New MOT legislation and more...

[Nick Moss]

Question for Keith.

How about about a stock all original 356 with a 912 engine is that going to be a problem?

Lots of them out there.

Big thanks for all this info Keith.

I can answer that. No problem there as you only drop 1 point for a different engine. 15% extra power? I doubt it!

[KS]

Question for Keith.

How about about a stock all original 356 with a 912 engine is that going to be a problem?

Lots of them out there.

Big thanks for all this info Keith.

According to the new proposal, only if the power to weight ratio is increased by over 15 per cent... But to be honest, I doubt it very much.

[Andy J]

Cheers guys.

Andy.

[desert rat]

Can anyone tell me the increase in hp from a stock 912 engine to a 1720cc engine with a fast road cam. I've read somewhere that the increase in hp isn't a great deal but much better torque. I would just like to know if it's less than 15%.
Stefan.

[Darren65]

I can see there being a lot of nonsense and scaremongering talked about this in the short term until people come to their senses, realise not much has changed and carry on as normal - whereas I can see this legislation may be designed to target outrageously modified or dangerous cars it's got nothing to do with what we do.

I asked our MOT tester if he would deem flared arches or a change to the front slam panel as a substantial change to the monocoque and he said of course not, especially if they were factory type modifications or options in period - obviously just his opinion and no doubt others will view this differently.

As for the MID database; we have direct access to this and are required to update our own fleet, there's no provision to start listing any modifications it's just a question of is it insured or not. It could be that brokers have a different MID portal but I doubt it.

And just who is going to Police all this?.......DVLA local offices were closed to save money, there's just not the resources, will or desire to start jumping on this and why would there be?

Accuse me of burying my head in the sand if you will but I'm not concerned in the slighest, most of our cars are exactly how they could have been in the day.........I think we can all sleep easy.

[rvzz]

Just playing devils advocate here but could this be the thin end of the wedge . I'm sure this or any future government would love to remove or at least restrict what the non classic car owning public perceive as smelly polluting old cars / bikes from the roads , if only for the 'brownie points ' it would gain with future voters who have no interest or desire to own our sort of cars ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bootsy]

Can anyone tell me the increase in hp from a stock 912 engine to a 1720cc engine with a fast road cam. I've read somewhere that the increase in hp isn't a great deal but much better torque. I would just like to know if it's less than 15%.
Stefan.

Stock 1600 912 engine is quoted with a Power / Weight Ratio (w/ Driver) of 22.2 lbs. / HP SAE so to be within 15% you'd need the increase to be under 25.53 lbs / HP

I doubt it would make that but instead increase torque

[KS]

I can see there being a lot of nonsense and scaremongering talked about this in the short term until people come to their senses, realise not much has changed and carry on as normal - whereas I can see this legislation may be designed to target outrageously modified or dangerous cars it's got nothing to do with what we do.

I asked our MOT tester if he would deem flared arches or a change to the front slam panel as a substantial change to the monocoque and he said of course not, especially if they were factory type modifications or options in period - obviously just his opinion and no doubt others will view this differently.

As for the MID database; we have direct access to this and are required to update our own fleet, there's no provision to start listing any modifications it's just a question of is it insured or not. It could be that brokers have a different MID portal but I doubt it.

And just who is going to Police all this?.......DVLA local offices were closed to save money, there's just not the resources, will or desire to start jumping on this and why would there be?

Accuse me of burying my head in the sand if you will but I'm not concerned in the slighest, most of our cars are exactly how they could have been in the day.........I think we can all sleep easy.

Actually a lot has changed in as much as pre-1978 cars won't need an MOT or pay tax for a start, but only as long any modifications fall within the 8-point rule. An increase in power output will mean an MOT. That's a big change.
Next year, you will be required to state whether your historic vehicle has been modified or not. If not then proof will be required (Steve Kevlin at PCGB will be very busy). If yes, depending on what has been done, then an engine swap/or increase in output will mean an MOT, but no tax. Heavier mods go into the BIVA system.
Your MOT tester won't be the person to determine the status of a vehicle. It is hoped that changing the flares and slam panel won't matter but there are cars being picked up where bulkheads have been moved or reshaped to accommodate an engine swap. We won't know for sure until next year and modified 911s start to enter the new system. Fingers crossed, eh?
The MID database that can be accessed by the DVLA is clearly more detailed than that available to the regular garage trade.
Policing of modifications will be done by the same offices/garages that carry out IVA at present.

