NCT or let slide?

alpina

Just curious as to whether many out there facing same dilema?
As I am 2 years away from classic tax I tax the car for 3 months every summer, over €1k pa so just does not make sense to tax.
My current NCT is about to run out at the end of next month & have been advised by a few differet mechanics not to bother returning for another one so close to qualifying for classic tax. My car is a 2.8L auto & purrs like a 5yr old eg. but the rocking adverse treatment and especially the hard acceleration in N/P inflicted on autos of this era is meant to be detrimental. Classic cars are treated as 3/4 r old cars & if one discusses this with the tester basically get's told "there's a procedure & your car is no different"
Problem is I dont want to panic at every garda stop sign over these 2 years of driving, ok 2 summers.

manta mad

now i brought a 1980 opel manta for an nct test ,
got a bit upset when i seen the way they were treating it on the rollers & complained to staff ,only to be told they new what they were doing :mad:

so left it & at the end of it tester comes in & says you have got a broken shock mount .
(which was perfect before it went in )
they put it on to the vibrating plate thing 3 times cos they couldent get a reading that came near the closest opel they had on their system

found out later they had no figures for that type car on their system:mad:
so a row followed & i got no good of it & was told i had signed the disclaimer
when i went in & tough s**t .

so i have never brought in any of my mantas to them since.

to answer your post , no i wouldent bring it in ,
id wait till stopped by the garda & then book it in if questions are asked !

will be interesting to hear how many of us on here has had problems with the testers :rolleyes:

carchaeologist

manta mad wrote: »

now i brought a 1980 opel manta for an nct test ,
got a bit upset when i seen the way they were treating it on the rollers & complained to staff ,only to be told they new what they were doing :mad:

found out later they had no figures for that type car on their system:mad:
so a row followed & i got no good of it & was told i had signed the disclaimer
when i went in & tough s**t .

so i have never brought in any of my mantas to them since.

to answer your post , no i wouldent bring it in ,
id wait till stopped by the garda & then book it in if questions are asked !

will be interesting to hear how many of us on here has had problems with the testers :rolleyes:

Same as myself, the machines(and some of the guys using them) are too rough for older cars,my chevette would probably be ok(though after your story about the manta im not sure), but the datsun definatly wouldnt be up for that at all.I would wait until stopped aswell.
Broken shock mounting-w@nkers!!

Esel

alpina wrote: »

As I am 2 years away from classic tax ....

There was a post here recently that said the government were seriously condidering revising the vintage classification. Something along the lines of the UK one where they froze the date i.e. "From this date, only cars which were 30 years (or more) old on this date will be classified as vintage".

8~)

Two of my old cars (21 and 24) are NCTed. They pass every two years with little or no issue. Whatever about very old cars that are NCT exempt, if a pre 30 year old car can't take 20 minutes of NCT testing treatment then it should not be on the road.

Also, all this discussion of avoiding tax for near 30 year old cars or not bothering with NCT undermines the credibility of responsible drivers of old and classic cars.

I do agree that it hurts to pay a lot of road tax for 3 months hobby motoring, but it's a hobby by choice... we choose to own these old large engined cars. I personally hate road tax and my near 30 year old 2800cc coupe is undergoing a very slow refurb, mainly because it would pain me to have it on the road and pay the road tax.

Alpina, if your car is a BMW then, yes, accelerating hard in N can be detrimental. In this situation I think I'd get some facts together and present them to the NCT testers in advance. If they don't agree to be sympathetic then don't do the test on the day.

