MG-Cars.info

Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGB Technical - MoT Advisories

I was looking at an MGB that was for sale on 'Shpock', so I had a look at the MoT history.

I was somewhat surprised to see some of the things that the tester thought should be advisories rather than failures:-

Advisory notice item(s)
•Nearside Front wheel bearing has slight play (2.5.A.3c)
•Offside Front wheel bearing has slight play (2.5.A.3c)
•rear differential oily
•underside of vehicle corroded
•seals corroded
•weld repairs to underside of vehicle
•nearside front tyres perished and in poor condition
•offside rear tyre outter sidewall in poor condition
•underside of vehicle heavily undersealed
•oil leak


I think 'seals' should probably be sills.
Dave O'Neill 2

Your MoT is rather stringent compared to the U.S. Now that I'm in Florida, there are no MoT or inspections as it is called here. I shudder to think just what condition is this old junker approaching me is in. I've seen worse in Mexico.

Cheers

Gary
79 MGB
gary hansen

Personally I would only have said one tyre and possibly two were failures. Some of the rest seem very picky for an MOT, more like for a pre-sale condition report.

From experience over 30 years the MOT has become steadily less stringent, in the early days they even took even stickers off the windscreen down the edge on the passenger side. These days some people stick sat-navs right in the middle partially obscuring footpath etc. on the passengers side.
paulh4

As Paul says, he/she was very picky. I don't think an oily diff should be mentioned or any oil leak as these don't affect the safety of the vehicle. The front wheel bearings are supposed to have a very small amount of free play - I don't suppose the tester knew that.

He shouldn't mention weld repairs either unless they are not to a satisfactory standard, in which case he should say so. Corrosion is not an issue either unless the structure has been compromised, which might be the case with sills. As for the underseal, the problem there is that corrosion can be covered up, but it is up to the tester to poke and check whether any holes are being concealed.

My Z3's history shows that one tester before I had the car gave it an advisory because the front number plate was bent. It has to be bent on the Z3 because that is the shape of the mounting. The plate hasn't been changed and it hasn't been mentioned again.

Gary, the thought of no testing for cars seems positively dangerous to us over here. Our government is about to introduce no testing for cars over 40 years old. I think that is a stupid idea. It is all too easy to put off essential repairs and sometimes it is only an imminent test that prompts an owner to fix it. I shall continue to have my 1969 MGB GT tested annually for my own peace of mind.
Mike Howlett

Agree with above in that I would have just picked on the tyres as potential failures. If you've a good relationship with your MoT tester, then the advisories can be quite helpful ie he hasn't failed the car, so you don't immediately have to buy bits in/get work done at possibly the wrong price, but it's flagged up potential issues. If I have advisories, other than oil leaks etc, I generally treat them as possible failure points and investigate/adjust/replace as necessary.

Also agree on MoTs getting less stringent for our type of car. The MoT used to hang over me, but I now find it quite useful getting the tester's second opinion on the car's condition.

Peter Allen

I copied the list in its entirety. I wasn't suggesting that they should all be failures, but certainly perished tyres in poor condition ought to ring alarm bells.
Dave O'Neill 2

G'day Folks,
I'm glad this subject has come up. As a keen reader and subscriber of MG Enthusiast can someone please tell me what SORN means?

Kev Simonsen
1969 MKII and TF6288

K Simonsen

Lovely Roadster, Kev.

A SORN - Statutory Off Road Notification - is a bit of UK vehicle regulation where the owner of a vehicle can make a statement to say that his/her vehicle is off the road, and therefore not liable for vehicle duty aka road tax. Road tax can be around a couple of hundred quid per annum for our type of vehicle. The reason that folk do this, other than they're not prepared to, or can't, pay the duty, is that this is linked to the annual vehicle inspection (MoT). If you fail this test you can't pay the duty, and therefore can't put the vehicle on the road. However, vehicles over 40 years old in the UK are tax exempt, but at the moment still need an MoT, so still need to follow the process. As of this year most vehicles over forty years old in addition to being tax exempt, will also be MoT exempt, so this will all become academic for the majority of MGB owners. The 40 year exemption is on a rolling basis so in a couple of years this will have swept up all MGBs.


Peter Allen

"will also be MoT exempt"

Not entirely correct. They will be eligible for MOT exemption at 40 years of age, but the owner will have to make a declaration each year that the car has not been modified beyond certain criteria in the past 30 years. If it has, it will still be required to have an MOT. Guidance on that criteria has been issued, but there are still many questions, the upshot being that we won't know exactly what it all entails until the rules are in force (20th May) and are being used.

For the rest of us the MOT will become optional, i.e. owners can continue to have them performed and they will be recorded on the system. This already applies to pre-1960 cars, but official figures show that only 6% still have MOTs performed. Personally I can't see why the vast majority of us wouldn't continue to have them - it's a second opinion, and demonstrates that on at least one day the car was roadworthy, which might be helpful in any unfortunate future incidents.
paulh4

I’m a conspiracy theorist, I think the government is waiting for an incident to happen with a vehicle that’s MOT exempt that hasn’t had a safety check. Perhaps where a vehicle runs off the road due to faulty breaks or steering and they’ll use it to severely restrict or ban the use of classic cars.
R.A Davis

"the owner will have to make a declaration each year that the car has not been modified beyond certain criteria in the past 30 years"

Ahh didn't know that...I can see why the hot rod boys are getting agitated!

