1983 NCT

dcollins

Hi Guys,
I called to ask today if my recently registered (imported from england) porsche 924 was deactivated on the system- after reading before, if deactivated you can ask for a letter saying as much. The lady on the phone was extremely unhelpful and rude. She kept trying to transfer me to the vrt section and not really listening.
she told me my car was from 1993. after some convincing and math she agreed that it was indeed registered from 1983 and that it was deactivated on the system.
Then said she was not happy with that and was going to activate it.
I asked if there were any special considerations re emissions etc for vintage cars. she said all cars are tested the same goodbye.
Question:
Is that the case or am i allowed be there for the testing or are there any other considerations for post 1980 classics??? anyone recommend at centre they used for theirs ?

Cheers,
Dan

MarkR

Seems to be covered in the downloads here.

http://www.ncts.ie/NCT%20Manual%20Revise%20May%202012.pdf

Looks like there is a cutoff from 1980 onwards.

dcollins

Thanks for the reply mark.
I know, according to the law it should require an nct from 1980 on- there are lots of threads already discussing the merits/issues with this. there are many occasions where it also comes up as deactivated - as mine was until today, im asking if after 1980 but still classic <1984 they have to take special care etc. or if there is a centre other boardsies have used for their classics and were happy, with a quick google you find lots of stories of they testers not understanding that it has to meet manufactures spec for the time of manufacture not the present or being rough with the classics... thats what i am mostly asking about. the normal documentation just says 1980 onwards not even mentioning the reg plates (discussed in another thread here)
-Dan

corktina

Take special care? If it can't get through the test without breaking, it shouldn't be on the road anyway. There isn't anything rough in the test to worry about MO

kdevitt

corktina wrote: »

Take special care? If it can't get through the test without breaking, it shouldn't be on the road anyway. There isn't anything rough in the test to worry about MO

This ^ is bang on. I put my 83 car through without a bother - the emissions are the only thing that should be massively different on an older car, and the standards required are a lot less stringent than newer cars.

oceanman

you would have to be mad to put a valuable classic through the nct...the testers haven't got a clue about older cars, and don't give a toss if they wreck your engine!

corktina

oceanman wrote: »

you would have to be mad to put a valuable classic through the nct...the testers haven't got a clue about older cars, and don't give a toss if they wreck your engine!

HOW would they wreck your engine exactly? even were they to rev it for 5 minutes , it wouldn't be doing anything it wouldn't be doing on the motorway

macplaxton

There's no need to worry about the test itself. Emission limits from 1980 are year dependent and limits are more than achievable on a correctly set-up car.

What you DO need to worry about is testers with vivid imaginations...

Case in point on a car I acquired immediately after a fail dangerous for brake fluid leaking: Absolutely no leakage whatsoever. Another mystery was "missing air filter assembly". Definitely was in there and so on.

Unfortunately I didn't present this car for test*. Yes it should of failed, but not on some of the points highlighted and there was no grounds to give it a fail dangerous.

*If I did, afterwards I would of had a chat with the tester for 20 minutes, after which they would decide I was right.

unkel

dcollins wrote: »

I know, according to the law it should require an nct from 1980 on- there are lots of threads already discussing the merits/issues with this. there are many occasions where it also comes up as deactivated - as mine was until today

You were told this on this forum before you bought your car. De-activation means nothing. The Garda PULSE system will tell if a car needs an NCT (every single car first registered after 31/12/1979)

Now, you could chance your arm and you have a fair chance that no Garda will ever question you or put your reg into PULSE. Shure some people drive around without a license for decades without getting caught

If it was me, I'd just NCT the car yearly and be done with it. €55 is pretty good value for a fairly comprehensive safety check too.

oceanman

corktina wrote: »

HOW would they wreck your engine exactly? even were they to rev it for 5 minutes , it wouldn't be doing anything it wouldn't be doing on the motorway

yes it would..when you rev the bejesus out of an engine its turning much much faster than it ever would if you were driving down the motorway, simply because gearing wouldn't allow it. older classic cars were never build to take the type of abuse modern cars can take.

corktina

oceanman wrote: »

yes it would..when you rev the bejesus out of an engine its turning much much faster than it ever would if you were driving down the motorway, simply because gearing wouldn't allow it. older classic cars were never build to take the type of abuse modern cars can take.

