How to go about NCTing a 1991 car

summereire

I've got a 1991 Toyota Corina- runs fine but hasn't been on the road for a good few years. How does NCTing work with an older car like this?

On one hand it's not old enough to qualify as a classic car yet it's also not a newer model- does that mean it's judged by the standards of newer cars in the test?

What issues am I likely to face in getting a car like this back on the road? If it's too much I might have to leave it but I like the car and seems a shame when it runs well.

Thanks!

Mad_Mike

I'd imagine it's basically the same test as a modern car with the only exception being emissions
From their website, under the FAQ section.......

How are emission standards applied to older cars?
The emission standards applied depend on the year of registration of the vehicle tested. Limits applied will depend on the year of manufacture.

So they don't expect them to meet todays levels, but apart from that, I suppose dodgy brakes are dodgy brakes, bad shocks are bad shocks etc

CiniO

If car is roadworthy, then it will pass.

Standards that apply to it are the ones applicable at the time when vehicle was new.

Ken Tucky

Pay for a test...see what it fails and go from there. Make sure it is in a condition that is good enough to be tested or they may refuse to do it.

If your going to drive it and a bit unsure maybe get a third party to make sure it can become road worthy again.

Can't put a price on safety. NCT doesn't guarantee that a car isn't dangerous to drive
really...

summereire

Thanks. That makes sense that there are some concessions for emissions. I suppose a 1991 car is kitted out with essentially what a 2016 car has but just not as high spec in certain circumstances? If so then yeah just a matter of fixing up a few things. Are there issues, like rust, that are more likely to be problems on older cars that might trip me up? Also does the car need to be taxed and insured to get to the NCT? It's been off road for quite some time.

CiniO

summereire wrote: »

Thanks. That makes sense that there are some concessions for emissions. I suppose a 1991 car is kitted out with essentially what a 2016 car has but just not as high spec in certain circumstances?

1991 is likely to still have carburrator, no electronic injection, and no catalythic converter. It's nothing even near todays standards.

If so then yeah just a matter of fixing up a few things. Are there issues, like rust, that are more likely to be problems on older cars that might trip me up? Also does the car need to be taxed and insured to get to the NCT? It's been off road for quite some time.

No, it doesn't need to be taxed or insured for the purpose of the test.
However if you want to drive it to the test centre, it has to be insured (or driven by driver who is insured to drive it) and taxed (or declared off the road).

CiniO

Ken Tucky wrote: »

Can't put a price on safety. NCT doesn't guarantee that a car isn't dangerous to drive
really...

I thought it does..
What examples or possible scenarios can you show which would prove NCT doesn't guarantee that car is safe to drive?

selectamatic

It's pre 1993 so it is much easier to pass the emissions as they only have to conform to 1986 standards. 1994 onwards have the emissions test we are used to nowadays.
Diesels are easier again.
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2055832182?

Have a good look round underneath for rust as that's really the main concern for older cars and main culprit for cars being deemed dangerously defective.

Edit: Also a 1991 carina will most likely be fuel injected. Either 1.6 4afe or 2.0 3sfe (If this carina is a 2.0 hold onto it they are going up in value fairly quickly)

summereire

Great. So by the looks of things as it's running all should be well, presumably just need to make sure things like a broken handle and rear wiper are fixed, and all the other usual stuff like brakes are performing well. I'll get underneath and have a proper look but other than it running well mechanically, it seems like rust is the main concern. How much tolerance is there for there being rust- any standard as to how much they allow?

Mad_Mike

summereire wrote: »

Great. So by the looks of things as it's running all should be well, presumably just need to make sure things like a broken handle and rear wiper are fixed, and all the other usual stuff like brakes are performing well. I'll get underneath and have a proper look but other than it running well mechanically, it seems like rust is the main concern. How much tolerance is there for there being rust- any standard as to how much they allow?

https://www.ncts.ie/media/1004/nct-manual-july-2014.pdf

From page 56 onwards explains what degrees of rust/corrosion there are and what is allowed.

