Print

[diffwhine]

I remain unconvinced about the lack of an MOT or independent inspection requirement for historic vehicles. A friend of mine recently sent me this list of problems he found on a customer's Series 3 which the owner was using as a daily driver. The owner happily thought that because it was a Land Rover, it was robust and safe to use despite it not having seen a professional workshop in several years.

I quote:
Both bulkhead feet gone,
Both sills gone,
Radiator panel gone,
N/s footwell gone,
N/s rear halfshaft gone,
Rear diff damaged,
N/s front driveshaft, flange and wheel bearings corroded and worn,
Both front wheel cylinders have seized trailing shoe pistons.
Both rear wheel cylinders leaking,
Both rear shock absorbers completely failed,
Both o/s lower shock mounting pins excessively corroded/worn.
Exhaust silencer corroded through,
Downpipe loose on manifold and nuts sized on studs,
Brake reservoir to cylinder hose perished,
Clutch master cylinder excessively corroded,
Battery leads loose in terminals,
Several lamps not functioning,
Windscreen wash not functioning...

Since then, he told me that the swivel housing to axle bolts and nuts are half corroded away...

Clearly this is an extreme example and shows the idiocy of some individuals, but how many more are out there in equally unsafe and unroadworthy condition?

I also know of a six cylinder Series 3 109 running round here which I quoted for replacing both rear forward suspension outriggers, a rear cross member, most of the forward outriggers and the bulkhead A pillars. That was three years ago... I saw it in a local car park last week and it hasn't been touched. I could see through the chassis in two places.

How can this possibly be acceptable? I know that statistics suggest that historic vehicles do not present an MOT risk, but Land Rovers must be an exception given the numbers and popularity. I agree that MOT stations are up to capacity and this is part of the reason for introducing this scheme, but one wonders why insurance companies  don't mandate an annual independent inspection at the very least. After all, they are the ones who will have to pick up the bits (literally and metaphorically!

[Peter Holden]

I agree with the regular inspections but not MOT

My nephew and I are competent mechanics and have built various vehicles and have rebuilt 5 or 5 land rovers between us.  WE drive each others cars and we check over each others cars on a regular basis, the checks are probably twice per year and I think are more comprehensive than an MOT.

Most owners of classic cars are "precious" about them and look after them.  You do get the odd one but I suspect you get more folk who drive "ordinary" cars who drive about in unsafe cars that are not even insured.  I also know of a land rover that passed its test at  a supposedly reliable garage that had arotten chassis.

Peter

[Ian F]

I suspect that if any such vehicle was involved in any sort of claim, the insurers would decline to pick up the pieces!
Policies state that vehicles must be maintained in a fully roadworthy condition for the insurance to be valid
I get all my classics MoT'd so that I can sleep at night..........

Ian F

[diffwhine]

What scares me, is that in the case I highlighted, I know the owner well. He is an intelligent and practical person. Not practical enough to do his own repairs, but practical enough to know or should know if something isn't correct. By the time the insurance company gets round to rejecting or accepting a claim, the damage is done. Who has been killed or injured as a result?

I wholeheartedly agree, that an MOT is not the answer. In my experience they aren't worth the paper they are written on and in most cases, most current testers have no idea how to check a 60+ year old vehicle. They probably aren't interested either. In my view, insurance companies should be mandating an annual independent inspection for peace of mind for all parties. My worry is that less like other classic vehicles, Land Rovers still tend to get used for what they were originally intended - towing, off road driving etc. etc. The average garaged MG Roadster doesn't get used like that.

[Peter Holden]

I dont think lack of MOT would be a problem.  MOT or not insurers would inspect the car.  If it were a problem they would have to state that it needed an MOT in their requirements.

Remember that an MOT is no guarantee of roadworthyness.  IT just states that the car meets the requirements on that day not the other 365.

Take this scenario for example, car passes test and part of it is inspection of tyres.  A few days later someone driving it clips a kerb and damages a sidewall but doesnt notice the bulge.  car no longer roadworthy.

Our camper was recently written off by fire.  12 years of almost perfect MOTS just 2 advisories and 1 fail (headlamp bulb worked at home but not by the time that I got to the MOT station).  The insurers are getting knotted up abut there being no formal service history.  It happened that for most of that time our cars were MOTd 6 months from the camper so they both got a full proper service including a pre-MOT check from me. (the land rover also got its service at the same time whilst i had all the gear out).I have more than 50 years of building, repairing and serviceing vehicles.  Why does a stamped piece of paper from a garage mean the job has been done betterthere than at my house, the "technician" as thet call them now might still be an apprentice with little or no experience and most old school mechanics dont have formal qualifications.  I have friend who had his 3 year old car serviced by the main Hyundai dealer and the sump plug dropped out on the motorway, they repaired his engine but would not fit a replacement - I think I would have shouted long and hard.

Peter

[Peter Holden]

I know someone who is very well thought of in the classic land rover scene who really is the expert and his work os top notch.

He worked for the land rover reborn project for a while but left because he wasnt allowed to work on the vehicle as he has no relevent paper qualifications.  They employed him for his knowledge and skills but he had to explain to others (who didnt know how) how to do jobs that would have been completed much quicker if he had been allowed to do them.

I think common sense should prevail.

Mark you are obviously a very skilled engineer with years of experience but do you have all the up to date paper qualification?  There is room for experience in this somewhere

Peter

[diffwhine]

True!
I've got heaps of LR training qualifications and similar from Scania, Toyota and others, but documented general industry qualifications - no. That's what happens when you grow up on a farm in Ireland or live part time in Africa. Learn do it properly and make do!

