NCT on old cars

canon5571

Hi folks!
Just wondering what age does a car have to be when it doesnt have to go through the NCT? Is it when it becomes a classic (and if so, when is that???) Also when does a car become a vintage?

corktina

It's all in the Classic Cars Charter, stickied at the top of the forum.

...Mods: could the title of the Charter be made more obvious please, noone seems to see it.

Henry Ford III

30 years from 1st reg.

alpina

Even when the NCT is up/exempt would be pretty narrow minded to ignore such from there on.., not that much to pay to get a relatively detailed report on one's car IMO Classic cars tend to come out in the nice weather/shows when the possibility of havivg family/kids also in the car with you, you want them riding in a death trap?;)

Dades

alpina wrote: »

IMO Classic cars tend to come out in the nice weather/shows when the possibility of havivg family/kids also in the car with you, you want them riding in a death trap?;)

Wise words.

I had mine looked over a week or so ago by a Merc mech, and now having been deemed "safe" brought the nipper for her first spin this morning!

stifz

Henry Ford III wrote: »

30 years from 1st reg.

Not from first reg if you prove the date of manufacture they can go by this.

maidhc

alpina wrote: »

Even when the NCT is up/exempt would be pretty narrow minded to ignore such from there on.., not that much to pay to get a relatively detailed report on one's car IMO Classic cars tend to come out in the nice weather/shows when the possibility of havivg family/kids also in the car with you, you want them riding in a death trap?;)

I agree, but if the mindset of the classic owner was reflected in the general population I doubt if we would have the NCT as people would voluntarily maintain their cars in a road worthy condition.

But I agree the NCT is a cheap way to get your car checked up, but it is good it is not mandatory...

cian1500ww

I'm glad its not mandatory, they can wreck a good original car.

Johnboy Mac

alpina wrote: »

Even when the NCT is up/exempt would be pretty narrow minded to ignore such from there on.., not that much to pay to get a relatively detailed report on one's car IMO Classic cars tend to come out in the nice weather/shows when the possibility of havivg family/kids also in the car with you, you want them riding in a death trap?;)

+1

L1011

cian1500ww wrote: »

I'm glad its not mandatory, they can wreck a good original car.

A paper square can wreck a car?

SAABMAN

cian1500ww wrote: »

I'm glad its not mandatory, they can wreck a good original car.

I can't see anything the NCT do that would kill a well maintained car of any age..............except fail it :rolleyes:

macplaxton

SAABMAN wrote: »

I can't see anything the NCT do that would kill a well maintained car of any age..............except fail it :rolleyes:

-1 UK MOT testers (who should know better, if they read their manuals) have been known to test certain vehicles (Variomatic DAFs for instance) on a roller brake tester - That's an expensive mistake to make.

PaulK_CCI

I never quite understood the NCT exemption for 30+ year vehicles in Ireland, since all accross the continent, the equivalent of the NCT is mandatory for ALL vehicles, including classics!! We are talking basic, essential roadworthyness here, and like someone else said, it's safety, not just for the driver and the passengers in the car, but also for OTHER road users!

I have been to shows in Ireland and seen some classic cars that were in such a dreadful condition, there was no way that these cars could have been roadworthy and I dreaded the moment that these cars were going to hit the road for their return journey... I would aggree that special exemptions should be in place for vintage cars, re. CO2 emissions and brake strength, because simply a 1928 Austin Seven, with cable assisted brakes will ofcourse never comply to modern day braking regulations, but surely some basic standard should be in place.

Esel

stifz wrote: »

Not from first reg if you prove the date of manufacture they can go by this.

Never heard that! Can you provide a reputable cite?

artic

I personally would not mind having to NCT a classic every 2 years but i would like something back from the government ie. free road tax on classic cars for example?

Johnboy Mac

macplaxton wrote: »

-1 UK MOT testers (who should know better, if they read their manuals) have been known to test certain vehicles (Variomatic DAFs for instance) on a roller brake tester - That's an expensive mistake to make.

Your having a laugh!

1. We have not got MOT stations here.

2. The NCT is far more comprehensive test and independent of micky mouse garages with MOT test facilities, who tend to have their own agendas.

3. There is no DAF variomatics left on the planet (for good reasons) worth talking about, bar the Low Countries and the odd few in the U.K..

The best thing to come into force after drink driving laws for all Irish road users is the NCT.

Why it's being debated is passed me!

stifz

esel wrote: »

Never heard that! Can you provide a reputable cite?

