Discussion
KaraK said:
bqf said:
Well, the Lotus Carlton was epic, the VX220s handle fabulously and the Monaros have their fans, as did the Astra GTE back in the day.
All current Vauxhalls are horrid - and nobody should buy them to show GM that ruining Saab was a bad idea.
While GM have certainly not been the most helpful (to put it mildly) during this little saga realistically the root cause of Saab's situation has more to do with no-one buying any of their cars.All current Vauxhalls are horrid - and nobody should buy them to show GM that ruining Saab was a bad idea.
skwdenyer said:
KaraK said:
bqf said:
Well, the Lotus Carlton was epic, the VX220s handle fabulously and the Monaros have their fans, as did the Astra GTE back in the day.
All current Vauxhalls are horrid - and nobody should buy them to show GM that ruining Saab was a bad idea.
While GM have certainly not been the most helpful (to put it mildly) during this little saga realistically the root cause of Saab's situation has more to do with no-one buying any of their cars.All current Vauxhalls are horrid - and nobody should buy them to show GM that ruining Saab was a bad idea.
KaraK said:
True, using the same tech that sells rather well in Vauxhalls etc. I'm no GM fan and I certainly think they could have made more of Saab when they had it and they certainly could have been more helpful now but let's not all pretend that GM were the big bad monster that came along and destroyed a successfull marque. They bought a loss-making car manufacturer and despite some early successes they mismanaged it into a rather poor state again.
SAAB suffers from the same problem that blighted the Jaguar X-Type- its models are percieved to be tarted up versions of cheaper production models. X-Type? Mondeo in drag. 9-3? Calibra/Vectra in drag. People paying a premium expect to get something bespoke, and this is what BMW, Mercedes and Audi (despite a degree of platform sharing) offer.Lukewarm reactions from the press, failing to capitalise on an IKEA led Scandinavian design renaisance and a lack of diversity in the range put paid to SAAB. By comparison Volvo have gone from strength to strength in the same period.
Alfa numeric said:
KaraK said:
True, using the same tech that sells rather well in Vauxhalls etc. I'm no GM fan and I certainly think they could have made more of Saab when they had it and they certainly could have been more helpful now but let's not all pretend that GM were the big bad monster that came along and destroyed a successfull marque. They bought a loss-making car manufacturer and despite some early successes they mismanaged it into a rather poor state again.
SAAB suffers from the same problem that blighted the Jaguar X-Type- its models are percieved to be tarted up versions of cheaper production models. X-Type? Mondeo in drag. 9-3? Calibra/Vectra in drag. People paying a premium expect to get something bespoke, and this is what BMW, Mercedes and Audi (despite a degree of platform sharing) offer.Lukewarm reactions from the press, failing to capitalise on an IKEA led Scandinavian design renaisance and a lack of diversity in the range put paid to SAAB. By comparison Volvo have gone from strength to strength in the same period.
Dr Banjo said:
Wonder what kind of phoenix will rise from the ashes 
I reckon the factory will be snapped up by a Chinese company after European credibility, and the Saab name will end up on Swedish-engineered Chinese cars for the export market.So long as the workforce can be employed and the skills ploughed into the cars, this may not be so bad. At least they'll have more input and they'll be free of the GM yoke.
The Saab name and the engineering values at Trollhatten carry far too much weight to die completely.
As I understand, the Saab name reverts to Saab AB so it is far from clear whether it will return to any cars. With most of the technology belonging to GM and those agreements now defunct it seems unlikely anyone will be putting any of the current models back into production anywhere. To do so, new agreements would need to be negotiated with GM and they do not appear to want to do that.
I can see Trollhatten's R&D department being purchased as it still has a valuable skills base and could be a useful ready made R&D centre, not unlike Longbridge.
I can see Trollhatten's R&D department being purchased as it still has a valuable skills base and could be a useful ready made R&D centre, not unlike Longbridge.
Well.
I can't type much tonight, I have dinner plans (The Toad actually has friends shocker!) and TBH I don't really want to. I'll be back on Wednesday to put my thoughts down on the last nine months.
That's if anyone still gives a crap..
As most of you will know, one of my major interests outside of cars is music and tonight somehow, this seems apt.
There is simply no distance left to run....
Until Wednesday then..... Toad Out.
I can't type much tonight, I have dinner plans (The Toad actually has friends shocker!) and TBH I don't really want to. I'll be back on Wednesday to put my thoughts down on the last nine months.