That's nonsense. They rev to about 3000rpm afaik (if at all for older cars where emissions aren't tested)and the only danger there is to low revving diesels for which you have to sign a disclaimer.

kdevitt

oceanman wrote: »

simply because gearing wouldn't allow it.

Seriously? With the exception of Model T Fords and the like which are all NCT exempt, most post 1980 cars will probably have at least 4 gears, of which at least one will allow the car to travel at 2500 - 3000 RPM on a motorway, or any road for that matter.

If you want to drive your car on a public road, you should have it NCT'd, end of.

Kenny Logins

oceanman wrote: »

yes it would..when you rev the bejesus out of an engine its turning much much faster than it ever would if you were driving down the motorway, simply because gearing wouldn't allow it. older classic cars were never build to take the type of abuse modern cars can take.

What do you drive?

oceanman

Kenny Logins wrote: »

What do you drive?

an mg midget

oceanman

kdevitt wrote: »

Seriously? With the exception of Model T Fords and the like which are all NCT exempt, most post 1980 cars will probably have at least 4 gears, of which at least one will allow the car to travel at 2500 - 3000 RPM on a motorway, or any road for that matter.

If you want to drive your car on a public road, you should have it NCT'd, end of.

but not for five minutes!!


I am not required by law to have my car NCT'd...so its not 'end of' as you put it..

corktina

so if your car is exempt, what are you worried about?

Do you really think your car wouldn't stand as mush as 5 minutes at 3000 rpm? My classics regularly ran at higher rpm than that for HOURS (like Fishguard to Reading for instance...230 miles or so)

JoeySully

Page 13 of the NCT manual

Method of Testing
1.
Check visually in the case of
4 stroke spark ignition engines
(petrol or gas) that the emission control system is complete and
properly connected and that there are no leaks in the exhaust system.
Pre Jan 1994 Registrations
2.
With the engine at normal operating temperature connect the CO/HC meter as per manufacturer’s instructions. Raise the
engine speed to approximately 2,500 rpm and hold for 20 seconds. Allow the engine to return to idle and the emissions
readings to stabilise. Note the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon content of the exhaust gases at normal idle speed.

Post Jan 1994 Registrations
3.
For vehicles first registered on or after the 1st January 1994 raise the engine speed to 2,500 rpm or to a speed specified by the
vehicle manufacturer and hold for a minimum of 30 seconds. Check the HC, CO and Lambda values. If the exhaust emissions
are not within the specified limits with the vehicle engine at normal operating temperature raise the engine speed to 2,500
rpm or to a speed specified by the vehicle manufacturer and hold for 3 minutes and note HC, CO and Lambda values. Allow the
vehicle engine to return to normal idle speed and the exhaust reading to stabilise and note the CO reading

ALSO

5.
Where it can be established that the vehicle manufacturer’s recommendations on exhaust emissions are
higher than those listed in the reasons for failure then the manufacturer’s figure should be the criteria
used when deciding whether or not the vehicle passes.

I don't think this should be a test to be worried about especially with a "modern" 1984 car . If you are failing then your carbs or are probably not set up correctly or you have something wrong with your engine like the timing. Having it correct will extend the life of the engine and improve fuel economy.

JoeySully

I must add this for Diesel engines !

Vehicles registered on or after 1st January 1980

2.
With the engine at normal operating temperature, raise the engine speed slowly to 2,500 rpm or half the engine manufacturer’s
recommended governed speed whichever is less and hold for 20 seconds in order to purge the exhaust system. If the engine
emits any unusual noises the test should be abandoned. Slowly raise the engine speed to its maximum rpm and note if the
governor operates within the vehicle manufacturer’s recommended rpm setting. If not the test should be discontinued.
Do not
hold the engine at maximum rpm for any length of time.
3.
Connect the diesel smoke meter to the vehicle following the smoke meter manufacturer’s instructions. Depress the accelerator
pedal firmly from the idling position to the maximum fuel delivery position following the prompts of the smoke meter. The
smoke meter is programmed to ignore the first reading. The operation is repeated and if the reading on this occasion is less
than 60% of the acceptable limit the test is ended. If the reading is not less than 60% of the acceptable limit, the operation is
repeated. If the average of this and the previous reading is within the acceptable limit the test is ended. If the average readings
are not within the limits the operation is repeated up to a maximum of three more times taking the average of the last two
readings after which the test is ended.

kdevitt

oceanman wrote: »

but not for five minutes!!


