Morris Minor Owners Club

philthehill wrote: It could be argued that because the 1275cc engine was not offered as a factory alternative engine for the Minor (even though it is of the same basic style) it falls foul of the proposed regulations.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with Phil before, but I took it as a clear ok for a 1275 - definitely still the same "basic" engine, with the same number of cylinders. I didn't read anything about it having to have been a factory alternative.

Is there not something about power to weight ratios not exceeding 15% of the original as well ?

It is all a matter of interpretation of the statement quoted above several times:-

"Engine changes within original choice and different capacity of basic engine"

Playing devils advocate - a 1275cc engine was not offered as an engine of choice for the Minor and it could be that a 1098cc engine over bored by plus 0.060" which will give greater capacity than 1098cc is the real meaning of different capacity of the basic engine.
As I have said above greater detail of the practicalities in relation to the new MOT regulations needs to be published and digested because at the moment most details seem to be individual interpretation - mine included.
Phil.

Ah - I hadn't been following with sufficient attention and had missed the "within original choice" bit. Have to agree with Phil after all, I now doubt that my 1275 will qualify for exemption. Was going to have it MOTd anyway, but wonder if not having the exemption could have any effect on resale value in the unlikely event that I ever sell it.

I read it as two separate items, alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine and alternative original equipment engines. If it were simply the latter, I don't think they would need to mention the former or at least they would have to say alternative cubic capacities of the same basic engine, that were alternative original equipment engines.

Mike Authers, who specialises in MG Midgets (http://www.mgmidgets.com/), once said that whilst car tax (Esp on Midgets) isn't that high, tax exemption had a disproportionate effect on values. At the time exemption was fixed at 31 12 72, so more cars were still out in the cold. I suspect there will be a lesser degree of this effect, as regards MOT exemption BUT I think a car presented for sale, with a fresh (Even if voluntary) MOT, will command a better price.

I think I can exempt myself from annual MOTs (The MGs were all modified a long time ago, though the Midget is not yet 40 years old), as the Traveller's disc brakes improve safety and the 5 speed gearbox, it's efficiency. It will be more convenient for me to get them done by mileage, than at a set time each year.

I have just had an email from the Department for Transport, which reads as follows.

You emailed the Department last Autumn about the forthcoming exemption of Vehicles of Historical Interest from MOT testing; and in particular about the draft guidance on the definition of a ‘substantially changed’ vehicle.

In case you have not heard, the Department published final guidance on our website on 18 December. This followed discussions with stakeholders such as the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs.

The guidance may be seen at

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... c-interest

You will be interested to see that we have discarded our proposed definition based on a 15% increase in the power/weight ratio and have arrived at a different version.

Yours sincerely

David Pope

I've not had a good look at it but the 15% power to weight ratio idea is dropped, so long as mods weren't done within the last 30 years, they are allowed and in the case of Minors, I think all engine swaps, one A Series for another, of a different size, will be allowed anyway. I'm not sure about an MM getting an A Series. I suppose if an MM is just regarded as a Morris Minor, then an A Series became standard equipment but if it's regarded as a separate entity, from the A series cars, it might be open to debate. I'm sure quite a few MMs will have been fitted with A Series engines years ago (And over 30 anyway) but I suspect historical correctness may mean it doesn't happen that often these days?

I am struck by the comment made by Jesse Norman MP on page 4 of the first document dated Sept 2017 regarding Substantial Change in that it will be flexible and responsive.

typical politician meaningless drivel