You are right Peter - I could not work at JLR now at any senior level because I do not have a degree. I could have a degree in ancient Greek and that would allow me to move up the scale, but without it, nothing goes. Doesn't even have to be a relevant degree.

You've started me off now... 

35+ years of experience doesn't seem to sit well with modern HR departments. You can't qualify experience. Luckily my current employer despite being one of the biggest companies around seems to think differently and actually values these skills.

[Peter Holden]

Mark
It really frustrates  me, I am 72, have loads of qualifictions from teaching but not for the subject that I taught for most of my teaching career because when i started in It/computing in the 80s teaching qualifications didnt exist.

I have been involved with vehicles  since my teens but have no qualifications but I come from a family of engineers.  How many people can cast a white metal bearing in a con rod and using engineers blue and a scraper get it to fit?  I can, I understand engineering principles and can apply then but it all counts for nothing because I dont have a piece of paper to back it up

Peter

[TimV]

The original question was about how an owner could let their 'daily driver' descend into being downright dangerous to themself and other road users.

It seems that some people are taking the MOT exempt concession to a new level. OK the MOT is just a snapshot, and some of the items are not MOT tested, but at least a 'professional eye' is cast over the car once a year.

Me, I do all my own work, but I MOT it anyway - it's a cheap way of getting that second opinion and a piece of paper.

Also, in a roadside spot check, they are more likely to look favourably on you with that certificate.

[Exile]

I MOT'd a Land Rover.

Was asked to waggle the steering wheel.

Tester at the front, noticed some movement of the lower steering arm on the splines of the relay.

Bolt had come slightly loose.

By the time it was loose enough to really notice at the steering wheel, the arm could have dropped off - with possible catastrophic results.


I had checked the vehicle.

But there was no way I could have spotted this, working solo.

QED?   

[Peter Holden]

Now that is a problem.  You are not supposed to assist the MOT tester.  I can remember at a pub meet one of our most knowlegeable members went round all the vehicles therwaggling steering wheels and watching the drivers side wheel.  You would be amazed at the travel on vehicles that had an MOT.

When Adam and I check each others vehicles we are both there which helps with the "wiggle" test.  I would back our checks against an MOT any day as we do it more often than once per year and I suspect we are more thorough.

My land rover has been into our local MOT station where our camper and car go though.  I went to use their headlamp beam testing device and to use their Tapley meter.  They guy that does the testing runs Ford Capris and actually undertsands older vehicles.

Peter

[GHOBHW]

issue i find with some MOT stations is the lack of knowledge on some vehicles.
i had one test my 130 on a 2 wheel rolling road, then fail it cause of that..

even in land rovers MOT manual it tells you not to do that, so I think most MOT stations would be blank stares on older series vehicles

I personally do all maintainence on mine, along with checking it with a helper, I would reckon most classic cars are better maintained than normal vehicles on the road

[Ian F]

issue i find with some MOT stations is the lack of knowledge on some vehicles.
i had one test my 130 on a 2 wheel rolling road, then fail it cause of that..

even in land rovers MOT manual it tells you not to do that, so I think most MOT stations would be blank stares on older series vehicles

I personally do all maintainence on mine, along with checking it with a helper, I would reckon most classic cars are better maintained than normal vehicles on the road

Can you tell a bit more about the rolling road? Do you mean the brake tester?  Why did that fail?

Thanks

Ian F

[Smokey 11a]

Now that is a problem.  You are not supposed to assist the MOT tester.  I can remember at a pub meet one of our most knowlegeable members went round all the vehicles therwaggling steering wheels and watching the drivers side wheel.  You would be amazed at the travel on vehicles that had an MOT.

When Adam and I check each others vehicles we are both there which helps with the "wiggle" test.  I would back our checks against an MOT any day as we do it more often than once per year and I suspect we are more thorough.

My land rover has been into our local MOT station where our camper and car go though.  I went to use their headlamp beam testing device and to use their Tapley meter.  They guy that does the testing runs Ford Capris and actually undertsands older vehicles.

Peter

Problem is YOU think you know what the MOT is for. EX tester. It's about finding parts that are SCRAP, not just worn (that's a sevice problem) Phrases like haw the £$^* did that get in here were and may still be used to discribe a failure. What would make you turn pale, can and often does pass the MOT as it fits with the requirements, tyres spring to mind (that's what pass and advise is for) Worst thing an MOT tester can do is fail a vehicle for the wrong reason. I don't agree with the test, but I did have to adhere to the rules as laid down by a lot more knowledgeable people than me (there wear suits and have qualifications in Law, mine are for just getting oily, the only one I needed for the MOT was being able to read the left, center and right hand page of the manual and work out if the vehicle fitted in any of the parts of the page for pass advise or fail. One get out for the tester is to pass and advise, (had doubts but not sure)

[The Shed]

I did not know you where not supposed to help the tester ?
A few years back I took my Disco' to a major chain, not my usual choice but MoT came free with insurance.
Had a little chat about 4x4's, he had a Frontera.
Tester asked would I care to help as he was on his own and it would make things quicker. Lights, horn, wheel wiggle etc.
He gave an advisory on rear fog lights not being red enough, not mentioned previously or the following year.
Now here's the best bit, he failed headlamp aim but said he could adjust them. Only he couldn't, without some sort of tool he could not get his hands in to turn the adjuster.
So, wiggled my hand in and made the adjustment. Pass !
£25 Pound please. Thought it was free ? I asked. It is charge, is for adjusting headlight. I did it myself ! Yea but I should really fail those rear lights