"I can't see why the vast majority of us wouldn't continue to have them - it's a second opinion, and demonstrates that on at least one day the car was roadworthy"

I agree in principle, particularly with a 100mph monocoque vehicle and take your point about having the certificate of proof. However, once you're in the system, you have a limited time for re-test if it fails, which if you've got to send off for bits, take days off to repair etc might make you liable for a complete re-test. My compromise might be to have a grown up conversation with the MoT station and for them to test the car, but not register it on computer. Then if it needs anything doing one has time to hunt out bits/do work. There's obviously got to be some two way trust here.

"they’ll use it to severely restrict or ban the use of classic cars.".

That is a concern, but the old car business is a mult-million pound industry and nobody wants to wreck that. Restricting usage, would reduce the need to buy bits. However, in terms of road usage, we're a tiny blip eg I've just driven a thirty mile round trip in the MG into Bath and I didn't see one other old vehicle. As far the DoT is concerned we don't use our vehicles much anyway even though there's loads of old vehicles out there. To restrict usage would be a major bit of legislation. They've taken fox hunting off the books for this parliament and have got their hands full with Brexit and the NHS crisis, so we'll be quite far down the pecking order!
Peter Allen

“so we'll be quite far down the pecking order!”

But for how long?

Politicians and government departments don’t think logically, we’re talking here about an organisation that saved £10m by getting rid of tax disks only to see its revenue drop by £100m to £400m depending on which report you read. In the private sector you’d get fired for that, in the public sector you get promoted.
R.A Davis

It's being so cheerful that keeps you going ...
paulh4

There has been a lot of clarification of the new MoT exemption on the MGCC V8 bulletin board from Chris Hunt-Cooke who is a member of the FHBVC that is negotiating with the DfT on our behalf. It works like this, assuming I have understood properly.

Any car that is over 40 years old can be registered as an "Historic Vehicle" and will then be Vehicle Excise Duty exempt. It doesn't matter if that car is modified or not. The tax exemption runs from the 1st April of the year following the year in which the car reaches its 40th birthday. The important date is the date of the vehicle's manufacture, not it's first registration.

If you then want your vehicle to be MoT exempt as well, you have to apply for the vehicle to be listed as a Vehicle of Historic Interest (VHI). These vehicles must not have been substantially altered within the last 30 years. The part where there is room for discussion is what constitutes a substantial alteration.

So if you have a well modified car over 40 years old (as I have), you just get it tested every year and carry on as before and it remains VED exempt. If your car is more or less standard, you can't just stop getting it tested, but must apply for VHI status first. If that goes through, then an annual test will no longer be necessary.

Note that VED exemption is quite separate from MoT exemption.

The FHBVC has been talking to the DfT about these changes for months and is successfully fighting our corner. It was down to them that the requirement to prove if your car had a power to weight increase of greater than 15% was dropped. Thank goodness they are there.
Mike Howlett

They've also dropped the eight-point rule, which had the potential to put very substantially modified cars on a 'new' plate, or even a Q plate.
paulh4

That's right Paul, and what's more they are discussing allowing modifications that improve the vehicle's safety or environmental performance. So it looks as though those who have fitted disc brakes to Magnettes, early MGAs and early Spridgets won't have to put them back onto drum brakes. Sometimes, just occasionally, common sense breaks through.
Mike Howlett

Briefly back to the o/p.
They are all correctly identified as advisories: the bearing play was insufficient to warrant a failure; the weld was noted but could not be fully inspected (underseal) Tyre sidewalls are not covered in terms of perishing-only cuts/gouges or bulges.

Remember that the the test is the lowest legal acceptable condition-not what we as drivers think should be acceptable. It is underpinned by the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

Advisories are mostly to cover the tester's a*se.(Or be helpful to an owner)

I was a tester...
Michael Beswick

I think the problem with MOT's isn't know, its in a couple of years.
Vehicles built up to about 79-80 in the Uk are what I would call enthusiasts vehicles and classic in the sense of the word meaning that they are old style vehicles built to a standard different from a modern car.
However from about 79-80 you get what I would call the modern car, fuel injection, good brakes and suspension, good creature comfots, rust proofing ECU's etc. This is the time where the Golf GTi and XR3i were first introduced and these are essentially modern cars.
Few folk are likely to buy a classic car and use it to avoid car tax and mot's due to the maintenance liability, non user friendly nature and reliability issues of an older car. However move forward a few years and you can buy a car that performs and drives like a modern car, and is as fast, and this may change.
I definitely see a marked line in general car construction and performance at this point.
Neckieman

This thread was discussed between 09/01/2018 and 24/01/2018

MG MGB Technical index

This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGB Technical BBS now