I dont have a website but have the paper work the taxation office go by. After a lot of hassel i got my hands on the paper work and informed the tax office of the procedures they SHOULD be working from. Most of them say date of reg but infact if you can prove manufacture date then its fine... it was'nt until i started talking solicitors that they started to listen to me..

mustang68

PaulK_CCI wrote: »

I never quite understood the NCT exemption for 30+ year vehicles in Ireland

it's to do with cost. While it's a very good idea and earner to to have an NCT for...er...Muggles, to have one for classics you'd suddenly have to set up test parameters for lots of decades of cars. Not just exhaust and breaking parameters, but things like suspension. Then they would run the risk of some young lad shaking a 1930's car to bits on the suspension tester because he didn't know any better.

It is unfortunately not cost effective. I would be in favour of a Classic Vehicle inspection, where they give it a once over up on a ramp, too many classic deathtraps out there.

PaulK_CCI

stifz wrote: »

I dont have a website but have the paper work the taxation office go by. After a lot of hassel i got my hands on the paper work and informed the tax office of the procedures they SHOULD be working from. Most of them say date of reg but infact if you can prove manufacture date then its fine... it was'nt until i started talking solicitors that they started to listen to me..

To be honest, the import rules (VRT and Customs) ARE based on Date of 1st registration and NOT Date of Manufacture, and this is clearly laid in the rules and regulations. I have had a few encounters alright that the date of manufacture was within the 30 year rule, but the Date of 1st registration was a year later.... The VRT offices did not budge and VRT had to be paid. No matter how many sollicitors you would shake at it, the law was the law.
Generally the Tax office would look at the Customs and VRT regulations, and this might have caused the discrepancy or confusion even within the tax office I guess.... although to be honest, I was not aware the Tax office looked at it differently...

Johnboy Mac

I would be in favour of a Classic Vehicle inspection, where they give it a once over up on a ramp, too many classic deathtraps out there.

+1

Including a brake & suspension balance test.

maidhc

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I would be in favour of a Classic Vehicle inspection, where they give it a once over up on a ramp, too many classic deathtraps out there.

+1

Including a brake & suspension balance test.

Yeah, but if you are driving a Prefect or Anglia or something, you KNOW if you collide with something you will die. The car is by definition a deathtrap.

I think for the most part classic owners are reasonably careful with their cars.

cian1500ww

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I would be in favour of a Classic Vehicle inspection, where they give it a once over up on a ramp, too many classic deathtraps out there.

+1

Including a brake & suspension balance test.

Can't say I've ever seen one

stifz

PaulK_CCI wrote: »

To be honest, the import rules (VRT and Customs) ARE based on Date of 1st registration and NOT Date of Manufacture, and this is clearly laid in the rules and regulations. I have had a few encounters alright that the date of manufacture was within the 30 year rule, but the Date of 1st registration was a year later.... The VRT offices did not budge and VRT had to be paid. No matter how many sollicitors you would shake at it, the law was the law.
Generally the Tax office would look at the Customs and VRT regulations, and this might have caused the discrepancy or confusion even within the tax office I guess.... although to be honest, I was not aware the Tax office looked at it differently...

Yes thats import rules. But my jeep is irish - non import. They can go by year of construction, Year of manufacture ( don't know the difference between these??) and year of first reg. I had some resistance at first but when the car is 30yrs old its 30 years old and with all the paper work and there guides saying it can be deemed from the 3 above any solicitor would take it on. Think the reg date applies as you said to imports only.. I could stand corrected though.

VanhireBoys

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I would be in favour of a Classic Vehicle inspection, where they give it a once over up on a ramp, too many classic deathtraps out there.

+1

Including a brake & suspension balance test.

+2 When I lived in the north I went with a friend to the MOT test centre with a wee Austin 7...! The MOT inspector was very mechanically sympathetic with it. He said that he would give it a basic test of checking the structure, the lights, He just jacked it up (carefully...!) and shook the suspension for security and just leaned on it to check the springs. and then he road tested it and checked how it drove and braked up

He was well able to drive it smoothly and seemed to know what he was at. No emissions, no rollers, no vibrating tables. He then announced that it was a fine wee car and handed over the cert. No problems...!

Seems that certain MOT inspectors are specifically trained for really old cars - Id have no problem with this being introduced here

cian1500ww

It would be a bit of a disaster for those of us who have more than one car to take care of. Plus the guideline for testing them would have to be completely different than what they have at the moment.

Johnboy Mac

cian1500ww wrote: »

It would be a bit of a disaster for those of us who have more than one car to take care of. Plus the guideline for testing them would have to be completely different than what they have at the moment.

