30 year change

500man

Is there any truth in the story that all cars over 30 will be exempt from nct shortly ? a change from the eec i hear

corktina

an eu directive, doesn't mean it will pass into law here though apparently

Car99

Why do people have such an issue with the nct on classics? In fairness if they can't pass a basic road worthiness test like the nct should they be allowed on a public road?

swarlb

Car99 wrote: »

Why do people have such an issue with the nct on classics? In fairness if they can't pass a basic road worthiness test like the nct should they be allowed on a public road?

Because the Irish hate spending money....they hate having to pay for insurance, road tax, any kind of taxes, anything in fact that they deem to be an 'needless' expense.
They don't seem to have the same problem when it comes to drink or cigarettes, however.

corktina

Car99 wrote: »

Why do people have such an issue with the nct on classics? In fairness if they can't pass a basic road worthiness test like the nct should they be allowed on a public road?

because being NCT exempt makes a car potentially more valuable and easier to sell

carchaeologist

A lot of cars that are taxed vintage from the 80s have no tests anyway.
If it has a ZV plate it's pretty much a given you'll get away with it.

mickdw

corktina wrote: »

because being NCT exempt makes a car potentially more valuable and easier to sell

I would have thought having the nct requirement would finally make a big difference in reducing the silly amount of ringers going around. If the nct exemption stays at 1980, we will very quickly have a large portion of the classic car stock needing nct and hopefully remaining genuine. Allowing the sliding 30 year exemption will only allow more of the same crap

swarlb

corktina wrote: »

because being NCT exempt makes a car potentially more valuable and easier to sell

That's a feeble excuse. A 'modern' car is more valuable, and easier to sell with an NCT. The fact is, the majority of 'classics' would not pass a basic roadworthiness test.

corktina

I don't agree, most owners take a pride in having their cars perfect.

corktina

mickdw wrote: »

I would have thought having the nct requirement would finally make a big difference in reducing the silly amount of ringers going around. If the nct exemption stays at 1980, we will very quickly have a large portion of the classic car stock needing nct and hopefully remaining genuine allowing the sliding 30 year exemption will only allow more of the same crap

see post above yours, many people with ZV plates but due an NCT simply don't bother with it

swarlb

corktina wrote: »

I don't agree, most owners take a pride in having their cars perfect.

Not those who are only interested in a car which is taxed at vintage, and requires no NCT, as opposed to those who genuinely have an interest in old cars. 30 year old cars are getting to the point where they will begin to have things like airbags, cats and ABS systems. It hardly seems fair that they should be exempt from a test. Most old cars are not used that much, for a variety of reasons. lack of use, in most instances, can lead to many problems, regardless of how well maintained they are.

corktina

I sincerely doubt they will be exempt from the NCT I think the break point will remain at the end of 1979

carchaeologist

corktina wrote: »

I don't agree, most owners take a pride in having their cars perfect.

They do. But there are monkeys(not all of them but some) working in the test centres that don't understand older cars.

Gmin

I had one of these Monkeys cause €250 worth of damage to my 91 Mini and it took along time to get it sorted having said that there are testers that are kinder to older cars in a neighbouring town so that's were I head now and when I say kinder I mean that they still do the test but treat the car with a bit of respect as it is older.

shawnee

carchaeologist wrote: »

They do. But there are monkeys(not all of them but some) working in the test centres that don't understand older cars.

Can't see a 50 or 60 year old car standing up to the shuddering and shaking , revving etc at an nct test. Most of these cars are driven around at 30 mph and minded carefully by their owners.

jetfiremuck

carchaeologist wrote: »

They do. But there are monkeys(not all of them but some) working in the test centres that don't understand older cars.

100% spot on. Also the pain in the hole in getting a booking, test done after only putting 1000- 1500 miles since the last test.

manta mad

from what I hear ..

if a car is declared classic/vintage ..NCT are not able to have it on the system and therefor not liable to NCT ..


have a person checking on this ...

id have no problem with older cars been checked over .. but at a garage of your choice ..not a money making racket/organisation .. like the nct ....

swarlb

shawnee wrote: »

Can't see a 50 or 60 year old car standing up to the shuddering and shaking , revving etc at an nct test. Most of these cars are driven around at 30 mph and minded carefully by their owners.