Rear wiper by the way is not part of the test. My uncle recently had a car with broken rear wiper motor and it went through with no issues. It isn't actually listed for test on that manual either, only the windscreen wipers, as long as it's not broken or hanging off and likely to cause injury to a pedestrian etc

Ken Tucky

CiniO wrote: »

I thought it does..
What examples or possible scenarios can you show which would prove NCT doesn't guarantee that car is safe to drive?

It's a relatively basic test. A car that old could pass a brake test for instance and fail a week later. NCT is a good test imo but not fail proof.

It is what it is. If I was driving a car which was that old and had been off the road for that long I would getting it properly road tested. Would not rely on an NCT test for that.

summereire

Mad_Mike wrote: »

https://www.ncts.ie/media/1004/nct-manual-july-2014.pdf From page 56 onwards explains what degrees of rust/corrosion there are and what is allowed.

Great, that's very extensive. Does anyone have a sense of what availability is like for 1991 Toyota Carina mechanical or body parts out of interest? Are they around, and are they expensive or not? It's trying to make that call between getting more use out of a nice old car versus not throwing good money down a hole if it turns out that spare parts are needed over time.

Bigus

summereire wrote: »

Great, that's very extensive. Does anyone have a sense of what availability is like for 1991 Toyota Carina mechanical or body parts out of interest? Are they around, and are they expensive or not? It's trying to make that call between getting more use out of a nice old car versus not throwing good money down a hole if it turns out that spare parts are needed over time.

55 euro spent on an NCT will give you a comprehensive list of what needs to be done , way cheaper then getting a mechanic to inspect it.

Duke O Smiley

CiniO wrote: »

No, it doesn't need to be taxed or insured.

OP if you intend to drive your car to the NCT center it most certainly does need to be insured.

Mad_Mike

Just noticed that also!

Tax.....If the vehicle is already declared off the road, you are allowed drive it to or from NCT centre
NCT....as above
Insurance.....ANY vehicle on a public road MUST be covered by insurance

Simplest way is get somebody who has a policy that allows them drive a car which is NOT registered to them under 3rd party insurance

mikeecho

Also have the brake lines checked.
Wouldn't be uncommon for them to rust.


It's a relatively cheap fix.

Also, have all the fluids flushed.... And i mean all the fluids.
Engine, gear box, brakes, power steering.

summereire

Would 1991 Toyota Carina parts be easy or hard to get your hands on generally? And cheap or expensive?

savagethegoat

CiniO wrote: »

1991 is likely to still have carburrator, no electronic injection, and no catalythic converter. It's nothing even near todays standards.



No, it doesn't need to be taxed or insured.

to "get there" he asked..... wrong info here

CiniO

savagethegoat wrote: »

to "get there" he asked..... wrong info here

Thanks.
Missed that he asked "to get there"...

Corrected now.

RustyNut

CiniO wrote: »

I thought it does..
What examples or possible scenarios can you show which would prove NCT doesn't guarantee that car is safe to drive?

Will the test pick up bad shocks if they are equally bad on both sides?

JohnBoy26

selectamatic wrote: »

It's pre 1993 so it is much easier to pass the emissions as they only have to conform to 1986 standards. 1994 onwards have the emissions test we are used to nowadays.
Diesels are easier again.
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2055832182?

Have a good look round underneath for rust as that's really the main concern for older cars and main culprit for cars being deemed dangerously defective.

Edit: Also a 1991 carina will most likely be fuel injected. Either 1.6 4afe or 2.0 3sfe (If this carina is a 2.0 hold onto it they are going up in value fairly quickly)

Its only the 2.0 that had efi, even by 1991 afaik

CiniO

RustyNut wrote: »

Will the test pick up bad shocks if they are equally bad on both sides?

No, unless one or both have a oil leak.

RustyNut

CiniO wrote: »

No, unless one or both have a oil leak.

So you could drive away in a car that passed the test yet was unsafe.

selectamatic

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Its only the 2.0 that had efi, even by 1991 afaik

You're right the eu 1.6 carina ii's got the carbureted 4af right up to the end of their production. Jap models got efi from 1987 on.

@op parts won't be too bad things like shocks springs an bushings will be shared with many toyota's of the 90's so should be readily available, engine parts are also common to other models.
Body panels will gradually be getting harder to get but still not impossible by any means.