alpina

Yes it is a hobby but of course people will talk/rant complain etc & in many instances rightly so. Over the last 7 years I have had my 'toy' I have had it taxed annualy 5 times however found it to be ludacrious, in '05 the car was on the road 17 times, approx €60 each time for road tax. If there were a little logic towards impending classics we would all be legal all of the time. {well witin reason}
€1k+ on year 28/29 & suddendly €46 yr. 30 does not make sense, maybe bring in a sliding scale yrs. 24/25 onwards. The last thing we should be doing is sitting back and just accepting it & not even discussing the merits of for & against. Discussion is the fruit of all logic, too often the status quo is "well if that's the way it is, that's the way it is" rubbish!
Ruining a car it took me years to source as a result of experiencing an NCT, because I should NCT such, is not going to happen.
Must NCT it, Must Tax it, then hits 30 & nothing? no it's ok we dont monitor it any more now, just like that. Year 29 we are hit will every law out there & then nada, maybe review & give good cars a brake & remove some of the so called classic death traps I have seen out there. Have NCT'd every 2 years & passed first time, but then it's all irrelevant when it becomes a classic?

Some thought needs to go into this procedure/practice, this is why we talk/rant complain etc to shine some light...not to necessarily get away with everything!

Dades

alpina wrote: »

€1k+ on year 28/29 & suddendly €46 yr. 30 does not make sense, maybe bring in a sliding scale yrs. 24/25 onwards. The last thing we should be doing is sitting back and just accepting it & not even discussing the merits of for & against. Discussion is the fruit of all logic, too often the status quo is "well if that's the way it is, that's the way it is" rubbish!

Hmmm, I don't know. A lot of people (myself included) think the whole 30 yr thing is a great exemption - and one to be guarded. It's not as if the rules are new - when you buy a car younger than 30 yrs old you know exactly what it's going to cost you to run it, and how many NCTs you will have to sit through.

And as mentioned in another thread, 30 yr old cars are only going to be more reliable and usable in the future, so we would be doing well to hang on to that exemption we do have. There's no way tax for cars younger than 30 yrs will ever go down (imo) - it's what happens with 30+ cars down the line that's in the balance.

MercMad

8~) wrote: »

Two of my old cars (21 and 24) are NCTed. They pass every two years with little or no issue. Whatever about very old cars that are NCT exempt, if a pre 30 year old car can't take 20 minutes of NCT testing treatment then it should not be on the road.

Also, all this discussion of avoiding tax for near 30 year old cars or not bothering with NCT undermines the credibility of responsible drivers of old and classic cars.

I do agree that it hurts to pay a lot of road tax for 3 months hobby motoring, but it's a hobby by choice... we choose to own these old large engined cars. I personally hate road tax and my near 30 year old 2800cc coupe is undergoing a very slow refurb, mainly because it would pain me to have it on the road and pay the road tax.

Alpina, if your car is a BMW then, yes, accelerating hard in N can be detrimental. In this situation I think I'd get some facts together and present them to the NCT testers in advance. If they don't agree to be sympathetic then don't do the test on the day.

..........I agree 100% !

If you car gets destroyed by doing an NCT then it is not safe for the road, and you are endangering yourself and the rest of us by not complying with the law.

Also you chose to buy a car that costs €1400 odd/annum to tax, nobody forced you and you knew it at the time.

The 30 year old rule was hard fought by the IVVCC and those who abuse it are simply spoiling it for everyone else, and you will add to the Greens argument for overhauling the system.

Despite all that I do sympathise with you having to pay such a huge amount for the small miles...........but...............!

8~)

alpina wrote: »

Must NCT it, Must Tax it, then hits 30 & nothing? no it's ok we dont monitor it any more now, just like that. Year 29 we are hit will every law out there & then nada, :

You're missing the point slightly. Just because the 'system' does not monitor a car once it hits 30 it does not remove our personal responsibility to maintain our cars. "Every law out there" is simply a basic test of roadworthiness. It irks me that people take the NCT so personally.

So, people drive 30 year old deathtraps you say - maybe the NCT should be extended to +30 year old cars?

trevorbrady

8~) wrote: »

if a pre 30 year old car can't take 20 minutes of NCT testing treatment then it should not be on the road.