I am not required by law to have my car NCT'd...so its not 'end of' as you put it..

Must be comedy hour for you. First cars aren't geared to do 2500RPM on open roads, and now the NCT hold a car for a solid 5 minutes at 2500RPM.

Anyway - even if they did do that, what difference does it make? The car should be capable of being driven on a motorway or any other road at 2500RPM for far in excess of five minutes, so its hardly stressing the engine.

And given your car is exempt, my whole post didn't even relate to your car - so why bother posting at all. I have plenty of issues with the NCT, but uiltimately if someones car is so delicate as to be incapable of making it through a simple roadworthiness test, then it has no place on the public roads.

oceanman

corktina wrote: »

so if your car is exempt, what are you worried about?

Do you really think your car wouldn't stand as mush as 5 minutes at 3000 rpm? My classics regularly ran at higher rpm than that for HOURS (like Fishguard to Reading for instance...230 miles or so)

im not worried at all, I have a pre 1980 car. can I ask where you get the 3000rpm from? because I have seen them being revved foot to the floor! not good for an old car.

Kenny Logins

oceanman wrote: »

im not worried at all, I have a pre 1980 car. can I ask where you get the 3000rpm from? because I have seen them being revved foot to the floor! not good for an old car.

You're missing the point - it doesn't matter how old your car is, if it can't rev to 3k without fear of breaking, there's something seriously wrong!

corktina

oceanman wrote: »

im not worried at all, I have a pre 1980 car. can I ask where you get the 3000rpm from? because I have seen them being revved foot to the floor! not good for an old car.

It only sounds that way when the engine isn't under load. Most cars have rev counters anyway

oceanman

Kenny Logins wrote: »

You're missing the point - it doesn't matter how old your car is, if it can't rev to 3k without fear of breaking, there's something seriously wrong!

again id love to know where this 3000rpm is coming from? iv see them being revved way higher than that. ok for a modern car engine but not one 30-40 years old!

Kenny Logins

oceanman wrote: »

again id love to know where this 3000rpm is coming from? iv see them being revved way higher than that. ok for a modern car engine but not one 30-40 years old!

It's actually 2,500 RPM that most cars are tested at.

What is the highest you'll rev your car to? Is it really that fragile?

corktina

the red line on almost every car is a lot higher than 3000 rpm

corktina

oceanman wrote: »

again id love to know where this 3000rpm is coming from? iv see them being revved way higher than that. ok for a modern car engine but not one 30-40 years old!

post 11? about 3000, turns out it's 2500....meh.:rolleyes:


3000 rpm is not even a high rpm in my opinion....my cars are doing about 70 mph at that rpm

kdevitt

oceanman wrote: »

again id love to know where this 3000rpm is coming from? iv see them being revved way higher than that. ok for a modern car engine but not one 30-40 years old!

Unless you're sitting in the car while its being tested, how are you so sure its being revved alot higher than 3000RPM? A stationary car with the bonnet open sounds pretty raucous at less than that.

Your MG makes its max BHP at 5500RPM - its reasonably safe to assume that once its been serviced a few times in its life it will be pretty comfortable at 2500RPM for a few minutes at a time.

swarlb

oceanman wrote: »

yes it would..when you rev the bejesus out of an engine its turning much much faster than it ever would if you were driving down the motorway, simply because gearing wouldn't allow it. older classic cars were never build to take the type of abuse modern cars can take.

I raced old cars when they were new, and now I race the same cars when they are old. I revved the 'bejesus' (as you put it) out of them when they were new, and whatever 'bejesus' may be left in them now.
If they can take it now, they certainly couldn't take it then. Old Fiat SOHC engines can easily touch 8/9 and even 10k.
Check out the timeline of a Ford Anglia engine, and where it ended up. If you ask me, modern engines are much more prone to damage, with their requirement on proper oils, and the strangulation they endure due to emissions.

vinnie13

swarlb wrote: »

I raced old cars when they were new, and now I race the same cars when they are old. I revved the 'bejesus' (as you put it) out of them when they were new, and whatever 'bejesus' may be left in them now.
If they can take it now, they certainly couldn't take it then. Old Fiat SOHC engines can easily touch 8/9 and even 10k.
Check out the timeline of a Ford Anglia engine, and where it ended up. If you ask me, modern engines are much more prone to damage, with their requirement on proper oils, and the strangulation they endure due to emissions.

have to agree here,older engines are tougher,have a 50yr old landy still pulling strong,used to have a ford 555 digger little engine was bullet proof the rest rell around it but always started..

anyway chaps as long as the the car is properly maintained it shouldns matter about hight reving..
i can thing of 2 25 year old diesel engines that have been driving hard from cold and still gong well...

maintenance....maintenance.....maintenance.....

w124man

Kenny Logins wrote: »

You're missing the point - it doesn't matter how old your car is, if it can't rev to 3k without fear of breaking, there's something seriously wrong!

