THE INTERNATIONAL JAGUAR 'S'-TYPE REGISTER FORUM

Chris,
your last statement is exactly the point ,Paying for the same thing twice!!!

Regards John

1B1257BW
1972 Rover P6

One way of looking at it is that you stand more chance of your car passing its MoT if it has been properly and regularly serviced. There is clearly some overlap, so the questions to ask would be does the service include checking for corrosion, brake efficiency (on the same rollers used for the MoT) and checking every suspension joint with a pry bar (as opposed to the "shaker" used for the MoT which many older classic owners hate).

A lightly used S Type probably only needs an oil and filter change and a grease up annually plus an MoT, so the base cost of this will be around £150. What else you spend should reflect some benefit, but there is no point paying for the same thing twice.

Hi Chris
As you rightly say this is all a bit of a minefield, I can only talk about the garage I have used for the last 12 years ,because of my location the garage is right out in the country and are used by most of the old classic car owners, They are MOT registered and they always aske me do I want a annual service and as you say mainly changing the oil or did i want the full service, including removal of all wheels. By the repairs that they have picked up on the service they seem to far more than a basic spit and lick. If I can clarify with my garage to ensure that the service includes all observations included in a MOT that would be great. I object to paying £250 for a service and then an extra cost for the MOT when checks should be included in the service as I have always thought of the MOT being the bear minimum.

Regards John
1B1257BW
1972 Rover P6

Hi John bit of a minefield this as illustrated by the government's recent backtrack on new cars (which means the first MoT remains at 3 years old not 4 as was proposed). I would argue that a "full service" does not include all the checks in the scope of the MoT. Usually a garage will describe a full service as changing oil and filter and anything else required by the vehicle's servicing schedule. Equally one could argue that some of the MoT checks aren't massive safety issues (e.g. an exhaust blow) or a failed sidelight bulb. A better description of a service intended to cover safety items for MoT exempt classic cars would be "Annual Safety Check". If the garage isn't an MoT station what standard will they apply? If its a thorough check it should cost you at least an hours labour which is more or less the price of an MoT. A Classic Garage Scheme has been mooted which would at least set a standard but so far only a few garages have signed up so finding one locally will be a challenge. But if your garage is also an MoT station why not just have a voluntary MoT in addition to an oil change etc?

I haven't seen any news of pre-1960 cars being involved in accidents, but moving the exemption back to 40 years will bring more cars into play. A 1978 car is a different animal to a 1958 car, much more useable as a daily driver and thus the temptation for owners to run them on the cheap will be greater, so I think there will be more incidents.

Hi Nigel
I tried to put an attachment on the blog but it came up as an error, but if you type in Roadworthy testing of vehicles of historic intereset it may cover the questions you have. For example it says replacing an identical body shell (for example MGB) it is not a Major change or increasing the engine capacity to an original engine which would include the Rover P6 when the original engine was 2000, but increased in capacity to 2200. I hope I have got this correct.

Regards John

1B1257BW
1972 Rover P6

I am not getting into the rights and wrongs with the requirements for an MOT but am more concerned with the classification of registering of a vehicle as "a vehicle of historic interest" (VHI). This determines whether the car requires an MOT or not. The latest edict from the DVLA states if the vehicle has been substantially altered in a number of areas then an MOT is required and the vehicle is not eligible for VHI status, at the moment it is not clear as to what an alteration is. It has been mooted on various forums for example that fitting a rack and pinion steering setup to a sixties Jaguar makes it ineligible for VHI status as this substantially alters the original design. It is being left to the owner to make a self declaration at the next tax application post May this year. As usual the government dishes out woolly laws that can only be tested in a court of law. My main concern with all this is what are the long term implications of this new VHI status when it comes to using the vehicles as and when we wish or not having VHI status.

I had a chat with the garage who service my cars about the MOT changes, and they are saying to me even though I have a full service every year they recommend a MOT check. This to me smacks of just trying to get more money as surely a full service goes way beyond an MOT. If a car is serviced by an enthusiast I would agree that a MOT check would be the correct thing to do. Any opinion.

Regards John

1B1257BW
1972 Rover P6