Let's get real here.

All vehicles classics or otherwise should be tested even if it's only very two years. The pure crap that was on our roads pre NCT enforcement was a disgrace. If there was no test for classics we would have some dangerous vehicles on the road again and also vehicles sold to innocent people in an unfit state. So, a test adds saleability and some peace of mind not bad for €50.

Count yourself lucky that you have more than one car!

As for the guidlines on testing, that is a bit of a red herring from you due to the fact of you owing multiple cars. Of course test can be modified to allow for classics & vintage, I'm sure their are clubs already lobbying for this.

MercMad

I agree there should be a test, whatever about enthusiasts maintaining their cars, they are a large amount of people who just want cheap motoring and they have cottoned on to the fact that they can get cheap tax & insurance and driver what is basically a banger without any prevention.

If a car like that causes a crash or God forbid a death then the whole area of "classic" cars will come under scrutiny. I drive my cars a lot and whilst I know my cars are safe I am not so sure about others I have seen !

Saabdub

I read in Topgear that Bernie Ecclestone has an up to date MOT on every car in his collection.

Saabdub

macplaxton

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Your having a laugh!

1. We have not got MOT stations here.

2. The NCT is far more comprehensive test and independent of micky mouse garages with MOT test facilities, who tend to have their own agendas.

3. There is no DAF variomatics left on the planet (for good reasons) worth talking about, bar the Low Countries and the odd few in the U.K..

The best thing to come into force after drink driving laws for all Irish road users is the NCT.

Why it's being debated is passed me!

I've no problem with even an annual testing regime. I was supporting a posters assertion that letting some tester loose on a car they are not familiar with is asking for trouble. I'm not going to get personal, and nor should you.

carchaeologist

macplaxton wrote: »

I was supporting a posters assertion that letting some tester loose on a car they are not familiar with is asking for trouble.

Agreed,an old car wont be up to the test regime of newer ones,i would imagine the suspension test would be very hard on an older 50s/60s ar.

Johnboy Mac

macplaxton wrote: »

I've no problem with even an annual testing regime. I was supporting a posters assertion that letting some tester loose on a car they are not familiar with is asking for trouble. I'm not going to get personal, and nor should you.

Firstly, let me say sorry as I did not mean to be personal in all honesty. Secondly, were are talking about car tests in general and it fair to assume we are talking about cars with the common transmission system be it manual or auto.

In fairness a Daf vairomatic is an exception to the rule. As I know your well aware. What other cars are there in the hole of Europe with a similar stepless transmission of your Daf's era? Answer, none. With good reason.

Whats it like to be able to drive as quickly backwards as forwards? That's a friendly comment by the way.:)

carchaeologist

Most scooters have a type of variomatic transmission,and the ford fiesta has had a type of CVT aswell not too dissimilar to the DAF system,also audi used something called Multitronic,though i know it uses a metal type belt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8AzqtomwD0

Johnboy Mac

carchaeologist wrote: »

Agreed,an old car wont be up to the test regime of newer ones,i would imagine the suspension test would be very hard on an older 50s/60s ar.

Why? I would not be concerned. If the test parameters are set correctly for the car I don't see it as a problem, after all we are only taking about suspension imbalance/balance test which is critical to all cars from a safety aspect. The vast majority of suspension systems work on the exact same principles to the best of my knowledge.

cian1500ww

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Let's get real here.

All vehicles classics or otherwise should be tested even if it's only very two years. The pure crap that was on our roads pre NCT enforcement was a disgrace. If there was no test for classics we would have some dangerous vehicles on the road again and also vehicles sold to innocent people in an unfit state. So, a test adds saleability and some peace of mind not bad for €50.

Count yourself lucky that you have more than one car!

As for the guidlines on testing, that is a bit of a red herring from you due to the fact of you owing multiple cars. Of course test can be modified to allow for classics & vintage, I'm sure their are clubs already lobbying for this.

I know why this testing would be a good idea but surely there is another way to put cheap skaters with bangers off the road. Most of us are probably in vintage clubs so why not require all owners of vintage cars who pay vintage insurance and vintage require a signed form by a vintage club confirming that there car is not just for cheap motoring.
BTW I don't own the cars, my Dad does and I know for sure that of testing like this came in he would be forced to sell up as they cost quite enough money as it is with new batteries, brakes, exhausts, servicing etc. It would make an already expensive hobby even more expensive. Surely there can be another way around this ???

PaulK_CCI

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

.