Going by a previous post, a 21 year old car couldn't handle the test either.
Do you think the NCT should employ certain types of testers who 'understand' older cars. If a car cannot stand up to a certain amount of 'shuddering and shaking', then it should not be allowed on the road in the first place.
The point here is that people are only too delighted to NOT have their cars tested, in case, God forbid, they might have to spend money on them.
A test as basic as checking brake/fuel lines, tyres, basic suspension, severe corrosion, would suffice, and indeed should be applied to all cars. There is no need to put any car through the rigours of a rolling road, or suspension machinery, just to ascertain basic problems. 15 minutes and a ramp would do just as well.

w124man

swarlb wrote: »

That's a feeble excuse. A 'modern' car is more valuable, and easier to sell with an NCT. The fact is, the majority of 'classics' would not pass a basic roadworthiness test.

Agreed. Im sure we have all seen some awful issues on 'restored' classics

Dades

manta mad wrote: »

from what I hear ..

if a car is declared classic/vintage ..NCT are not able to have it on the system and therefor not liable to NCT ..


have a person checking on this ...

Post back with what you hear!

While I bitch a lot about the NCT, not having one would make buying a post 1979, but 30+ year old car that much more risky. At least now if you want to buy a post-79 cheap-tax-classic you can get some peace of mind by only buying an NCT'd car.

galwaytt

Sellers will hate it, buyers will want it.

You can't win, really..........

Cleveland Hot Pocket

galwaytt wrote: »

Sellers will hate it, buyers will want it.

You can't win, really..........

I'm looking for a classic car to add to my fleet, I'm trying to find one pre 1980 specifically so that I don't have to go through the NCT each year.
Not all buyers want it!
I'll trust my own judgement more than a monkey at the NCT center.

corktina

that's OK so long as some eejit in a 1979 death trap that hasn't seen a professional mechanic for decades isn't coming at you!

Cleveland Hot Pocket

corktina wrote: »

that's OK so long as some eejit in a 1979 death trap that hasn't seen a professional mechanic for decades isn't coming at you!

Possible, but unlikely, that a car has made it this far in such a state

ianobrien

The NCT should be a requirement for any car, vintage/classic or not. Any car should be able to pass a check on brakes, suspension, corrosion etc. Emissions is not a worry as anything pre '83 (I think) has zero emission requirements for the NCT and pre '93 are easy to meet with a properly set up car. The '77 Escort at home passed two or three NCT's first time before it turned 30 years old.

I've seen some death traps of vintage cars at shows and on vintage runs. I was behind a Rover P5 once on a vintage run that the owner swore was perfect. The problem was that it speared right every time he hit the brake pedal. The back axle was hanging off it and moving sideways under load. The owner was dead against the NCT for classic and no wonder with that death trap. I once called to a farm yard on a different matter and the farmer had a Merc Fintail that he used for weddings (foxers, not registered). The owner was getting it ready for "tomorrow". That was some death trap as there was no rear brakes, seriously rotten sills and the owner said "Ah sure it's grand".

commited

Gmin wrote: »

I had one of these Monkeys cause €250 worth of damage to my 91 Mini and it took along time to get it sorted having said that there are testers that are kinder to older cars in a neighbouring town so that's were I head now and when I say kinder I mean that they still do the test but treat the car with a bit of respect as it is older.

I had the exact same issue with my '92 Mini - bent the bonnet by yanking it hard instead of releasing the catch. NCTS wouldn't hear of any responsibility and it was obviously damaged. This was back in 2006 and I didn't bother getting it NCT'd after that.
edit: Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with having a yearly car check but I don't think that the NCTS centres are suitable for some of the classics that need testing - I'd happily pay more for a dedicated centre that showed a bit more care and common sense.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Thing is, if you have a classic on ZV plates - you are likely to be grand with no NCT in the window when you go through a checkpoint (assuming it is vintage taxed)

hi5

If you were involved in a serious accident, would the insurance pay out?

