insurance, the road, the sky, people who happened to be in the vicinity, Obama, the moon's gravity, anything but themselves. And if they are done, will go to their graves saying how they where hard done by and singled out for no reason.
That's just today's rant.;)

delthedriver

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, absolutely, it is only reasonable to expect that an insurance company should have to scrutinse every single car they insure for correct chassis, engine, suspension, wheels, air filter, exhaust, carburettor, engine management, etc...
In Ireland anyways, because people here will tell any amount of horsesh*t to save themselves a penny. And are genetically programmed to be incapable of seeing what is wrong with that.
But what is unique about this country is the complete lack of understanding of the concept of personal responsibility, meaning that actions you take yourself, and knowingly so, can come back to bite you in the ass.
Instead people here will buy a Porsche 911 and insure it as a VW Beetle. And if anything happens try to blame the other driver, the Gards, the insurance, the road, the sky, people who happened to be in the vicinity, Obama, the moon's gravity, anything but themselves. And if they are done, will go to their graves saying how they where hard done by and singled out for no reason.
That's just today's rant.;)

+ 100 !:)

Capri

corktina wrote: »

All AXA know is what their clients tell them, and they don't tell them anything is iffy about their cars,

There is the little words - 'Any misinformation given will make the policy null and void', and the Assessors ARE qualified experts even if the clerks haven't a clue.

Torq

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And if anything happens try to blame the other driver, the Gards, the insurance, the road, the sky, people who happened to be in the vicinity, Obama, the moon's gravity, anything but themselves.

I had a guy run into the back of me last winter. Swore blind it was the snow's fault not his! Funny thing was I didn't see Frosty the snowman driving the car.

cdaly_

mountai wrote: »

So therefore, he is aware that a number of cars that are insured by AXA , are not what they seem to be?. Does the Ins Co not have a "Duty of Care" responsibility to all third parties, to ensure they are not exposed to claims that might arise from accidents involving such vehicles?

The Insurance co will fulfil its duty of care to a third party involved in an accident with such a vehicle but will then pursue the insured to recover any monies paid out when they declare the policy void.

mountai

cdaly_ wrote: »

The Insurance co will fulfil its duty of care to a third party involved in an accident with such a vehicle but will then pursue the insured to recover any monies paid out when they declare the policy void.

This was explained to me by another AXA staff member. So therefore ANY illegal vehicle (that has a Policy) will have Third party cover in the event of a claim. Hope this explains to all the doubters. Its comforting to know.

delthedriver

mountai wrote: »

This was explained to me by another AXA staff member. So therefore ANY illegal vehicle (that has a Policy) will have Third party cover in the event of a claim. Hope this explains to all the doubters. Its comforting to know.

:rolleyes:

So are you willing to drive an "illegal vehicle", knock down and seriously injure a pedestrian. So the Insurance Company will meet its obligations to the third party. The Insurers will the pursue you for reimbursement of the monies they have paid out which may be several million euro ,if the pedestrian is going to receive long term medical attention for the rest of their life in a wheelchair and never be able to return to their highly paid job as an Orthopaedic Surgeon.

Ah.......! Your pockets must be very deep!;)


I really cannot believe one would support this type of irresponsible behaviour. Why even bother taking out an insurance policy on the illegal vehicle, when the policy is voidable! Not a huge difference with having no insurance at all:D

mountai

delthedriver wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So are you willing to drive an "illegal vehicle", knock down and seriously injure a pedestrian. So the Insurance Company will meet its obligations to the third party. The Insurers will the pursue you for reimbursement of the monies they have paid out which may be several million euro ,if the pedestrian is going to receive long term medical attention for the rest of their life in a wheelchair and never be able to return to their highly paid job as an Orthopaedic Surgeon.

Ah.......! Your pockets must be very deep!;)


I really cannot believe one would support this type of irresponsible behaviour. Why even bother taking out an insurance policy on the illegal vehicle, when the policy is voidable! Not a huge difference with having no insurance at all:D

What gives you the idea that I would support using a an "Illegal vehicle" on the road.?? If you look at my previous posts, you will see I have consistently highlighted the use of such vehicles , with a view to shaming their owners. I have also been highly critical of Insurance Cos , who by their inaction in this matter, encourage usage of these cars. I in no way encourage this form of behavior, so before you start throwing accusations at people do your research. Mind you , by researching YOUR posts , I think You are a bit of a RANTER.!!!!

delthedriver

mountai wrote: »

What gives you the idea that I would support using a an "Illegal vehicle" on the road.?? If you look at my previous posts, you will see I have consistently highlighted the use of such vehicles , with a view to shaming their owners. I have also been highly critical of Insurance Cos , who by their inaction in this matter, encourage usage of these cars. I in no way encourage this form of behavior, so before you start throwing accusations at people do your research. Mind you , by researching YOUR posts , I think You are a bit of a RANTER.!!!!

Apologies ,I think you have taken my post out of context. I am not accusing you per se. Like you I too have an issue with people who are breaking the law, and finding loopholes which everyone else like you and me will ultimately pay for. So please calm down. As for my posts they are my opinions , not rants. If anyone has a problem with my posts I will leave that to the Moderators. Perhaps Mod May confirm please?:)

delthedriver

The elephant has been very quiet !

Xlaxeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_SE5O28pM

Has that been posted already

delthedriver

Xlaxeo wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_SE5O28pM

Has that been posted already

I like it !:D

Markcheese

Xlaxeo wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_SE5O28pM

Has that been posted already

Ouch .... Can you imagine the outcry if revenue,started doing that here... Wouldn't be a bad idea though...
I'm sure each case would have to go through the courts though, and appealed ect ect ...

Capri

Well, 82 comments on the video, majority of them very negative about the Customs role in destroying a perfectly good ( not a rebuilt cut n shut job ) car rather than re-exporting it and fining the importer :rolleyes:
The CBP spokesman reinforces the 'brain dead robot enforcing stupid rules' model of US authorities :mad:

I think the spin doctors in all the Customs agencies better realise that the public doesn't give a fiddlers about tax 'avoidance' , but does not like to see good products being destroyed for show. (Same with Customs here destroying cigarettes and calling them 'dangerous' when in fact ALL cigarettes are dangerous but the govt. allow you to killl yourself once you pay them tax.:mad: )

Not the way to go - sell it off for parts etc but deliberate destruction only get's peoples backs up :mad::mad::mad:


25 year rule LCruiser

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20131021/CARNEWS01/131029975

http://plays-with-cars.kinja.com/looking-for-an-investment-opportunity-try-old-suvs-1450201027/@travis