MG-Cars.net

Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.

Recommendations

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 Exemption extended

Apparently (http://tinyurl.com/yazukmet and http://tinyurl.com/y94hgg89) MOT exemption is being extended to line up with road tax exemption from May 2018, despite a majority of respondents to the Government's survey being against it. They will become voluntary for these cars, and for the sake of around £40 per year most of us would have to be mad not to do that. £2500 fine and 3 penalty points for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
paulh4

Interesting comments in the listed article. Here in the States, there are only 17 states that require safety inspections. 3 of these only require safety inspections upon sale/transfer.

That means that 33 states do not require safety inspections. I lived in Wisconsin for 22 years. No safety inspection required. Heavy salt use. And from the looks of a lot of the cars on the road, you would think that there are a lot of accidents due to unsafe cars. The actual number is very low.

Here is a typical example. I have seen a lot worse.

Not saying that safety and a properly operating car is not important, but from what I have seen, a requirement that your car passes a safety inspection may be more of a money thing for the government. When you have a population that has to drive to get around, it is hard to require every car to be perfect. A lot of people just can't afford to have newer cars or get things like rust fixed.

I know this sounds odd, but I spent my career as a safety director and have a MS in safety.



Bruce Cunha

Hmmm. I can't agree with you that safety inspections may not be necessary. If you only drive around town at relatively low speed then it might not matter that your brake lines are weakened by corrosion, or your pads are down to the backing, or your steering joints are sloppy, or your subframe is weakened by rust.

But traffic on the highways is now so dense and so fast that any one of these problems could turn an incident into something much more serious. I am old enough to remember a time when there was no test here, and there were some dreadful wrecks on the road. These days the number of collisions caused by vehicle failure is very low, and the vehicle test regime must have had a major impact on that statistic.
Mike Howlett

The inspections are carried out on smaller and private vehicles by private organisations, so not a money-maker for the Government. Gov agencies do administrate it so there is an overall cost. On the one hand that's possibly a factor in removing historic vehicles from the testing regime, but on the other the impact overall must be vanishingly small.
paulh4

I was recently reading on another forum about tire (tyre) tread depth requirements for USA.

It seems that although most states require a minimum of 2/32" (approx 1.6mm), some states require less and some have no minimum requirement at all.
Dave O'Neill 2

I'm against any relaxation of the need to MOT older vehicles, I believe I maintain my cars to a high standard but I'm not foolish enough to think I'm infallible.

I have 2 theories about this, the first is that the first time a relative of an MP or a small child gets injured by a car that doesn't have an MOT regardless of whether it’s relevant or not there will be a clampdown on classic cars. We've already seen this when an MP's daughter was electrocuted due to poor wiring, there was a kneejerk reaction that banned all “non qualified” people from even putting a plug on a lead. The second theory is that the government want an incident with a non MOT’d vehicle so they can clamp down on these nuisance vehicles that the lunatic fringe want to clutter our roads with.

I hope I'm wrong on both counts and perhaps I'm from the wrong side of the Atlantic to believe in such conspiracy theories (no offence intended) but to paraphrase the old saying there are lies, damn lies and politicians.
R.A Davis

One of my modern cars failed its MOT on seven points - I dutifully replaced the offending "failed" rubber bushes and exhaust hangers, rubber cv boots etc.

NONE of the removed parts were worn or failing to do their job. So thanks to the MOT tester I have paid out £150 for nowt - good job I don't pay for labour!

I have three exempt cars and they won't be going down to a MOT station where I know more about the cars than they do!
Chris at Octarine Services

How does auto insurance work in the UK? Are you required to provide documentation of insurance? Is it a "no fault" system, where each car has to pay through their own insurance? Can you file suit against a driver that causes an accident?

Just trying to get an idea on how things work relating to this in the UK.

In the US, most states require insurance,but we have a lot of drivers that do not have it. We also have states that have "No Fault" insurance.

You can always file suit against a driver that caused an accident, and we have a thriving lawyer system that does nothing but file suits against drivers an insurance companies.

Because each state can set their own standards on things like car inspections and what is a safe car, we do have a lot of variation.