That's if anyone still gives a crap..
As most of you will know, one of my major interests outside of cars is music and tonight somehow, this seems apt.
There is simply no distance left to run....
Until Wednesday then..... Toad Out.
confused_buyer said:
As I understand, the Saab name reverts to Saab AB so it is far from clear whether it will return to any cars. With most of the technology belonging to GM and those agreements now defunct it seems unlikely anyone will be putting any of the current models back into production anywhere. To do so, new agreements would need to be negotiated with GM and they do not appear to want to do that.
Agreed.If Saab dies now, as it would appear to have, it's gone forever now as a car brand. There are no pieces for anyone to pick up, as you rightly point out the name belongs to Saab AB, and the IP for anything currently made belongs to GM.
The factories were even sold off, so there's nothing left..... apart from the poor bloody workforce
confused_buyer said:
I can see Trollhatten's R&D department being purchased as it still has a valuable skills base and could be a useful ready made R&D centre, not unlike Longbridge.
That's a possibility.....and one can hope for a few of the workforce, this might happen.Saab only sold off half of Saab Property, but everything meaningful is pledged to SweGov in any case.
The whole thing is fairly extraordinary. GM have effectively written-off over $300m (the preference shares) plus all of the Saab debt to GM (another $50m?) plus all of the future revenues from Saab parts purchases and IP royalties, in order to protect what? IP which really is purchasable elsewhere for similar money to Youngman's proposed investments in Saab.
Similrly, SweGov seems content to write off several hundred million euros at the altar of idealism, not to mention the on-cost of the resultant unemployment and the further hundreds of millions of euros owed to Swedish suppliers.
Echoing Swade's comments today on Inside Saab, today's news is the end result of a whole series of perplexing, baffling or downright spiteful short-term decisions made over the last few years. All we're left to wonder is to what degree the GM contracts provide a route to SWAN suing GM. After all, I'd have thought that the oft-used phrase 'not to be unreasonably withheld' must have made an appearance somewhere in the change of ownership clauses, and it is this reasonableness which will no doubt be tested in the courts.
For my part, almost the first car I can remember was my parents' V4 95, and there has been almost no part of my life which hasn't featured a Saab somewhere. Although I disliked the GM-era cars, I held out hope that a newly-independent Saab could recapture that independent thinking which once so characterised the marque. Somehow Saab were always, to me, a symbol of what might yet be; now all we're left with is what might have been.
Hopefully images of the final new 9-3 design will surface soon, so that we can at least put form to the future now denied us.
The whole thing is fairly extraordinary. GM have effectively written-off over $300m (the preference shares) plus all of the Saab debt to GM (another $50m?) plus all of the future revenues from Saab parts purchases and IP royalties, in order to protect what? IP which really is purchasable elsewhere for similar money to Youngman's proposed investments in Saab.
Similrly, SweGov seems content to write off several hundred million euros at the altar of idealism, not to mention the on-cost of the resultant unemployment and the further hundreds of millions of euros owed to Swedish suppliers.
Echoing Swade's comments today on Inside Saab, today's news is the end result of a whole series of perplexing, baffling or downright spiteful short-term decisions made over the last few years. All we're left to wonder is to what degree the GM contracts provide a route to SWAN suing GM. After all, I'd have thought that the oft-used phrase 'not to be unreasonably withheld' must have made an appearance somewhere in the change of ownership clauses, and it is this reasonableness which will no doubt be tested in the courts.
For my part, almost the first car I can remember was my parents' V4 95, and there has been almost no part of my life which hasn't featured a Saab somewhere. Although I disliked the GM-era cars, I held out hope that a newly-independent Saab could recapture that independent thinking which once so characterised the marque. Somehow Saab were always, to me, a symbol of what might yet be; now all we're left with is what might have been.
Hopefully images of the final new 9-3 design will surface soon, so that we can at least put form to the future now denied us.
Why all this ire towards GM? SAAB were their asset, they could choose how to run it. Bear in mind SAAB's most successful year ever was 2006- after years of GM stewardship.
That GM would like to protect their IP and, more importantly, their political position in the US with a public and government who've had to bail them out, is more than understandable and should not be criticised.
If you are going to criticise- take a look at who agreed to the terms in buying the company and who allowed SAAB to fall so far and so fast since their massively underfunded attempt at playing car mogul.