Agreed. The car got worse treatment on the way to the centre, it's just you weren't standing behind it watching so it didn't occur to you. The treatment they get in the NCT test is nothing compared to driving on Irish roads at 60mph...

the hard revving in N or P on an auto transmission is another story though...

alpina

Fair enough points taken, at least it's being hammered out...
NCT exempt is great yet part of me feels that there should be a version of road worthiness to be complied with. As for the majority of people taking a responsible attitude? well enough said.
Fear of the NCT and subsequent damage does not mean that a car is not road worthy, what a general statement! Emissions testing is particularly hard on certain engines especially when older & even more so for autos. Some people seem to consider classics as €1k bangers, I am merely guaging what is appropriate for mine & of course would only naturally be cautious when handing to an NCT inspector when has same value of average family hatch as majority ignorantly appear to carry this view.:(

MercMad

Actually its funny that the Insurance Companies dont ask for an Engineer Report anymore at all.

We used to have to do it on all 10+ year old cars.

Surely the 30+ year old cars should have to comply with some form of safety check ?

3ps

MercMad,

When I got my W115 and put it on a normal car policy (unlimited mileage) I had to get an engineers report done on it.

corktina

have to agree that any car which starts to break up during an NCT desreves to fail.....i hate to say it but perhaps all cars should have to have an NCT.....I try to keep mine safe but in fairness, I am not an expert mechanic....

alpina

Exactly, there needs to be some happy medium after 30, then we may get rid of this classic banger nonsense.

macplaxton

The tax issue, I can see the problem with due to the vast difference in treatment either side of the line, but at least presently it's still rolling.

Having lived in the UK and MOT'd cars of "advanced age" annually, I've got no problem with getting cars tested. Although caution is advised when getting older vehicles tested:

1) The tester might not understand what might be considered advanced wear for a modern design is perfectly within tolerance for the design/era.
2) Unusual features. Knowing when not to carry out a roller brake test, such as on a Land Rover transmission handbrake or Variomatic transmission, both should be road tested.

I do prefer the MOT system though as you can have a decent chat with the tester and depending on the garage see a lot more. Whilst there is an official "viewing area" that is a few feet from the car, my old tester would let me have a good look underneath my car too as long as I didn't get in the way too much. Also he'd be able to show me exactly what was wrong with something.

I went along to Fonthill NCT with the gf's car on Sunday and saw it in progress. The 2000 Pug 106 passed first time, despite the only thing I'd bothered to do was fit new wipers. Mind you, looking at the sheet afterwards I noticed it only just scraped through the brake efficiency test with 56%

unkel

Dades wrote: »

A lot of people (myself included) think the whole 30 yr thing is a great exemption - and one to be guarded. It's not as if the rules are new - when you buy a car younger than 30 yrs old you know exactly what it's going to cost you to run it, and how many NCTs you will have to sit through

I've got to agree with this and with what 8~) posted. My 22 year old car was NCTd by the previous owner in January (after import from the UK) and it's not due again until the end of July. I'll try and book it in as early as possible (from May), although it has covered less than a thousand miles since the last NCT. If it passes, there are only 3 more NCTs left before full classic status

About road tax - I pay €1491 per year. That's about 43 cent per mile

Of course I hate paying it, but I knew full well about this before I bought. I'm not going to dodge motor tax by getting a Garda to fill in a form that it was off the road, etc.

MercMad

About road tax - I pay €1491 per year. That's about 43 cent per mile

........just do more miles !

alpina

Ya, think we are circling original question a tad now, no one condoning driving without tax, never mentioned. Yes we knew what the cost would be.
[This is my weekend toy & have paid almost €6k on tax since purchasing for maybe 140/50 days of driving, successful NCT's & annual ins. so seeking cop outs etc is not relevant!]