In fairness a Daf vairomatic is an exception to the rule. As I know your well aware. What other cars are there in the hole of Europe with a similar stepless transmission of your Daf's era? Answer, none. With good reason.

eeehm, excuse me, but it seems you never heard of the CVT system? Ford, Fiat, Nissan, Honda, Opel and other car manufacturers offer this "Continuous Variable Transmission", which is in effect based on the Daf transmission system, on some of their smaller engined models. Alfa Romeo is working on a Selespeed with CVT, and even Renault-Williams were about to introduce a CVT system in their Formula 1 cars, but the use of the gearbox was banned, so they never got to test the system in an actual grand prix...

Oh, and by the way, the exact same Daf gearbox was used in the Volvo 340 series too, I guess there's still a few floating around here and there, even in the UK!!!

Johnboy Mac

carchaeologist wrote: »

Most scooters have a type of variomatic transmission,and the ford fiesta has had a type of CVT aswell not too dissimilar to the DAF system,also audi used something called Multitronic,though i know it uses a metal type belt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8AzqtomwD0

The Daf system is not the same as a modern CVT system, chalk & cheese. Only the principle is the same and that's a major difference. There's no problem carrying out an NCT test with a Nissan Primera 1.8 CVT or the Ford as you mentioned.

macplaxton

It's certain weird travelling fast backwards.

Anyway, there are other things that shouldn't be roller brake tested.

MOT manual:

Certain vehicles should not be tested on a roller brake tester, eg vehicles with More than one driving axle permanently engaged Limited-slip differential Belt-driven transmission Brakes for which the servo operates only when the vehicle is moving These vehicles should be tested using a properly calibrated and maintained decelerometer or a plate brake tester designated as acceptable for the statutory tests, see Sub Section 3.7 B, page 24, and C, page 25.

A roller brake test is also not appropriate for vehicles with damaged, under-inflated or studded tyres.

NCT manual:

Where the brakes cannot be tested on a roller brake tester,
due to the design of the vehicle, a road test must be carried
out using a decelerometer to evaluate the brake performance.

The Land Rover transmission handbrake springs to mind as something else that shouldn't be roller brake tested. (or they certainly weren't to be in the past)

Anyway, in general, my concern is the tester isn't on the ball and does "the usual" and forgets to take in to account original design characteristics and forgetting to apply the appropriate testing methods to said components. Certainly a vehicle shouldn't be expected to be any better than it was when it was new.

Is it yet mandatory to have a periodic safety inspection of a motorcycle? I think they should get round to that first.

Johnboy Mac

PaulK_CCI wrote: »

eeehm, excuse me, but it seems you never heard of the CVT system? Ford, Fiat, Nissan, Honda, Opel and other car manufacturers offer this "Continuous Variable Transmission", which is in effect based on the Daf transmission system, on some of their smaller engined models. Alfa Romeo is working on a Selespeed with CVT, and even Renault-Williams were about to introduce a CVT system in their Formula 1 cars, but the use of the gearbox was banned, so they never got to test the system in an actual grand prix...

Oh, and by the way, the exact same Daf gearbox was used in the Volvo 340 series too, I guess there's still a few floating around here and there, even in the UK!!!

See post # 36. And we are discussing the slight problem that one member has with his Daf when it's due for a NCT. I forgot about the Volvo, I wonder why?

Silvera

To begin... I agree with maxplaxton....

A motorcycle NCT test should be introduced asap! too many shabby/dangerous motorbikes on our roads!

As regards classics being NCT'd -
I have no problem with an appropriate/sympathetic NCT test being carried out on vehicles over 30 yrs old ....indeed I believe it will be only a matter of time before such a test is introduced!

I too have spotted many classic/vintage vehicles at shows which I would have concerns about being used on public roads (I'm a panel beater by trade so would have an 'eye' for spotting such vehicles).

No responsible classic car owner should have any concers about a sympathetic NCT test on their vehicles.

I recall when I was living in New Zealand in 2004 ...all vehicles there are tested EVERY 6 MONTHS (it's called a 'Warrant Of Fitness') !!


Incidentially, the Road Safety Authority (RSA) are currently seeking submissions from members of the public re improving the NCT test ...just log onto their site (www.rsa.ie) and make your submission.

corktina

I believe as a minimum a test covering lights brakes steering and tyres should be introduced.Im very fussy about tyres, having had one blow out due to damage caused by being stored with soft tyres before I bought it (i suspect). 30 year old cars are fine, but 30 year old tyres? I bet there are an awful lot of them about...