What's the story behind this?

[smiffy180]

Just seen this on facebook. One person rekons they were "courtesy and test drive cars" (their words) and another suggested track cars. They both also said they're off to scrap yard as they are deemed unsellable.
Any ideas?

[steviegunn]

Test mules most likely, maybe ex Bond film cars?

[AmitG]

Maybe unregistered prototype versions which have to be destroyed? I seem to recall that manufacturers have to do this under certain circumstances, but don't know the details.

This might explain why they are being carted off in their entirety rather than being stripped of parts first.

[DUMBO100]

If they were ex Bond Cars, surely they would need be the same spec and colour?

[HQ2]

AmitG said:

Maybe unregistered prototype versions which have to be destroyed? I seem to recall that manufacturers have to do this under certain circumstances, but don't know the details.

This (I think). Not in the same league but Honda had a CRV on their BTCC stand last year and they said it would be destroyed after serving its purpose as it wasn't a 'proper' car for some reason (they did explain, I just wasn't paying much attention).

[skip_1]

AmitG said:

Maybe unregistered prototype versions which have to be destroyed? I seem to recall that manufacturers have to do this under certain circumstances, but don't know the details.

This might explain why they are being carted off in their entirety rather than being stripped of parts first.

I recall someone saying that Topgear take advantage of cars like this e.g. Twingo 133 off the pier.

[mybrainhurts]

Heard about this.

It's the new Eddie Stobart car delivery service.

[DanielSan]

HQ2 said:

This (I think). Not in the same league but Honda had a CRV on their BTCC stand last year and they said it would be destroyed after serving its purpose as it wasn't a 'proper' car for some reason (they did explain, I just wasn't paying much attention).

Official manufacturer line is to do with safety with it being a test/pre-production car. The real reason is if the car is destroyed there's some tax loophole they can.get round.

[Sir Bagalot]

DanielSan said:

The real reason is if the car is destroyed there's some tax loophole they can.get round.

Correct, it's something to do with Tax hence why no parts can be removed.

[Swoxy]

I believe that car makers don’t have to pay VAT on the value of their prototypes if they are destroyed at the end of their development cycle, and when you consider that some prototypes cost over a million pounds to make, you can see that this is no small sum.

[mybrainhurts]

More lunacy from the tax man. Is this home grown or EUSSR...?

[smiffy180]

Interesting responses. Certainty interesting sight to see anyway

[HTP99]

skip_1 said:

AmitG said:

Maybe unregistered prototype versions which have to be destroyed? I seem to recall that manufacturers have to do this under certain circumstances, but don't know the details.

This might explain why they are being carted off in their entirety rather than being stripped of parts first.

I recall someone saying that Topgear take advantage of cars like this e.g. Twingo 133 off the pier.

The Twingo 133 was actually a Renault UK car, it was run by one of the head office managers; I know which one.

The advertising and subsequent discussions and internet traffic about that particular event couldn't have been bought by Renault for the relative cheapness of wrecking a perfectly good car; in the grand scheme of things that advertising cost Renault peanuts.

[CampDavid]

Probably a pre production car, like this XK8 in 1997

http://v8macht.de/htmlhp/carsmore/rustinpeace/jagu...

[aspirated]

Still hurts to see those beautiful V12's like that, especially the DBS

[Benni]

This evening I saw a photo from a friend who works as lorry driver.

He was delivering something into the Porsche factory and took a cheeky pic

of a line of 5 new GT3s that were waiting..................for some crash test.

Also some pics of crashed sports versions (raw bodies) with roll cages.

I did not even ask for a copy because if they were made public, the factory guys would not be amused.

I told him that he could have got into BIG trouble from works security if caught

but he just laughed it away.

[wildcat45]

Many many years ago, sometime like 1992, I remember reading a story in a Land Rover magazine about Ex-Lode Lane prototypes.

This company bought and broke them for parts. I recall Land Rover were OK with it. The article showed a 2 door Rsnge Rover apparently in the latest spec. The truth was it was a 1970s model that they had tricked out with a 3.9 motor etc

[AmitG]

mybrainhurts said:

Heard about this.

It's the new Eddie Stobart car delivery service.

[mini me]

DanielSan said:

Official manufacturer line is to do with safety with it being a test/pre-production car. The real reason is if the car is destroyed there's some tax loophole they can.get round.

Both are true. All our vehicles are crushed at the end of the development cycle. This generally tends to be once they are 3 years old and require an MOT. Depending upon the prototype level some parts may be stripped by a thrid party to be used as spares. anything deemed safety relevant is not allowerd i.e. brakes/susp etc. I see a lot of nice cars go to the crusher but as said, when you are claiming back tax on several million pounds worth of test equipment then its a no brainer really. even if they are astons in perfect condition.

[Tuvra]

I was wondering when this Russian company would be getting their new covered transporter: