Mini Petrol Powered Corvette 'Go-Kart' For Sale (7ft Long) On UK Ebay

He says you never use the year for anything, just the model/mark designation. He's correct? One of you is wrong, why won't you tell us? It would probably clear up a lot of the confusion.

Oooh! Low punch!

We use a 'year of registration' - any other detail is covered by model / mark designations.

So he's wrong then? I think we're getting somewhere now.

All that remains now is to clear up the confusion of what year you'd ascribe to a car that was several years old before it was first registered on a current plate.

Let's use 1995 and 2005 as examples. If you were to use a year to refer to that car, what would it be.

No obfuscation now, just a straight answer please.

Something like MkV Escort, registered 2005.

He did, if that's me you're referring to above [1]. I've quoted it above. The words "what he said" are a clue. Specifically "he", referring to me.

[1] And if you're waiting for me to bite at your ever-so-amusing 'parody' of my screen name, I'd get quite a few drinks in.

I see. So its age could be anywhere in a range of, what, six years or so? You have to be honest, that's not really a very helpful description of the car, is it? Might it not be much more helpful and honest to call it a 1995 Escort, registered 2005?

Think of it this way: How old is the car? One year old? Something plus or minus three years old? Or eleven years old? What age information would you be happy to accept about this car in the unlikely event that you were thinking of buying it?

Now I *am* confused.

Hey, all vans over two years old seem pikey to me.

Oh, wait, I'd have to say "all pre-facelift Mk 3a Rover Wombattos are pikey," wouldn't I?

Right, let me quote a post of mine:

"Because we don't refer to it by year. Get over it."

That was in response to:

Meaning, for the cerebrally challenged (that's "thick", boys and girls), that we don't refer to different models by "model year", we use words, or recognise model designators, along with the word "facelift" for noticeable facelifts. Mainly because a year can often be ambiguous. If a new model came out in June, some people would get confused. Also, because it would just sound daft to describe a 1993 car as a "1988 model year" car.

I'll have a go at this too. Let's say the car's a BMW 5-series. It'd be an E34 (one might use the word "late model" as it'd be near the end of the run), first registered in 2005.

Yeah, 'cos everyone knows the one true parody is 'Ashtrayvanman'.

Because that's the way it works. A 1995 (model) may be identical to a

2000 (model) in all respects except for the date coded in to the VIN. But one is a 1995 and the other is a 2000. The difference in the prices of the two might help you to understand it better. There *is* a difference in price, before you ask.

Well, what you're getting at is what was originally called "planned obsolescence" when the car makers first started doing it back in the

1930s, I believe, as a way to make people want to replace the perfectly serviceable car they already owned. In general, the Brits have always been just as much victims of it as the merkins have been. It just manifests itself in a slightly different form there, though it seems to have *you* fooled.

That's an extreme example, though - most models only have a 4 year life cycle before a major facelift.

More questionable would be the difference between a car made in 1998 and one made in 2000. Because there's no specification difference between the two, both could be registered on the same day and have the same value. Happens all the time, even with the silly American 'model year' crap.

Looks like you're wrong there.

But in the US, used cars are priced first according to the model year, then mileage, condition, etc. regardless of when they were first registered - or 'titled,' as they call it.

Pay attention. You missed the part where I deliberately said, "in general..."

You're not telling me that "planned obsolescence" isn't a marketing factor there, are you? You need to read a history book or two.

But a 'model year' designation doesn't mean anything. In the original example, GM were making 1984 model year C4s in March 1983. How can that make any sense?

The 1984 model year car was probably produced for over 18 months before it was changed to 1985 model year....

That's just nonsense and shows that model year marketing means absolutely nothing.

You appear to have missed the bit when you accused *me*, personally of being taken in by registration letters. Which I'm obviously not.

Of course it is, but 1 year model cycles wouldn't work in Europe, we're too intelligent over here to be taken in by that.

That's not true: American manufacturers often make minor, cosmetic changes model-year to model-year. This is how Anoraks can spot a model-year at 20 paces.

You know it seems we actually agree on all these points, especially your last.

Why did you say that "Tough, it does over here" to the argument "Registration date model year"?

Which was all I disagreed with in the first place.

Because GM does have an internal concept of model year, internally they (used to) refer to Vauxhall models with a model year, so there isn't an '83 Corvette for reasons already mentioned, but there will be plenty registered in '83, either '84 MY or '82 MY cars.

You see it does seem to make sense for manufacturers, at least GM anyway, to batch up their non-recall changes to create a new model each year. It simplifies the marketing, advertising and merchandising if they can produce a brochure for the '94 Astra with the coming year's trim levels and specifications. You will findthat that is when the facelifts and trim updates occur. And with Vauxhall (GM) I can't remember if it was August that was the new model year - across the range - or September but it seemed to coincide more or less with the new registration years.

So my argument is that, with GM cars at least, there IS a model year, but no, I agree with you that it isn't registered as such. But that just means that you will not find a V5 that says it's an '83 in this case because the V5 doesn't include that. And if they never made an '83 model then there will never be a Title with MY'83 on it for two reasons: they never made an '83 and the MY isn't on the Title.

That's just to justify the 'model year' designation, though.

I'm not denying that they do it - this whole debate was sparked because it was claimed you can't have a 1983 C4, because GM called cars built in March 1983 a 1984 model year car. Doesn't stop it from being built in

1983, and therefore a 1983 car - from what I can gather, the 1985 model year didn't come into production until late 1984.

Much the same as here, then. But with all other things equal, of course, date of registration, the easiest way to tell the "age" of a car, is going to influence the price.

Order a fuel pressure regulator for a 2000 registered as a 2000 and then do the same thing for a 1998 registered as a 2000 and see what you get. Try the same thing with a fuel return line, fuel pump-either one, wheels, back glass on a coupe, intake housing, TPS, steering hardware, HUD, and let me know how you fair. How they can have the same value is beyond me and the tax collector can have you in court here for trying that.

No wonder UK Corvette owners come to this and other groups for help, the system is a mess and would render accuracy in replacement parts non existent.

We have a much easier system. You give the guy on the parts desk your VIN and they order the correct part.