It is an MG Midget after all !! :rolleyes:

mattroche

I have had a lot of old card N.C.T. and as far as I am aware, they test them at idling, not revving. I have never had one fail yet because if it.

CianDon

I've put my yoke through 3 times now and never had an issue at all. Car is 1990 so the emisions test is done at idle rather than being revved. My last report has it down as having been tested at 847 RPM and even then the levels you have to achieve are multiples of what they are for a modern vehicle. And besides, I had my yoke 3 days when I put her through first. Although she'd been sitting for 5 years with a very badly cracked windscreen and riddled with problems (found out after that the calipers were seized, both rear tires were perished and one wiper didnt work) she passed with flying colours

oceanman

CianDon wrote: »

I've put my yoke through 3 times now and never had an issue at all. Car is 1990 so the emisions test is done at idle rather than being revved. My last report has it down as having been tested at 847 RPM and even then the levels you have to achieve are multiples of what they are for a modern vehicle. And besides, I had my yoke 3 days when I put her through first. Although she'd been sitting for 5 years with a very badly cracked windscreen and riddled with problems (found out after that the calipers were seized, both rear tires were perished and one wiper didnt work) she passed with flying colours

that just says it all about the NCT!

Agricola

CianDon wrote: »

I've put my yoke through 3 times now and never had an issue at all. Car is 1990 so the emisions test is done at idle rather than being revved. My last report has it down as having been tested at 847 RPM and even then the levels you have to achieve are multiples of what they are for a modern vehicle. And besides, I had my yoke 3 days when I put her through first. Although she'd been sitting for 5 years with a very badly cracked windscreen and riddled with problems (found out after that the calipers were seized, both rear tires were perished and one wiper didnt work) she passed with flying colours

Unreal if thats true. Ive been failed for a sticky door handle and because one of the rear seatbelts wasnt fully visible in the back seat!

corktina

you can't think of a circumstance in which a sticking door handle may be a safety issue?

johnty56

I suppose if a rabid bear was after you and you were trying to get into your car in a hurry it could be a problem!

Agricola

corktina wrote: »

you can't think of a circumstance in which a sticking door handle may be a safety issue?

Outside door handle. Once in a while it would stay up. In no way affected the function of opening the door from the inside. Purely cosmetic issue. A few shots of WD40.... right as rain. So, no in this instance.

corktina

But if you had a crash and were unconscious and the vehicle was on fire....

Agricola

corktina wrote: »

But if you had a crash and were unconscious and the vehicle was on fire....

Then Id either be burned alive as I'd be unconcious and couldnt open the perfectly functioning door, or if there was someone to come to my aid, they could simply push the handle down and open again as normal. Im fairly sure anyone with an IQ above 80 would handle that.........but then.......people.... hmm, you could be right!

That was the same visual retest that I also failed on the lack of an ABS light. I didnt bring the car to the NCT myself so had to return the following week, (20 mile drive) to tell the tester that the ABS was on the steering wheel. Its the thing that lights up bright red in front of you when you turn the key! It says ABS on it! Of course these guys rarely exercise common sense. If the work manual says "ABS lights are in dashboards" then thats where they will look.
Just getting a little bit sick of this kind of thing on a yearly basis tbh.

corktina

but you can see why a door handle not fully working would be a fail? That's the point.

Agricola

corktina wrote: »

but you can see why a door handle not fully working would be a fail? That's the point.

As I said, I can see that testers dont exercise common sense.

macplaxton

I can't see why you didn't just WD40 it before you took it in.

Agricola

macplaxton wrote: »

I can't see why you didn't just WD40 it before you took it in.

Probably because it happened once in half a dozen times you'd open the door, was a minor, purely cosmetic issue, and posed absolutely no threat to me or any other road user. So it didnt register with me I suppose.