That GM would like to protect their IP and, more importantly, their political position in the US with a public and government who've had to bail them out, is more than understandable and should not be criticised.
If you are going to criticise- take a look at who agreed to the terms in buying the company and who allowed SAAB to fall so far and so fast since their massively underfunded attempt at playing car mogul.
10 Pence Short said:
Why all this ire towards GM? SAAB were their asset, they could choose how to run it. Bear in mind SAAB's most successful year ever was 2006- after years of GM stewardship.
That GM would like to protect their IP and, more importantly, their political position in the US with a public and government who've had to bail them out, is more than understandable and should not be criticised.
If you are going to criticise- take a look at who agreed to the terms in buying the company and who allowed SAAB to fall so far and so fast since their massively underfunded attempt at playing car mogul.
Ouch.....That GM would like to protect their IP and, more importantly, their political position in the US with a public and government who've had to bail them out, is more than understandable and should not be criticised.
If you are going to criticise- take a look at who agreed to the terms in buying the company and who allowed SAAB to fall so far and so fast since their massively underfunded attempt at playing car mogul.
10 Pence Short said:
Why all this ire towards GM? SAAB were their asset, they could choose how to run it. Bear in mind SAAB's most successful year ever was 2006- after years of GM stewardship.
That GM would like to protect their IP and, more importantly, their political position in the US with a public and government who've had to bail them out, is more than understandable and should not be criticised.
If you are going to criticise- take a look at who agreed to the terms in buying the company and who allowed SAAB to fall so far and so fast since their massively underfunded attempt at playing car mogul.
Why the ire? Because this isn't just an asset, it is the livelihood of thousands of people. There is money available to save Saab, to save those jobs, and GM are just saying 'sod you' to every one of them, people who were loyal GM employees.That GM would like to protect their IP and, more importantly, their political position in the US with a public and government who've had to bail them out, is more than understandable and should not be criticised.
If you are going to criticise- take a look at who agreed to the terms in buying the company and who allowed SAAB to fall so far and so fast since their massively underfunded attempt at playing car mogul.
Does that not strike you as unfortunate behaviour? VM may have underfunded his business plan, may have underestimated how much damage GM did on the way out, and so on, but the fact remains that he found people to invest in the end and GM said 'no way'.
GM didn't have to sell Saab; they chose to do so. With that comes a responsibility not to just pocket the cash and then pull the plug, don't you think?
skwdenyer said:
Why the ire? Because this isn't just an asset, it is the livelihood of thousands of people. There is money available to save Saab, to save those jobs, and GM are just saying 'sod you' to every one of them, people who were loyal GM employees.
Does that not strike you as unfortunate behaviour? VM may have underfunded his business plan, may have underestimated how much damage GM did on the way out, and so on, but the fact remains that he found people to invest in the end and GM said 'no way'.
GM didn't have to sell Saab; they chose to do so. With that comes a responsibility not to just pocket the cash and then pull the plug, don't you think?
You appear to be under the misapprehension that GM is a charity?Does that not strike you as unfortunate behaviour? VM may have underfunded his business plan, may have underestimated how much damage GM did on the way out, and so on, but the fact remains that he found people to invest in the end and GM said 'no way'.
GM didn't have to sell Saab; they chose to do so. With that comes a responsibility not to just pocket the cash and then pull the plug, don't you think?
Fox- said:
You appear to be under the misapprehension that GM is a charity?
Not at all. But this is 2011, not 1981 or 1911; along with pure capitalism come such things as corporate social responsibility. Under the new UK Companies Act I'm not even sure if GM's behaviour here would have been legal.As I said, GM sold the company, no doubt made promises to treat requests for changes of ownership and/or investment reasonably, and then turned down the only viable ones. Does that strike you as reasonable behaviour?
Contrast that with BMW's behaviour with MG Rover: they essentially gave away the company, threw in £500m (the shutdown costs they would have paid) as a 'dowry', and didn't restrict management from using the technology in the vehicles. That was fair and reasonable; sadly the P4/5 cocked it up, but that's another story.
GM didn't have to sell the company. They chose to do so. To do so, and to pocket the money from selling it, and then to pull the rug out from under it is decidedly dubious to say the very least. To do so from a position of having been bailed out by its own workers and a couple of governments seems decidedly odd, frankly.
GM isn't a charity; however, if it is so suspicious of Chinese ethics, what is it doing building vehicles in China already? Why did it sell old Saab models (using the same IP as in some of the current Saab range) to BAIC? Why did it agree to sell Hummer to the Chinese? Why did it not state its position clearly and unambiguously months ago?
