New MOT legislation and more...

[Lightweight_911]

Also it's not clear (to me) what happens in the case of a 40+ yr old car that does not currently have an MOT (ie expired & SORN'd) when it comes to 20th May - can it be taxed using the new MOT-exemption or will it require a one-off MOT in order to tax it for the first time under the new regulations ?

[hot66]

CAnt see there being an issue if the manufacturer has produced a version .. MGB's with retro fitted V8's for example should be fine due to the factory produced cars .. so there fore a 914/6 IMHO should be easy to argue for too

[defianty]

CAnt see there being an issue if the manufacturer has produced a version .. MGB's with retro fitted V8's for example should be fine due to the factory produced cars .. so there fore a 914/6 IMHO should be easy to argue for too

Indeed that's my thinking but there still needs to be some sort of clarification. Yes it should be easy to argue for... but to who?

[911hillclimber]

This lot will not get any better!
The interpretation is down to the owner, and I feel ok with stating my car (73T Coupe) needs an MoT as it is modified, but is not substantially modified:-

1
The engine is a 3.2, same air cooled design, bigger than the original 2.4T, still a 6 cylinder, fitted in 1999. Tick.(changed on the grounds of power and fuel efficiency)
2
It has been converted to RHD 26 years and 26 MoT's ago. Porsche made RHD 911T's in 1973. Tick (changed on the grounds of road use safety, the police man can talk to my wife about it)
3
It had a cloth sun roof fitted in 1989. Sun roof additions are exempt. Tick (old aftermarket glass tilt roof removed as it was crap)
4
Bonnet is currently fibre glass. Bolt on panels are not structural so exempt. Tick (changed in 1994 as no steel bonnet was available)

Others could/will disagree, but I feel I can look at a policeman/MoT Tester and argue the decision I made is reasonable. Some of the phrases used in the DfT documents will always, always lead to interpretation, hence there is a real risk you could make the wrong call, but there will never be a Black-or-White answer!

The whole lot is poorly thought-out, ambiguous and in-nessacery.
The new Standards need to be written by a real British Standards Author to get it precise (been there in my professional past, they are the best at this game). This would however take years...

There is a movement going on to have a register of Marque Experts who can be telephoned (as opposed to emails etc) for a person to discuss these ambiguities and be given guidance.
They are NOT legally binding words of advice or instruction, that is still down to you to make you own mind up using their guidance to help you.
This is in the current Classic Car press.

I do not know of a Porsche Advisor yet, maybe KS knows better? (can't imagine too many volunteers for this job!)

Thus, my decision is I will have a car of Historical Status, declared modified, and MoT'd just as usual.

[KS]

I don't think that was in dispute at any point - the grey area is the change from LH to RHD as changes to the unitary body are, in theory, considered to be a substantial change. However, I don't honestly think it would ever come up.

What is interesting is this: "Axles and running gear – alteration of the type and or method of suspension or steering constitutes a substantial change". That suggests that any torsion-bar 911 that has been converted to coils and no longer uses the torsion bars as a method of suspension would fall foul of the regs.

I have no idea about an appointed advisor – Steve Kevlin will probably be the man who gets it dumped on his lap...

[911hillclimber]

Agree on the Coil-overs Keith, not sure about the use of non-stock calipers, even the 917 type, but I would argue to whoever that they improve safety.
Can't see anyone in PCGB standing up for this one, can't see any specialist or Register rep doing this either, what a terrible thing to be exposed to over the next few months!

It needs someone who really understands each model, 911/914/928 etc though some questions (like Andy's) are not model specific.
There will inevitably be differences in advice between specialists to the same question as some 'rules' are ambiguous, so immediately things are 'grey'.

I feel many specialist reps who do this task will simply say if it is not stock you fail when it comes to body changes, keeps it simple and no kick-back later on.

We all need to read the VHI document carefully, but selfishly. For some modified cars are will not be an absolute answer IMHO.

[hot66]

Personally ... I'd class a LHD to rhd on a 911 she'll as a major body mod that would need declaring as such ... On an Austin Healy maybe less so


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[911hillclimber]

I did in 1992 to the DVLA at the same time as the engine change, did the conversion and the new engine in the same winter period.
The log book got changed to the new engine number, there is nowhere on the log book to record the rhd change or indeed if the car is lhd or rhd when new.
The MoT is a vehicle safety examination, and the car has been thus checked for safety 26 times independently.
DVLA raised no objections, never asked for proof of construction, quality of welding etc.
This was 5 years after the points system had been introduced by them, no mention of that to me, and I had no idea of those points rules and had built hot rods etc before as had a lot of my friends at the same time.
I'm comfortable. Without very clear guidelines there will always be a difference of opinion.

To convert an early 911 is not that difficult. The only structural part you change is the mounting of the steering column to the dash panels and the forming of the rhd pedal box panel.
Welding is as
Porsche did it, it took me 2 weeks to do, rebuilding the 2.4 engine took longer.

Many a restoration of a 911 shell has far more cutting and welding in far more structural places than my conversion.
There are lots of Truimph and MGs converted as some are bolt on exercises, E Types too, but rhd conversions never the less. The TR Register have been at the forefront of this issue, lots of those car happily on the road, some owners not aware of the conversions
I guess.
This is a reason why modified car have to be M oTd because they have been changed and their safety has to be assured.

[hot66]

Not debating wether difficult ... Just that ref to what we're talking about here for a 911 shell its classed as a 'major mod' to the core uni body.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[911hillclimber]

In danger of going for yet another lap around the block.

[KS]

I like to be sure of any facts I'm not aware of, please can you direct me to any standard or instruction that states a rhd change is outside the guidelines issued?
I have not seen anything that states such a change is specifically listed, similarly when a saloon is converted to a convertible, or to a 4 seater instead of 2 seats and such like.
Where or is there a list of changes that specifically says what is or isn't modified?
The only formal list I've seen is the recent DfT guidelines linked to above and the DVLA points system which I thought was now not used for cars over 40 years?

Maybe I'm trying to read a clarity into all this that isn't there because I want to.
In danger of going for yet another lap around the block.

Graham - converting a car to RHD in itself does not specifically count as 'substantially changed' according to the paper shown above BUT it does state that any change to the chassis or monocoque other than replacing with original (as per a restoration) does. So, if a car has its bulkhead changed to accommodate RHD then it has undergone 'substantial change'. Cutting the roof off a monocoque body is most definitely 'substantial change'!

The 8-points ruling most definitely does apply to any vehicle attempting to retain VHI status. That's been the core of this discussion since day one.

[Nick Moss]

[911hillclimber]

So, if I surrender the historic status, I pay road tax, MoT the car and carry on with the car as it is?

Is this actually the way out of this merry go round?
If so, does anyone know who to confirm this with?
Will the car keep its registration, not have to go to IVA?

I am very close to simply leaving the classic car world, just getting a waste of time and energy.

[911hillclimber]

I have emailed the Federation for their take on the 911 with the Guidelines in mind.
There is a glaring contradiction in the rules which I have asked clarification on.

[Darren65]

I don't know why but this thread reminds me of this.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rew_Ts1d7zY

Sorry