Is the 40 year rule killing them? There’s an ongoing consultation on the .Gov site wanting evidence about historic cars, classic car, rebuilt cars etc. It’s open until 4th July 2024 to have your say. Registering historic, classic, rebuilt vehicles and vehicles converted to electric: call for evidence - GOV.UK
A YT channel (Furious Driving) I’m subscribed to puts it across very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpcBLSbxn0U&t=4s
VED is just an insignificant cost in the overall cost of keeping a classic car on the road.Obvioisly the over 40 years rolling tax relief is a bonus.How does that supposedly ‘doom’ classic cars.
As opposed to loss of industrial capacity and the resulting lack of quality critical parts and loss of know how, to maintain them.
Modern day techs and DIY owners look on old pushrod motors as blankly as I look at a modern multi variable cam computerised space ship motor.
1 Like
that guy is a motoring journalist. He did at one point have at least 1 p6 if not 2.
I disagree with the classic cars being mot exempt as it always pays to have a second set of eyes go over the vehicle. The real issue is fuel and finding someone that is able to work on them properly I have a garage that the owner cut his teeth on old vw’s and did a proper apprenticeship but he is the only one (garage wise) i let near my p6 other than that i dont know any garage i would take my car to.
1 Like
The guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. @ 6:30 talking about over £700 for an early 2000s car to tax it. The most expensive is £415.
Porsche Cayenne 2003-2009 £415-735 pa
Also, 3.0 V6 petrol Peugeot 607 is 710 pa
Porsche Cayenne and Peugeot 607 aren’t classic cars.With the exception of the 4.8 manual GTS.
Peugeot 604 is a classic and within the 40 years.
Also no one with any sense is going to use a classic as a year round daily drive.
6 months VED max should cut it.
This is all about people trying to run cars that they can’t afford and if they can’t afford a few quid in VED per year then they certainly can’t afford to fuel and maintain them.
These penny pinchers will just make the government wash it’s hands of the whole scene and put all classic cars off the road.
Maybe that’s what the government want especially the Labour car hating communists.
1 Like
Make up your mind, or don’t you know the difference between socialism and communism?
He has previously stated that Mr A Hilter was actually a socialist, so I think it a fair assumption that he hasn’t got a clue about any of it.
1 Like
Withiut the pain of reading all this guff a quck question: Are ‘they’ proposing that historic vehicles should be converted to electric traction and seeking a cut off date ?
Also bearing in mind I was a loyal Socialist until I realised that the Internationale actually meant the Supra National, one world government, ruled by scum like Stalin and Mao from zb Moscow and Peking.
Mr Hitler definitely called it the German Socialist Workers Party based on the ideology of the supra national collective.Including tearing down his own borders and a stated plan of forced relocation of Germans from their idyllic Fatherland to the barren Russian steppe land.
Remind me what the letters USSR stand for and which party gave their supra national basket case that title.
No.
Short enough? 
It is about whether or not conversions of old vehicles should retain their older reg dates, and hence any benefits regarding tax or MoT exemptions, etc.
Banning of older cars etc is being used extensively to gain attention all over the place, so I do see why you might try to avoid reading everything.
No, From what I’m reading there are more & more people converting old classics by taking out the original engine, drive train, & welding in cross members/engine & gearbox mounts etc & putting in something like a Vtec engine & running gear to make it a better daily driver thus no tax, no MOT & still wanting classic/historic status on it.
The Gov are asking for evidence of originality of the vehicle or when it becomes a modified Q plate Frankenstein. (Are Q plates still a thing?)
We are way off topic, so apologies to others.
Because Mr Hilter called his party socialist does not make it socialist.
The DDR (German Democratic Republic) wasn’t democratic, was it?
Converting existing cars to electric makes no sense when new ICE cars can be and are being made up to 2030.
The costs are prohibitive and seems a bit pointless anyway.Easier and cheaper and probably better for the car to just scrap the thing.Thats what I’d do with the Jag if they ever said it’s V12 has to be replaced with a whining electric motor and half a tonne of batteries.
The only good thing about a conversion is that it could combine electric with manual transmission.
If you had been watching the thread, electric conversions are a side issue here.
And
Is quite a bizarre statement, even by the standards you have already set.
Although I am sure to regret asking, why is manual transmission in an electric car a good thing?
same reason manual transmission is better than auto in anything. However in the above example of just slapping an electric motor in instead of a ic engine it wouldnt work. The torque etc from an electric motor required to make it operate as a car would blow the gearbox to bits.
Back in the early 2000’s when electric vehicles were just being brought to the publics attention several serious companies with real engineers tried to make electric sports cars with manual boxes and couldnt do it. The torque and load required just kept blowing them to bits.
Hyundai Ioniq 5 N has a virtual engine/gearbox sports mode sound. From 4:45 in this YT vid. Not sure I’d want that noise again, I like the silent drive of an EV these days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5bJZ10qh0
@lancpudn
And Toyota have a virtual 14 speed transmission I see.
But not a real manual gearbox, clutch etc.
Why would anyone actually introduce an unnecessary, heavy, bulky, bit of metal that needs extra maintenance?