Large companies, these days, have a duty to be 'good citizens'; throwing upwards of 3000 people onto the scrap heap just because you can't be bothered to work out a compromise contract is not what the modern world expects, especially not of a once-bankrupt bail-out recipient part-controlled by a workers' union.
A further answer to the questions about GM, this time courtesy of Life With Saab
LWS said:
Saab died three years ago
Today will be remembered as the day the car brand Saab died. But don't let anyone fool you. Saab died more than three years ago in an office thousands of miles away from Trollhättan.
The Saab car division was established after WW2 when Saab needed to find new products to produce and sell. Saab was originally a war plane developer and manufacturer and when the war was over the company needed one more leg to stand on. After experimenting with a few other products, the company developed its first car, the UrSaab in 1947.
From there on Saab was a car company. The first car to hit the market was the Saab 92 in 1949. A two door aerodynamically shaped car with a two cylinder two stroke engine and front wheel drive. It was a small revolution in the car world. Saab improved the car year by year and during the 1950s and 1960s Saab became a victorious car brand in rally competitions.
Saab was always an engineer driven company and did not always do what was the financially best option. It was all about the cars, and the founder and car guy Marcus "Dodde" Wallenberg made sure that the development of the Saab cars could continue despite financial statements written in red.
In 1977 Saab shocked the world by introducing the Saab 99 Turbo. The world's first family car with a reliable turbo powered engine and sports car performance. A few years later the Saab 99 was developed into the Saab 900 which saw to it that Saab turned into a successful company with record sales and nice profits.
Then at the end of the 1980s things started to look difficult. Saab needed new and modern platforms to develop new cars and partners to share the costs. At the end of 1989 Saab-Scania was in the last stage of selling the car division to Fiat. Then General Motors showed up. GM had just lost Jaguar to Ford and was desperate to buy an European premium car brand. In the eleventh hour GM bought Saab, without any thoughts about what it wanted to do with the brand.
Unfortunately GM never paid much attention to its odd Swedish car brand and even worse, instead of giving Saab the needed money to develop a competitive car portfolio, it found it better to use that money to cover the yearly losses.
When GM itself was on the brink of bankruptcy in 2008, the company decided to clean up its car brand portfolio. And in that office thousands of miles away from Trollhättan it was decided that Saab would have to go. And if GM could not have Saab, no one else would either.
And so every other week we could read in the news yet another GM executive putting Saab down. Saying that the brand was a disaster. It never had made money. Saab had lost piles of money year after year. Saab would never be a success, etc etc. Was that the way to sell an asset? Would you describe the house you are selling as full of ants, mold infested and falling to pieces? Of course not! If you are serious about selling, you keep your mouth shut if you have nothing good to say! Just look at how elegantly Ford sold Volvo.
GM was (unfortunately) saved by the tax payers of the USA. The biggest car company in the world was itself in need of charity and good will from some one bigger than itself. Charity and good will it decided in 2008 that it was not willing to show Saab.
To GM big surprise several parties turned out to be interested in buying Saab. As mentioned already, GM did all it could to discourage any buyers, but the lure of the Saab brand was stronger than the warnings from GM.
Among the twenty or so parties interested, there was Geely, which was the second biggest automaker in China. We also had a financially powerful US company called Renco Group, which among other things produced the Humvee military vehicle. There was even a tiny Swedish super car company called Koenigsegg.
In June 2009, to much surprise, GM announced that it was negotiating with Koenigsegg Group. A consortium spun from the small Swedish company producing the Koenigsegg sports car. GM had chosen not to negotiate with Renco Group and Chinese Geely (which ended up buying Volvo), despite their offers being better than the one from Koenigsegg.
Why did GM chose tiny Koenigsegg? For at least two reasons. First, the company was too small to constitute any threat to GM in the future. Secondly, because GM did not believe the deal would be followed through. It was all an act by GM to have an alibi when people later would look for someone to blame when Saab was to be liquidated. Then GM could say that it had tried to sell Saab without luck.
In November tiny Koenigsegg gave up just like GM had foreseen. And GM announced that Saab would be liquidated, all according to plan.
But something happen that screwed up GM's plan. An even tinier Dutch company called Spyker Cars entered the field. And this company had a tenacious CEO that never gave up. Spyker handed in bid after bid and at the same time the pressure from fans and press became too much even for GM.