The NCT blew up the engine in my brothers car, he had to scrap the car, never got a penny off them, they did refund his fee though.

oceanman

carchaeologist wrote: »

They do. But there are monkeys(not all of them but some) working in the test centres that don't understand older cars.

totally agree with that, wouldn't let most of the near a classic car!

manta mad

the problem here is ..

classic car owners ( the genuine ones )

don't want there cars that they have put a lot of effort,love ,time and money in too, to be in the hands of muppets that have no knowledge or respect for the car,or van .
or the money making machine that the NCT is ...

but most of us would have no bother getting them checked over with a mechanic or garage of our choice where we know they will be treated with care ..

unkel

carchaeologist wrote: »

A lot of cars that are taxed vintage from the 80s have no tests anyway.
If it has a ZV plate it's pretty much a given you'll get away with it.

It's a given you will NOT get away with it if a Garda enters the ZV reg into PULSE.

Well you might still get away with it (depending on the Garda), but the system will flag the car as needing an NCT

Cleveland Hot Pocket

unkel wrote: »

It's a given you will NOT get away with it if a Garda enters the ZV reg into PULSE.

Well you might still get away with it (depending on the Garda), but the system will flag the car as needing an NCT

Yes but most Gardai will see "ZV plate, vintage tax, ok carry on"

unkel

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Yes but most Gardai will see "ZV plate, vintage tax, ok carry on"

Some of them, for sure. But I wouldn't bet on most of them. The two Gardai I asked (family members) knew about the cut off date and knew that PULSE would tell them if the car needed NCT (obviously only a nerd can tell from the ZV or other vintage plates what year the car is )

911s

RE. NCT & old cars, I just managed to stop the monkeys from flattening battery in my old car (21 yrs) as they tried to start it before test. They said my immobiliser was faulty and dangerous. It took a lot of effort on my part to explain that it didn't have an immobiliser, but they had to wait for the orange light for heater plugs to go out before it would start. Obviously only familar with modern diesels with fast heater plugs.
If I had'nt decided to go for a walk and notice this happening in car park they would probably have failed car. Last year they couldn't find chassis no. (computer says no). A quick google on my phone found location, clear off old paint & gunk and hey presto a chassis no. Unfortunatley they were closing up and wouldn't come out to look, so I had to come back next day for a visual.
If my car was over 30 years old I wouldn't let them near it. In the UK you can find a garage familar & sympathetic to old cars to do your MOT. They need something similar here ie.one old codger in each test station who is familar with old cars to carry out tests on anything over 30 yrs.

ianobrien

You do know that you are free to select any NCT centre you want? If there are monkeys working in your nearest NCT you can go to a different centre? When I get anything NCT'ed, I drive past one test centre (and pass within 5 miles of another) to get to the centre that I use.

911s

ianobrien wrote: »

You do know that you are free to select any NCT centre you want? If there are monkeys working in your nearest NCT you can go to a different centre? When I get anything NCT'ed, I drive past one test centre (and pass within 5 miles of another) to get to the centre that I use.

Problem is you don't know they're 'monkeys' until after you have booked and paid for test - they normally don't advertise this:D

unkel

Don't want to go too far off topic here, but I am very surprised the NCT tester(s) didn't know to heat the glow plugs before starting the engine. That was a common feature of all diesel engines until not that long ago at all

ianobrien

911s wrote: »

Problem is you don't know they're 'monkeys' until after you have booked and paid for test - they normally don't advertise this:D

Once bitten twice shy maybe?

unkel

ianobrien wrote: »

Once bitten twice shy maybe?

Can't really blame the owner though, can we?

I went for the test dozens of times in Fonthill over the years and I don't think I ever even had the same tester twice

911s

I was quite surprised myself and only for I stood and watched them, and got the unmistakable small of unburnt diesel I wouldn't have beleived it. Some more recent diesels will show a light for a few seconds, but will often start up without waiting for heat as such. My old 300d engine needs full heating cycle every time.
I mentioned/asked a few people afterwards if they were aware of the need to pre-heat a diesel before cranking and you would be surprised at the no. who were not aware of this, as they are used to diesel engines that fire up immediately.I remember cars (peugeot 504, opel rekord etc) where you had to heat a few times on a cold morning. Gives you time to put on seatbelt, adjust seat & mirrors etc.

911s

ianobrien wrote: »

Once bitten twice shy maybe?