We all hope that here will be no change to the status quo, naturally, but to ignore everything that has been set down is foolish until we are told otherwise. Back in 1960, nobody believed that every car could possible be required to have an MOT. And a number of well-constructed street rods which have previously been registered and MOT'd have had their V5s revoked, so things are changing...

[andytat]

I have recently built a couple of early 70's 911's and fitted a 3.6l 964 engine in one and a 3.8l
993 engine in the other. For both cars I sent the V5 to DVLA to make the engine capacity and
number change and both times DVLA asked me for proof of the change and a letter from the
Workshop/Engineer/Specialist to satisfy them that the work had been carried out to a satisfactory
standard. I sent the required info to them and they sent me back the V5's with the changes
made to them.

Andy

[gridgway]

Think you have your calcs upside down there Thomas. In the way you've done it, 19.3 represents 15%increase in power to weight as your figure is weight to power iyswim.

Assuming weight has stayed the same it's much easier to think about HP I reckon. So has one's 100 HP engine become 115 or more?

But how did Porsche measure power back in the day? The same as Ferrari? I don't think so, we've debated this before, with ancillaries or without? How did they do weight? Wet or dry?

And how does that translate to today? And practically how is today's power to weight going to be measured? Rolling road and weighbridge? I can see a million legal challenges to that!

What fun!

Graham

Stock 1600 912 engine is quoted with a Power / Weight Ratio (w/ Driver) of 22.2 lbs. / HP SAE so to be within 15% you'd need the increase to be under 25.53 lbs / HP

I doubt it would make that but instead increase torque

[Bootsy]

Think you have your calcs upside down there Thomas. In the way you've done it, 19.3 represents 15%increase in power to weight as your figure is weight to power iyswim.

Assuming weight has stayed the same it's much easier to think about HP I reckon. So has one's 100 HP engine become 115 or more?

But how did Porsche measure power back in the day? The same as Ferrari? I don't think so, we've debated this before, with ancillaries or without? How did they do weight? Wet or dry?

And how does that translate to today? And practically how is today's power to weight going to be measured? Rolling road and weighbridge? I can see a million legal challenges to that!

What fun!

Graham

Stock 1600 912 engine is quoted with a Power / Weight Ratio (w/ Driver) of 22.2 lbs. / HP SAE so to be within 15% you'd need the increase to be under 25.53 lbs / HP

I doubt it would make that but instead increase torque

Oh yes!

Completely agree about how power was measured and how it will be. Indeed extracting the information to show a power increase over very old published data from manufacturers is incredibly ambiguous both for the owner and for any enforcement of legislation.

Many cars will have been rebuilt with newer (available) components and in many cases done so to be more efficient and environmentally friendly. In doing so this power ratio increase could have easily been achieved unintentionally and unbeknown to the driver. A self certification process puts the onus on the owner to something they potentially do not have the knowledge of.

The above formed part of my response to roadworthinesstesting@dft.gsi.gov.uk

It's draft legislation at the moment so everybody should at least send their thoughts to the email address above - you never know it may make a difference if suddenly thousand emails arrive highlighting the holes and potential quagmire this could cause

[KS]

Yes, the general feeling is that the 15 per cent p-to-w clause is the one most likely to be forgotten, but may simply be replaced by 'non-standard engine'.

[Tosh]

Andy, clearly the biggest issue is the monocoque/chassis. From the points raised above, I'd guess if that's "as was" you are under the 8 points with the engine swap, though clearly, it's not a period/standard motor

[Nick Moss]

It will be interesting to know who is going to do all these inspections. There are just 6 DVSA stations in the southeast (from Southampton to Dover). I have been waiting nearly 2 months just for an inspection date for my Mustang.

[gridgway]

That'll be an interesting definition as well!

Yes, the general feeling is that the 15 per cent p-to-w clause is the one most likely to be forgotten, but may simply be replaced by 'non-standard engine'.