And in February 2010 GM sold Saab Automobile to tiny Spyker Cars. But GM had at least avoided selling Saab to a competitor, and had added several clauses in the deal with the buyer Spyker Cars which said that GM would have to approve any future changes in the ownership of Saab.
Not surprisingly, Saab soon ran into financial problems. It turned out to be harder than expected to rebuild the brand. A brand GM had damaged almost beyond repair with all the negative comments from the GM executives during 2009. Saab's CEO and Chairman Victor Muller then negotiated a deal with China's and the world's biggest car distributor Pang Da and the upper class coach builder Youngman. This was a fantastic deal. A deal that had the potential of making Saab an important player in China, the world's biggest market.
But GM did not like this deal. China had overtaken the US as GM's biggest market. If there was something GM did not need, it was another premium competitor in China. Especially one that could produce high quality cars locally and distribute them through the biggest dealer network in the country. And so GM decided that if Saab finalized any deals with the Chinese, GM would stop supplying Saab with technology and cars.
Saab had been developing its own vehicle architecture since 2008. But this architecture was still 1 – 2 years from market launch. And in the mean time Saab was totally dependant on GM's technology. GM knew this and insisted that it could not supply Saab with technology should Saab's deals with China be finalized.
Don't let GM or anyone else fool you. This was never about protecting technology. This was all about protecting its market share in China. The technology Saab uses in the Saab 9-3 is old (pre 2003) and has not been unique for several years. The technology Saab uses in the Saab 9-5 is still unique, but within two or three years even this technology will be widespread. And the Chinese would need at least two or three years to make use of this technology in their own vehicles. And that is assuming that they would "steal" the technology, which is an outrageous assumption in the first place.
And so the company which crawled to Washington D.C., went down on its knees and begged for mercy and money to be saved from bankruptcy and extinction, held the axe that killed Saab. The mercy GM was shown in 2009, it could not pass on to Saab.
And so Saab did not die today. Saab died three years ago by the hands of GM.
Today will be remembered as the day the car brand Saab died. But don't let anyone fool you. Saab died more than three years ago in an office thousands of miles away from Trollhättan.
The Saab car division was established after WW2 when Saab needed to find new products to produce and sell. Saab was originally a war plane developer and manufacturer and when the war was over the company needed one more leg to stand on. After experimenting with a few other products, the company developed its first car, the UrSaab in 1947.
From there on Saab was a car company. The first car to hit the market was the Saab 92 in 1949. A two door aerodynamically shaped car with a two cylinder two stroke engine and front wheel drive. It was a small revolution in the car world. Saab improved the car year by year and during the 1950s and 1960s Saab became a victorious car brand in rally competitions.
Saab was always an engineer driven company and did not always do what was the financially best option. It was all about the cars, and the founder and car guy Marcus "Dodde" Wallenberg made sure that the development of the Saab cars could continue despite financial statements written in red.
In 1977 Saab shocked the world by introducing the Saab 99 Turbo. The world's first family car with a reliable turbo powered engine and sports car performance. A few years later the Saab 99 was developed into the Saab 900 which saw to it that Saab turned into a successful company with record sales and nice profits.
Then at the end of the 1980s things started to look difficult. Saab needed new and modern platforms to develop new cars and partners to share the costs. At the end of 1989 Saab-Scania was in the last stage of selling the car division to Fiat. Then General Motors showed up. GM had just lost Jaguar to Ford and was desperate to buy an European premium car brand. In the eleventh hour GM bought Saab, without any thoughts about what it wanted to do with the brand.
Unfortunately GM never paid much attention to its odd Swedish car brand and even worse, instead of giving Saab the needed money to develop a competitive car portfolio, it found it better to use that money to cover the yearly losses.
When GM itself was on the brink of bankruptcy in 2008, the company decided to clean up its car brand portfolio. And in that office thousands of miles away from Trollhättan it was decided that Saab would have to go. And if GM could not have Saab, no one else would either.
And so every other week we could read in the news yet another GM executive putting Saab down. Saying that the brand was a disaster. It never had made money. Saab had lost piles of money year after year. Saab would never be a success, etc etc. Was that the way to sell an asset? Would you describe the house you are selling as full of ants, mold infested and falling to pieces? Of course not! If you are serious about selling, you keep your mouth shut if you have nothing good to say! Just look at how elegantly Ford sold Volvo.