Interestingly, some of the shops are starting to change things. Go to a big tire shop and they will not touch your tire for repair if it is 5 years or older. Very hard to buy a "used" tire. Most of this is due to liability issues and pressure from the liability insurers.

Interestingly, they don't seem to impact safety inspections.
Bruce Cunha

All insurance companies supply records to a central database so the Government can check that a vehicle has road tax and insurance. However that only works for cars that are registered on their own database. Somehow there are more and more cars falling off that, which don't have either. In theory these can be detected by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, but unless they are operated at the roadside with Police pursuit vehicles in attendance it become little more than "Oo look, there goes another one" as the vast majority of ANPR cameras are unattended. Some parts of the country, like not a million miles from here, are rife with unregistered/untaxed/uninsured cars. Haven't heard much about it lately but number plate cloning means that some poor soul can get summonsed for speeding, driving in a bus lane and so on when they were no where near. But because there is a digital record of their number plate - tough. The same goes for trailering a car that is registered as being 'off the road' i.e. SORNed i.e. no road tax. If you leave a number plate visible and pass an ANPR camera, you will get done, as it is only a digital record, not a photograph.

The second question is a lot more complicated. I think generally each insurance company pays for their own insured's losses, minus an excess, but unless you can get that excess back from the other company you lose your own No Claims Discount which will whack the renewal up. You can pay extra to protect that, and pay for legal protection to claw that and other uninsured costs back, from roadside support agencies such as the AA and RAC as well as your own insurance company. But even if you are truly no fault and get your excess and all uninsured costs back, you will almost certainly pay more for your insurance at the next renewal, and not just from inflation. Companies take the view that if you have been in one accident, even blameless, you are more likely to be involved in another. There is a logical explanation of that, which is that it takes two to have a collision (no such thing as 'accidents' any more in the eyes of the Police), but only one to avoid it.
paulh4

NONE of the removed parts were worn or failing to do their job, In these cases ask for a VT17 form, That is the best way to find out who is right, I have done this twice, and both times my opinion was upheld, and I got my MOT pass.
Andy Tilney

Thanks Paul. Sorry to hyjack the thread. Just interesting to hear how things are different. The issue of car safety plays directly into insurance. It also makes sense in that the government pays for your healthcare, they have an interest in preventing injuries to the population.

If you are injured, I assume your NHC covers the healthcare, but what if you are disabled or killed? Is there a system to get compensation?

Car insurance is big business in the US. I don't live in a "No fault" state, and we have a lot of drivers without insurance. Not to sound too conservative, but no insurance drivers is a big issue with the illegal immigrant population we have. The insurance I have covers non/under insured drivers. Will cover your health care and car damage if you are hit by a non/under insured driver.

Pretty much the same over here on insurance going up if you have an accident. If you file it with your insurance, you can pretty much bet your insurance will go up. Practice here is to not contact your insurance company if it is the other persons fault so you don;t have a claim on your insurance.

Bruce Cunha

The Motor Insurance Bureau pays out in cases of claims against uninsured drivers - £256M last year, adding £10 to insured drives costs.

Compensation is a real bone of contention, with huge numbers of ambulance chasers offering to sue the insurance company of the other driver. It's given rise to many 'staged' accidents, often with an accomplice nearby, where someone in front slams their brakes on for no reason and the person behind hits them - so-called 'crash for cash'. There is another where someone on a road that has priority calls you out, or lets you turn across in front of them, then drives into you - 'flash for cash'. It's why dash-cams are pretty big business.
The Insurance Fraud Bureau estimates 380 fraudulent claims per day, costing £392M per year, adding £50 to £100 to every persons premiums.

More and more people here are flashing other drivers out of a misguided sense of politeness. Stopping to leave a junction clear when your exit is blocked is a requirement, but to stop when you have right of way and a clear path, especially when there is no-one behind you so the other driver will be able to do their thing in a second or two is just stupid. I refuse to pull out or across, which really annoys some people, and really embarrasses the Navigator. If you have right of way and a clear, safe path, then use it!
paulh4

Thanks Paul. I have heard of similar scams here in the US.

The MOT test. Currently all cars have to have it? Is it a complete inspection of the car? I remember hearing of some countries where you cannot have any rust on your car. Does that apply in the UK?

How do they do the test?
Bruce Cunha

Bruce

Here's a quick run down of what is tested.

http://www.halfordsautocentres.com/advice/mot-advice/whats-checked-in-an-mot
Dave O'Neill 2

Bruce, the MOT test applies to all vehicles on their third birthday, and annually after that. The test is carried out by local garage workshops where at least one mechanic has undergone training in performing the test. The tester first of all logs onto the national database and finds the car on there. He then informs the system that he is about to test this vehicle.

He then goes and performs the procedure, which is tightly specified. If he finishes the procedure and logs off the computer before at least half an hour has elapsed, he is in trouble, because the department watchers will know that he could not have done the test properly to be finished so quickly.

In basic terms he checks that all lights work and that headlamp beams don't dazzle. He checks wipers, washers and horns. He looks under the bonnet to make sure everything looks OK, particularly brake reservoirs and servos.

He raises the car on the lift and gets underneath where he checks brake pipes for corrosion and leakage, and then he uses a crowbar to test steering ball joints and kingpins for play. He shakes the wheels to check wheel bearings and assesses the tread on the tyres. He then looks at the structure of the car and may use a small hammer to tap suspect looking areas for rust. Corrosion in structural members, and parts near suspension attachments are instant failures. External corrosion on the top side that leaves sharp edges will also fail the car.

For the brakes the car is put on braked rollers and each wheel brake is tested independently, and also across the axle for efficiency. The wheels on an axle must show a similar efficiency. Both the foot brake and handbrake are tested. The eficiency required is laid down and is linked to the car's weight.

Most MGBs are too old to be tested for emissions, but more modern cars have the exhaust emissions tested for CO and hydrocarbons. The limits are tougher the newer the car.

There are other things looked at like cracked windscreens. The mechanic is not expected to dismantle anything during the test, so he can't easily assess the thickness of brake pads for example. He has the discretion to put an advisory note against items that aren't bad enough for a fail, but will need attention soon.

It takes about 45 minutes and costs about 50, although some garages discount this to get customers since many will then ask the garage to fix whatever is wrong. This can lead to unnecessary repairs, as you can imagine.

The system is not without its flaws, but it has made the general stock of cars on our overcrowded roads safer. Without a current MOT, a car can't be taxed, ie. you can't be granted a licence to use the car on the public road. Also, a car without an MOT involved in a collision is likely to be disowned by the insurer.
Mike Howlett

Emissions test applies to first registered 1st August 1975 and younger, so still quite a few MGBs etc.

Whilst insurance companies will probably not cover the owner's costs in the event of no MOT (and as many other transgressions they can force in) they will reimburse third-parties.

Lighting is the biggest cause of failure at nearly 20% and by a significant margin, despite being so obvious and easy to check. These days so many people drive their cars until they break or fail an MOT, you only have to see the number or tyres below the legal limit in supermarket etc. car parks.

Suspension is the next common, and caused by the number of pot-holes and traffic calming measures around - a current bone of contention! I've just found my third broken near-side ARB drop-link on the V8. I have a number of those fantastically mis-named 'pillows' round me, and I can't avoid driving over at least one of them, plus four tarmac ramps. I can't go straight over the pillows as the exhaust catches on both the roadster and the V8. When I can I drive up the middle which reduces the effect and keeps both sides even, but can't do that with oncoming traffic. That leaves driving with the near-side wheel in the gutter, which puts a large pulling-force on that ARB. And I crawl over all of them at less than walking pace (local 20mph limit). The most recent one to break was from Moss and they say they are tested to a pull-force of 3/4 ton, which obviously isn't enough. The problem is probably made worse by a PO having fitted an after-market rear ARB, which apparently necessitates a thicker front ARB at 7/8" instead of the original RB and V8 9/16" item, so that may be a contributory factor, as the roadster with its original 9/16" bar hasn't suffered - yet. But in all three breakages I have not noticed any issues with handling - with my driving-style - they were only discovered through noise or just being noticed when doing something else. Moss have kindly sent me a replacement, which I'll get reinforced before fitting.
paulh4

Thanks All. Very interesting. Always like learning how things are done outside the US. I have not lived in any of the US states that require a safety inspection, so unsure what they check.