Am merely concerned about the auto. gearbox taking the abuse, only reason I even broached the subject with mechanics is I am personal friends with one that had some serious issues within 9 weeks of his NCT. He is such a perfectionist about his 'baby' had a full service performed by a main dealer at a cost of €850 prior to the NCT & got an 87% clean bill of health with a near perfect auto box considering age {27}. 13% was literally wear/tear/seals/rubber hosings/door alignments [You can see how OTT this guy is there are %'s being used!!] actually hope he does not place the username! if comes by this post...:o:o

MercMad

I dont see how a main dealer can tell if the autobox is healthy or not from a simple service. Diagnosing problems with automatic transmissions is very specialised and I dont believe ANY main dealer do it. There are specialists about but even the checking procedeures requires a wealth of knowledge, a lot of time and a lot of equipment.

Exactly how does he feel the autobox was damaged by the NCT ?

mustang68

alpina wrote: »

Am merely concerned about the auto. gearbox taking the abuse, only reason I even broached the subject with mechanics is I am personal friends with one that had some serious issues within 9 weeks of his NCT.

Automatic gearboxes are actually so complex then can be quite happily classed as an analogue computer. The use hydraulic, pneumatic and mechanical inputs and are some of the best and tightest engineering and design you'll see on a car. Without taking it to small pieces I think you'd be hard pushed to say definitively that is was in good or bad condition.

I think that if your friends car made it fine for over two months after the NCT with no problems, then he may be looking at either natural issues or something else. I'm sure that the car did many other things in that two months, like drive at 100kmph, go into reverse, changed gear 246 times, start up from cold, sitting still etc.


Classic Car maintenance and repair isn't Voodoo, its Engineering. Don't confuse correlation with causation.

alpina

MercMad wrote: »

I dont see how a main dealer can tell if the autobox is healthy or not from a simple service. Diagnosing problems with automatic transmissions is very specialised and I dont believe ANY main dealer do it. There are specialists about but even the checking procedeures requires a wealth of knowledge, a lot of time and a lot of equipment.

Exactly how does he feel the autobox was damaged by the NCT ?

Excessive reving during the emissions test? maybe, not my car so can not insist, not that healthy on auto's. especially of this age & as for "Don't confuse correlation with causation" you left out another 'C', coincidence...

Anyhow, main point is I don't like some of the practises carried out within the NCT. Excessive reving, jerking, braking relative to the age of car.
I hear you say if it can't go through all this should not be on the road!
Not true, one or two spins a month at very most, cruising at 50/55 max on dual carriageways & always treated with the utmost of respect. After all it does have a 100% record of required MOT's & NCT's throughout it's 27 years and will never in it's life [rest of it] be driven in an erratic manner, could only sum up, 'is like taking the big boat for a drive' ok not that lifeles...

Would prefer to take note of the mechanic's concerns towards emissions testing & excessive shaking, rather than being regretful & possibly face expensive repairs/parts which would not have come to light if not for what's too often dubbed as NCT abuse.

8~)

I can't recall the specifics but I do know that hard revving of an autobox BMW of a certain vintage can cause damage... so I can understand Alpina's concerns. Best to do the research and get the facts straight and have them to hand at the NCT centre.

ciara1

have had day in court over no NCT. Wasnt the only one there that day on same charge either. In fairness garda in Sligo thought it was joke as we done in Donegal so....

Slidey

I have sympathy towards anyone that has something broken during the nct...
But if it broke a shock mount on the shock tester it wasn't far from doing this anyway and its better to do it in the test centre than during an evasive swerve on the road.
There s no figures for the shock tester either afaik, its imbalance that it will fail on, if it does fail.
Saying that i think they go over the top on the body work. I see it in the DOE test centre where i work, a fellow tester hates transits and hacks the sh1te out of everyone that comes in. In the nct center beside us, its twin cam corrollas that get the worst treatment.
I dont think there should be any exemption at all for any vehicle. Possibly just a brake test and body inspection for older cars, but you can have wrecks on the road.
I realise most classic car owners look after their vehicle well but how are they to know if it has a big imbalance on the rear axle without getting it tested.
The exemption for campervans is just as wrong if not worse, i've been asked to fill out reports on some right heaps..