Two incidents in two different NCT centres!

spooky donkey

I would say a lot of safe vintage cars would fail over tiny oil leaks and not real safty factors like breaks and lights..... Even a fixed oil leak can cause your car to fail if they see the smallest bit of evidence there was a leak. I had this issue with a modern car a few years back. My mechanic said I had no oil leak just a small splash from a drive shaft. My vintage has had a real oil leak since I got it, I think it might be finally fixed now but it took me a long time to get it there. But I bet it would still fail on this issue...

NCT on clasics should be milage based and not over time as it is now....

unkel

spooky donkey wrote: »

Even a fixed oil leak can cause your car to fail if they see the smallest bit of evidence there was a leak. I had this issue with a modern car a few years back.

I had that issue a few weeks ago. 10 year old BMW E60 petrol. Car doesn't normally use or leak engine oil, but I did get the engine nice and hot (94C after cooling down waiting for about 15 minutes) for the emissions test, so that might have helped any tiny leak / weep

Drove car through under car wash for the retest. Car passed (no leak)

manta mad

if you declare your car ( that's over 30 years ) vintage/classic .

then it go,s off the system for nct requirement !!!!!
and therefore not on pulse system either ..

so im told ..will wait and see if this is the truth ..

corktina

It may do but that doesn't mean you don't need it and wont get booked for it

unkel

manta mad wrote: »

if you declare your car ( that's over 30 years ) vintage/classic .

then it go,s off the system for nct requirement !!!!!
and therefore not on pulse system either ..

Nope, PULSE knows the date of first registration based on the license plate. And it knows that if that date is on or after 01/01/1980, the car needs an NCT

I'd love a Garda to come on here and demo this to us!

Dades

Could care less about getting stopped. Valid insurance is the only thing that would concern me.

shineon23

Dades wrote: »

Could care less about getting stopped. Valid insurance is the only thing that would concern me.

No NCT (if required-registered post 1/1/1980) = Car 'not roadworthy' = Insurance Invalid.

Wouldn't be my personal opinion, but as I've seen stated before, an insurance company may look to avoid paying out should an accident occur, on the above reasoning.

When I was sorting the off the declaration last year, I had a 1980s car, but over 30 years old, I was using it as a donor so not for the road but said I may get it in my name and declare it off the road,

I asked in local tax office would it need a test if put back on road.

As stated by a previous poster; the lady told me it wasn't on her system for requiring a test, as classed vintage, I got her to write this down for me, signed, stamped and dated. which they obliged.

System is a mess in my opinion, if those in the tax office aren't clear on the law.

I'd welcome road-worthiness tests for classics, say vehicles with limited mileage similar to insurance purposes, but I'd be reluctant to put a vintage through a full test unless I was using it daily or regularly.

quenching

shineon23 wrote: »

No NCT (if required-registered post 1/1/1980) = Car 'not roadworthy' = Insurance Invalid.

I don't think this is true at all, it certainly doesn't state that anywhere in my policy document, in fact no mention of NCT at all, anywhere. If some policy does state that a valid NCT is required and you don't have one then it can't invalidate the 3rd party liability aspect of your insurance and that's all that's legally required. You may get an argument from them about your own costs but thats policy dependent I suppose. Same way being drunk doesn't invalidate your insurance.

shineon23

I probably didn't explain myself right, what i meant is, insurers may take this stance, to get out of paying out, claim car was unsafe.
But then by right they shouldn't have agreed to cover it in the first place.

It all is too much of a grey area regarding classic I think.

More confusion:

'My NCT has expired. Can I drive on the roads?
Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 as amended by Section 19 Road Traffic Act 2006 – a member of An Garda Síochána may seize a vehicle being used in a public place without proof of passing a road worthiness test in accordance with Council Directive 96/96/EC (O.J. No. L46 17.02.97, P1) of the 20th December 1996 which for the time being in force in respect of the vehicle.

NCT Exemptions: All cars taxed as vintage and cars permanently based on islands not connected by road do not have to be tested.


See www.ncts.ie for further details.'

Source: http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=14

drunkmonkey

I went to turn my dads Morris in the gate at home and the steering wheel came off in my hand, lucky enough I got away with it.
Not convinced a yearly Nct is the way to go, but maybe an initial road worth test, then an NCT every 20,000 or 5 years which ever comes first.