Here in California, you have to take your car in for a smog check ever 2 years for cars build from 1974 on. Older cars get a tailpipe test with the car on a set of rollers and run at 2000 rpm, and a visual inspection under the hood. Legally, you are not supposed to be able to modify the smog system, this includes carbs, distributor, catalytic converter, EGR and air pump. If something is wrong with these, you have to replace with parts that are certified by the State.

As I understand it, for newer cars, they just hook them up to the cars computer and get the smog information right from it. No dynomometer.

Like yours, a lot of shops discount the test to do repairs also. A shop can just do smog, or they can do smog and repairs. This takes additional licensing.

Machines used for smog testing are tied into the State system and are pretty much automatic. Once the test starts, any error or issue is recorded. This sounds similar to yours. The State can see if a shop is not doing the testing correctly.
Bruce Cunha

"The State can see if a shop is not doing the testing correctly. "

Can they see which car it is attached to? I presume that if they are hooked up to the OBDII port, they can read the VIN, but for a tailpipe test, it could be in another car.
Dave O'Neill 2

"they just hook them up to the cars computer and get the smog information right from it"

Sounds like a recipe for the computer telling the tester what it thinks it ought to be ...

I'm pretty sure in the UK it's a tailpipe test even on cars with ODBC11, certainly on my 2004 ZS.
paulh4

The shop puts the VIN number into the computer for older cars. I would assume it would be possible for a shop to put in a vin from another car, but the state does do spot checks using people trying to get the shop to falsify a smog test. Fines are up to $5,000.

Cars from 2013 forward are evaluated using the on-board diagnostic system that hooks into the cars computer. I would believe a good computer hacker (or the Volkswagen corporation) could modify the computer to fool the machine.

Other than that, no other safety inspection in this state. Unless you are stopped by a police officer, who can write you up for things like bad tires, broken windshield, broken lights, smoke, noise, etc. These are called "fix it" tickets, all you have to do is repair the broken part and have it verified by another police officer.
Bruce Cunha

The car in your photo Bruce would certainly fail a British test because of the sharp rusty edges on the wheel arch, if for no other reason. It would be quite likely to be stopped on the road by an eagle-eyed police officer too.
Mike Howlett

You have the opportunity to tell the DfT what you think of their decision by signing the following online petition :-

petition.parliament.uk/petition/200995

It was started by David Simister editor of Classic Car weekly. They carried out a poll which found that 55% of classic owners were against the exemption. Ok its not a massive majority but it bigger than Brexit and look what sh*t that's getting us into.
Paul Hollingworth

Paul

I can't get that link to work


Try this...

http://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200995
Dave O'Neill 2

yes sorry missed an 's' out of the address. you are quite right it should be :-

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200995

The are important targets for signatures are 10,000 and the minister has to issue a statement. Lets face it he will just repeat the twaddle the DfT have come up with so far. The more important target is 100,000 when it has to be debated in parliament. Were the MP's all asleep when it went through the first time ? According to Classic Car weekly the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group Sir Greg Knight is in favour of extending the exemption. Lets face it so was the Federation of Historic British Vehicle Clubs. Ever felt you were being misrepresented ?
Apparently the minister Chris Grayling addressed the group and said that the exemption was to safeguard classics when driverless cars are introduced.
What utter tosh.
Paul Hollingworth

Sign it if it makes you feel better, but I very much doubt it will reach the higher target, even the lower would be going some. In either case it will just be repeating the previous process, as it's not raising a new issue.

"Ever felt you were being misrepresented ?"

This is a bit like people who voted to remain declaring they had been 'disenfranchised' when the Brexit vote went the other way.
paulh4

Waste of time - even the referendum petition that had millions of signatories and actually got debated in the House was just talked out of time and never got voted on....

... disenfranchised suggests you were actually enfranchised in the first place.... haha
Chris at Octarine Services

This thread was discussed between 28/10/2017 and 14/11/2017

MG MGB Technical index

This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGB Technical BBS is active now.