GM was (unfortunately) saved by the tax payers of the USA. The biggest car company in the world was itself in need of charity and good will from some one bigger than itself. Charity and good will it decided in 2008 that it was not willing to show Saab.
To GM big surprise several parties turned out to be interested in buying Saab. As mentioned already, GM did all it could to discourage any buyers, but the lure of the Saab brand was stronger than the warnings from GM.
Among the twenty or so parties interested, there was Geely, which was the second biggest automaker in China. We also had a financially powerful US company called Renco Group, which among other things produced the Humvee military vehicle. There was even a tiny Swedish super car company called Koenigsegg.
In June 2009, to much surprise, GM announced that it was negotiating with Koenigsegg Group. A consortium spun from the small Swedish company producing the Koenigsegg sports car. GM had chosen not to negotiate with Renco Group and Chinese Geely (which ended up buying Volvo), despite their offers being better than the one from Koenigsegg.
Why did GM chose tiny Koenigsegg? For at least two reasons. First, the company was too small to constitute any threat to GM in the future. Secondly, because GM did not believe the deal would be followed through. It was all an act by GM to have an alibi when people later would look for someone to blame when Saab was to be liquidated. Then GM could say that it had tried to sell Saab without luck.
In November tiny Koenigsegg gave up just like GM had foreseen. And GM announced that Saab would be liquidated, all according to plan.
But something happen that screwed up GM's plan. An even tinier Dutch company called Spyker Cars entered the field. And this company had a tenacious CEO that never gave up. Spyker handed in bid after bid and at the same time the pressure from fans and press became too much even for GM.
And in February 2010 GM sold Saab Automobile to tiny Spyker Cars. But GM had at least avoided selling Saab to a competitor, and had added several clauses in the deal with the buyer Spyker Cars which said that GM would have to approve any future changes in the ownership of Saab.
Not surprisingly, Saab soon ran into financial problems. It turned out to be harder than expected to rebuild the brand. A brand GM had damaged almost beyond repair with all the negative comments from the GM executives during 2009. Saab's CEO and Chairman Victor Muller then negotiated a deal with China's and the world's biggest car distributor Pang Da and the upper class coach builder Youngman. This was a fantastic deal. A deal that had the potential of making Saab an important player in China, the world's biggest market.
But GM did not like this deal. China had overtaken the US as GM's biggest market. If there was something GM did not need, it was another premium competitor in China. Especially one that could produce high quality cars locally and distribute them through the biggest dealer network in the country. And so GM decided that if Saab finalized any deals with the Chinese, GM would stop supplying Saab with technology and cars.
Saab had been developing its own vehicle architecture since 2008. But this architecture was still 1 – 2 years from market launch. And in the mean time Saab was totally dependant on GM's technology. GM knew this and insisted that it could not supply Saab with technology should Saab's deals with China be finalized.
Don't let GM or anyone else fool you. This was never about protecting technology. This was all about protecting its market share in China. The technology Saab uses in the Saab 9-3 is old (pre 2003) and has not been unique for several years. The technology Saab uses in the Saab 9-5 is still unique, but within two or three years even this technology will be widespread. And the Chinese would need at least two or three years to make use of this technology in their own vehicles. And that is assuming that they would "steal" the technology, which is an outrageous assumption in the first place.
And so the company which crawled to Washington D.C., went down on its knees and begged for mercy and money to be saved from bankruptcy and extinction, held the axe that killed Saab. The mercy GM was shown in 2009, it could not pass on to Saab.
And so Saab did not die today. Saab died three years ago by the hands of GM.
Just been looking through the classifieds and it does appear that I have lost at least £1000 off the value of my car
There weren't any that had my exact spec (SatNav + CD Changer), but I don't think they will add much, especially considering the recent news of bankrupcy.
I'm fairly gutted if I'm honest. I've thrown a lot of money at it it this year and I know that it has a big service bill coming up. The clucth and flywheel have been done, but at 133k, I'm expecting the turbo will pack up in the near future. Suppose that will be in excess of £500 to fix.
There weren't any that had my exact spec (SatNav + CD Changer), but I don't think they will add much, especially considering the recent news of bankrupcy.
I'm fairly gutted if I'm honest. I've thrown a lot of money at it it this year and I know that it has a big service bill coming up. The clucth and flywheel have been done, but at 133k, I'm expecting the turbo will pack up in the near future. Suppose that will be in excess of £500 to fix.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff