Mopar Muscle Association UK

As a tester i have heard stories such as if your car no longer needs a mot thats fine but in the event of a insurance claim they may not pay out without
proof of road worthy condition.I still test a lot of cars that dont need a mot.

My MoT tester likes testing the Mustang, he knows it's maintained pretty much regardless of cost, as is the Dodge, but he has yet to make its acquaintance.

In his own words- "It's your daily runners that make for paperwork, as generally they're right *poopers"


* not the actual term used.

heres an example of a car that had a 7 yr resto, thankfully its liable for mot being a 68 but as ive learnt not all enthusiasts are capable of doing a good job, take the rusted chassis pics there after the resto !! the white bits you see are remains of bodyfiller i dug out covering rust or badly welded plates, check the welds i think someone was scared of sparks !! as you see in the other pics i fabricated new chassis sections,it really needed complete new rear rails. my point here is theres a lot of cars out there that aint right or badly repaired, the untrained eye would prob not notice this stuff, i do yanks,muscle,customs on a daily basis and am amazed of the poor workmanship thats still out there on the plus side it keeps me busy but i feel for new owners that buy these cars, for the people that dont do the job right the pre 60 rule is a godsend for them

I've seen one or two on here "welded" like that. People have no idea how to clean up,make templates and cut out ALL the rot or how to use their cheap useless gasless mig,which will never work properly.

karlee1433 wrote:As a tester i have heard stories such as if your car no longer needs a mot thats fine but in the event of a insurance claim they may not pay out without
proof of road worthy condition.I still test a lot of cars that dont need a mot.

Interesting, I guess they could 'catch you' on a tiny detail like a handbrake cable not working or brake light foot pedal switch.

expires tomorrow.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... c-interest

oh and this can be done online now, they have added a link since I last went on.

I submitted quite a lengthy e-mail about this. I'm hoping some comon sense will prevail and they will keep some form of testing for older cars, including the pre 1960 stuff. That was always stupid bringing that in.

Thanks Matt, I've sent in my feedback also. Just thought I'd mention it again as it closes tomorrow.

My Father In Law owns and runs a 40's Alvis, and a Riley.
He constantly encounters problems at MOT time with testers who are not familiar with vintage vehicles. The cars are meticulously maintained, but a lack of knowledge and sympathy have caused quite a few squabbles in the past. Luckily we found an old school tester who knows his onions now.
I think this rule was perhaps designed to cut down the scope that testers are expected to know about.
I still agree that you should have your car checked once a year.
Even with the best intentions when working on the car you may miss something. A second pair of eyes from time to time could prove invaluable in the long run...

I just did the survey response too.

Don't like any of their 5 options. I think ANY vehicle over 40 years old (inc pre-1960) should be subject to a basic roadworthiness test.

Can't see the point in trying to assess "significant changes", or limiting mileage. Either it's safe to be on the roads or it's not!

Octane Junkie is spot on, a second set of eyes is invaluable. Just a basic simplified test for all cars over 40 years old would be ideal, but not too much about this making sure its original etc. I suspect that is someone in DVLA trying to prevent lots of new Land Rovers getting 40 year exemption etc.

Interesting subject.....I'm of the opinion that all cars should be tested, regardless of age. Older cars probably need to be checked over more closely than new cars and I think its a big assumption to make to assume anyone with an old car must be an enthusiast who is a competent amateur mechanic. Ive seen guys at shows who cant change a spark plug. Not a criticism as not everyone wants to get dirty fixing their old cars, but it doesn't fill me with confidence that their cars would be roadworthy if no one tested them every year. They would realise that a track rod end was knackered when it shears and they end up in a ditch.

My old Polara has never failed an MOT and hasn't had any advisories since I've owned her. I'm happy that not too much will change in the next 12 months but I still want to get her tested next year, just for peace of mind. The tester I use loves old cars and is also a mechanic. He knows the car well but still checks everything for me. He isn't out to fail the car or make my life awkward and that's because when I speak to him, I run through any work I have done over the year and any concerns I have. He always checks the bits I have been working on for my peace of mind.

This year he said that my idler arm was a tiny bit worn. Not enough to even be an advisory but said it will need attention in the next few years of use at the miles I do. I fixed it and took it back to him a couple of weeks later just to show him I'm listening and fixing the stuff that he is taking the time to help me with.

Interesting to see how this works out