|
|
Post by fruitcake on Sept 14, 2017 19:31:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dicky on Sept 14, 2017 21:13:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chad on Sept 15, 2017 5:23:31 GMT
I'm still taking mine - it's worth the £50 odd quid once a year to get a professional opinion from the place I take it to, who test a lot of T2s so know what they're doing.
It'd probably be cheaper than having it done at their normal labour rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baz on Sept 15, 2017 8:58:29 GMT
I'm still taking mine - it's worth the £50 odd quid once a year to get a professional opinion from the place I take it to, who test a lot of T2s so know what they're doing. It'd probably be cheaper than having it done at their normal labour rates. Am I wrong in thinking you won't actually be able to have one ,if your over 40 once they bring this in ? I thought a lot of it was because the test is going to become stiffer but the use for computer diagnose is more a part of it . As said an mot is only really valid on the day it's written and it's down to YOU to ensure it's road worthy what ever it's age . Golly how many people do you hear say oh it bluddy failed on worn tyre , windscreen washer ,brakes not working properly insufficient screen wash lights n horns not working etc etc ,all things that you should be checking daily or at least before you use it anyway . They are obviously scheming fa something I recon . |
|
|
|
Post by chad on Sept 15, 2017 9:15:53 GMT
I think that pre 60 cars can still have a MOT as someone quoted somewhere else that despite most people saying they would still take theirs for a MOT only 6% actually did. I think that this was from the government paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baz on Sept 15, 2017 9:20:33 GMT
I think that pre 60 cars can still have a MOT as someone quoted somewhere else that despite most people saying they would still take theirs for a MOT only 6% actually did. I think that this was from the government paper. If this is the case they are sending mixed messages I fear . Seems another loop hole for the baddies . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 11:18:28 GMT
I thought it was interesting to read in the consultation document that 25% of vehicles aged from between 1960 and 1977 fail the current MOT. Personally I am not sure to do away with the MOT is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by razzyh on Sept 15, 2017 12:04:23 GMT
I'll still take mine for an annual checkup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 12:15:27 GMT
I'll still take mine for an annual checkup. If you go Subaru you might not have a choice |
|
|
|
Post by Baz on Sept 15, 2017 14:54:38 GMT
I'll still take mine for an annual checkup. Git under it yeh Sen you should be able ta spot most stuff and hear or sea other stuff above ground  |
|
|
|
Post by Zed on Sept 15, 2017 15:40:16 GMT
The mot man has emissions and brake testers and a ramp and a suspension jiggling thing - it's a bargain safety check. 👍
|
|
|
|
Post by ozziedog on Sept 15, 2017 15:43:35 GMT
I thought it was interesting to read in the consultation document that 25% of vehicles aged from between 1960 and 1977 fail the current MOT. Personally I am not sure to do away with the MOT is a good idea. I`m thinking that this factoid is not particularly relevant because they would fail the current MOT even if they was brand spanking new. Also where do you think that saying comes from ? "Brand Spanking New" Is it something kinky perhaps ? Or is it a forerunner to an ASDA advert. Ozziedog,,,,,,,,,,,,Another Tangent  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 22:33:00 GMT
I thought it was interesting to read in the consultation document that 25% of vehicles aged from between 1960 and 1977 fail the current MOT. Personally I am not sure to do away with the MOT is a good idea. I`m thinking that this factoid is not particularly relevant because they would fail the current MOT even if they was new. why  sounds like bollocks to me, my more modern cars have always passed. |
|
|
|
Post by ozziedog on Sept 16, 2017 0:37:18 GMT
HHhhmmmmmm
Ozziedog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 12:14:20 GMT
I wrote this on Ch5 but some might find it helpful to see many will have potentially been shafted under the new rules. Or do you interpret differently to me.
I reckon yours might be OK, but there again you might not, depends on the mods to the engine or whether there has been a change from Type 1 to Type 4, I see this as having some complexity read on.
Type 4
If you assume 1700 was 65 hp and 2000 was 69hp then the power to weight ratio (assuming 1,800 KG) will 0.036 and 0.038 respectively, which if my maths is correct is an increase in power to weight ratio of 5.6%. The issue comes when you start adding twin carbs etc that each give you a number of gains in horse power. If you have a larger Type 1 than 1,600 or a trick Type 4 then you might find yourself caught by this, that is how I would read this - its about the change in power to weight ratio. Clearly going from a 1,700 type 4 to a Subaru EJ20 is as I see it at the moment going to put me in the substantially changed bracket.
This of course assumes that your bus didn't originally run a gutless Type 1 engine.
Type 1
Just taking a look at anyone with a Type 1 engine an old Keeping your bus alive magazine shows the BHP for a stock 1600 twin port at 30 bhp then they added in the following order
performance exhaust added 1 bhp
twin webber 34ICT added 11 bhp
Scat pro street rockers added 8 bhp
electronic ignition 0 bhp
So if you have a 1600cc bus which came with a single carburettor and it now runs twin weber 34 ICTs then based on a weight of 1,800 kg you have increased the power to weight ratio by 35%. You are probably not feeling quite so smug now. Obviously if you are running a 1776 then your clearly way above the 15%.
|
|
sounds like bollocks to me, my more modern cars have always passed.