Not really skoda related but thought it might be a discussion point..

 

What are peoples views on non-standard specification manufacturer cars, or maybe "mis-built" cars where the specification is different for its model designation. Do you think it can have an effect on resale value or desirability?

 

To set the scene....

 

SWMBO has just bought a new Peugeot 208 from a main dealer.

 

The model designation is 208 "Allure" 1.2VTI 110 S&S. The dealer did apparently mention these are "rare" cars, due to the spec.

 

So the car (apparently) has the 1.2 turbo engine that was introduced with the facelift 208 that went on sale in May.

The car she has bought is a pre-reg with 10 miles on the clock. and looking at the pictures,  it seems to be a pre-facelift model from the outside, with some odd options that dont match with the "Allure" spec of either the pre, or post facelift. (ie sports seats, dial-faces) - and some features that seem to be from post-facelift, like the engine and media system. so a real mish-mash of parts.

Now normally i would understand a slight variation in options for a particular trim level.. but an engine that was never available in that model of car?? - i have checked the registration and it is registered correctly.

 

She picks it up on Thursday, so will be interesting to figure out what the actual "mongrel" of a car is!.. Im genuinely intrigued!

To be fair, im not that worried, as overall its actually a better spec than the current FL cars, and it was a fair chunk cheaper than buying a brand new reg one.

Presumably they were using up the last of the old parts they had before moving everything over to the facelift?

 

A bit like Skoda with the mk2 Octavia where the vRS LE had the pre-facelift body, but facelift interior etc.

These days I can see issues with it being "non-standard" as far as in-sewer-ants is concerned.

In my experience, it doesn't add any cash to the value of the car, but makes it a more interesting and desireable one on the secondhand market as long as it was purchased from new and its history can be verified.

Let me tell you a story:

In about 1979, there were once two Triumph TR7's on a secondhand dealer's forecourt in Exeter, both with identical price tags.   One was an "R" reg (1976) and one was an "S" Reg (1977) - the "R" reg had about 12K clocked, the "S" reg had 18K, naturally with the red mileage disclaimer notice on the speedo.   The "S" reg had a few bells and whistles on it - a 5 speed box, a sun roof, front fog and spot lamps, top-of-the-range non-standard stereo system etc. - what was not to like?   So I chose the "S" reg.

 

About 4 head gaskets and cylinder head replacements later at £300 a pop, I was running seriously short of cash so I sold it to a TR7 specialist in Weston-Super-Horse.   He took it around the block a couple of times and stated factually "This isn't a 1977 car and the mileage isn't right - I can tell by a few things.   The gearbox is noisier than it should be, on the glass the word "toughened" or "laminated" has a dot above it which tells me the year the glass was made - she's had a new windscreen but the other windows were all made in 1974, there's more dirt and grime on the chassis and under wheel arches than I would expect from a two year old car as well.   He then rang British Leyland Marketing who confirmed the car had been manufactured in 1975 as a test car and thrashed around British Leyland's Test Track in order to establish what faults were likely to develop and what parts were likely to fail.   It had first registered in 1977 and then went to auction with over 70,000 receorded miles and was bought by a British Leyland Main Dealer in West London - Henlys.

 

He then rang Henlys who confirmed buying the car with 70,000 recorded miles.   "The speedo wasn't working, so we put a new one in which is legal and the new speedo would read zero.   One of our Used Car Sales Managers tootled around in it for a few months and we sold it "in the trade" to a man from West Drayton about 9 months ago, which would explain why you bought it in Exeter with some mileage clocked.   These cars often pass through several traders before ending up on a retail forecourt."

Nothing was illegal, but the whole experience cost me dearly and put me off secondhand cars for life!

Edited 18 August, 201510 yr by bealine

The biggest mish mash of cars I've seen is the Peugeot 206+

I have a focus on the family fleet which I thought had a slightly odd spec when I bought it. It's main difference is a aux heating unit which works when you turn the heat setting to full hot. A message appears in the display saying Aux heating on. It also rides a bit lower than a std titanium, which is what its supposed to be, and looks like zetec s suspension. The car also came with 18" rims although this was an option. Not sure if it has anything to do with it but the car was originally registered to Jaguar cars in Derby before Ford sold Jag to Tata.  

All will be revealed tomorrow i guess..

 

Im not too worried about resale/warranty/insurance etc as its being sold as a brand new pre-reg car.. and it will be chopped in before the warranty expires.

The interesting thing for me is there is a extra badge on the back although i cant see what the badge says in the pics - only diesels have an extra badge! lol. I will laugh if it turns out to be a diesel and noone noticed (which will then raise the issue that it is actually registered wrong with the DVLA)

Very common thing to happen across all brands. A term commonly used is "parts bin". Basically as the name describes some early models of the newer ones have odd options or parts fitted off both. Or the last of the previous model have parts off the newer one.

Sent from my Galaxy S5

Yep as above used to be the thing to buy a car just before the new "facelift" model came out as they would use a mix of new and old parts

Some from the older spec and some from the newer spec

I had a Clio that as a bit like that.

 

They had put in a new 100hp 1.5dCi mated to a Megane gearbox and had brakes off something else (not a 172).

Mine was preReg on 31/12/2003 but it was listed as a 2004 model.

 

The car had no worse reliability than any other Clio of the time (which is to say all the trim and electrics steadily disintegrated).

But the engine and gearbox combo was actually much better than standard Clio fare.

 

I ran into issues every year with insurance since the car didn't exist being a 2004 model registered in 2003.

 

Also when one of the rear callipers packed in Renault seemed to forget they had ever made the car, ended up sourcing a calliper direct from Lucas.

Well we have collected the car..

It is indeed a 1.2 turbo!.. and the extra badge on the back is "e-thp" - which is a designation normally reserved for the 308 models.

 

Credit where credit is due - its reasonably nice to drive. the turbo engine has the torque low down that the normal 1.2 sorely misses having such long gearing. It rides and steers better than the last 208.. but the gearbox is baggy and awful still.

Many years ago a friend of mine bought a Vauxhall viva from a guy who worked at the factory.

He'd " Assembled " his own car.

It came with every extra and in two tone blue paint if I remember correctly.

It also came with lots of spares...Mostly behind the door cards inside the doors.

When in Mlada Boleslav doing the Skoda factory tour, it became apparent a lot of the factory worker's cars were special builds similar to the above.

Edited 20 August, 201510 yr by softscoop

Many years ago a friend of mine bought a Vauxhall viva from a guy who worked at the factory.

He'd " Assembled " his own car.

It came with every extra and in two tone blue paint if I remember correctly.

It also came with lots of spares...Mostly behind the door cards inside the doors.

Maybe he got the idea from Johnny Cash?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6i6g0JLKIw

Edited 21 August, 201510 yr by bealine

I had a Clio that as a bit like that.

 

They had put in a new 100hp 1.5dCi mated to a Megane gearbox and had brakes off something else (not a 172).

Mine was preReg on 31/12/2003 but it was listed as a 2004 model.

 

The car had no worse reliability than any other Clio of the time (which is to say all the trim and electrics steadily disintegrated).

But the engine and gearbox combo was actually much better than standard Clio fare.

 

I ran into issues every year with insurance since the car didn't exist being a 2004 model registered in 2003.

 

Also when one of the rear callipers packed in Renault seemed to forget they had ever made the car, ended up sourcing a calliper direct from Lucas.

 

Come to think of it i had a Clio with similar. Brand new, on collection there was a scratch on the instrument binnacle glass.. it took 6 months, 4 attempts at replacing the glass before they ended up replacing the whole instrument cluster (which reset the milage back to zero because it wouldnt accept the mileage from the ECU).