STAFFY OWNER

Nice RS 1600i on Ebay but something in his listing doesn't seem quite right.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FORD-ESCORT-RS...#ht_2748wt_934

I'm sure it's just an innocent mistake but still seems a bit odd. Can you spot it?






















He/she gives a specific date of when the car was first registered - May 1st 1984, and then states that it had its first service, again on a specific date - 28th September 1983. How could it be serviced with 1528 miles on it before it was registered? My guess is it was first serviced in September 1984 not 1983.

Escow-Van

I didn't notice that tbh, looks like a nice car though, even if it has done 150k

S1MATT

Thing is though in Aug 84 he/she says it had a service at 12,270 miles and if the car was registered in May 83 it would be on a 'Y' plate. Strange.....

tarry500

The seats don't look to good either

rog

iTrader: (2)

Looks lovely but I'd question the milage and so would alot of other people, I wonder if a check would higlight any discrepencies?
I came accross one very similar locally last year that had the same story, turned out it had been round the clock, too good to be true.
Last bit of history was over 20 years ago!

S1

According to DVLA defo registered 01 05 1984

The enquiry is complete
The vehicle details for A84 CRD are:

Date of Liability 01 09 2011
Date of First Registration 01 05 1984
Year of Manufacture 1983
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 1597CC
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type Petrol
Export Marker Not Applicable
Vehicle Status SORN Not Due
Vehicle Colour BLUE

S1

Although just noticed year of manufacture states 83, never noticed that on an enquiry before.

vroooom ptssssh

Thing is though, unless it's a concourse car, what's the point in bothering with what mileage is on a car of that age, i'd personally buy on overall condition. I'd question his dates to find out if the car has the correct I.D. though.

ZVH,RST

if it was made in 83, should it not have the early strut tops,the 2 bolt type

muz

I did see that and thought the service history looked abit shady. Even if it is a typo and he meant September 84, it had more miles on it on the August service lol. Reads like it did 20,000 miles in it's first 9 months (!) and 30,000 miles within 12 months, but only on 50,000 miles now. I mean I know it is possible but just seems iffy. The drivers bolster is worn as well.

Glenn_

iTrader: (1)

Its a nice looking car.Its had plenty of cash pent on it too.

STAFFY OWNER

Might send him a question for clarification. Will let you know the answer if i get a reply.

S1

I suspect it may have been registered elsewhere before being imported to the UK. I've known of a Fiesta RS turbo which came from Guernsey or jersey that was declared new at first registration in the UK less than a year later.

As already stated the condition is paramount rather than history. As long as the vin stamps & plates are legit it looks a tidy Mk3.

Cilly-jey

my rs turbo was like that. was a 1990 with the prof of first perchase. but on my log book it stated. it was a rs1600 and first regesterd in 1992... came from jersey. g849 jey if any 1 nose it.

STAFFY OWNER

Well i sent him a message via Ebay as shown below:

Hi mate,

A couple of dates on your listing do not quite tie up. I'm sure there is an obvious explanation but just wondered if you could clarify for me.
You state that the car was registered on May 1st 1984, you also say that it had its first service on 28th September 1983. How could it be serviced with 1528 miles on it before it was registered? Secondly it appears to have done 12,270 miles in its first 3 months on the road. Again please could you clarify.

Please don't take this message as an attempt to catch you out as that is not the way it is intended. I actually think the car looks stunning and a credit to your ownership but the mileage issue just doesn't sound right.

Best regards,
Paul.

Through the course of today i then got 3 replies from him as follows:

1st reply.
Hello Paul u rally can't be arsed to check again, as I said in the ad if u don't believe me. Then this car anit for u
(We could have gone to town on him in the spelling & grammar thread lol).

2nd reply.
Sorry in my listing I've put 1984 but it's a 1983 so the miles of 12270 is right that's a year later!

3rd reply.
yes sorry in my listing i was ment to say 1983 not 1984.


I have since sent him a reply which i haven't yet heard back on as follows:
Oh so you've decided to apologise now have you, now that you have spotted your mistake. My message to you was polite and even stated that i was not trying to catch you about but your reply was very arrogant and has now made you look silly.
By the way i am not convinced by your reply as i have done a check and it was definitely registered in 1984 not 1983, see below:

The vehicle details for A84 CRD are:

Date of Liability 01 09 2011
Date of First Registration 01 05 1984
Year of Manufacture 1983
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 1597CC
CO2 Emissions Not Available
Fuel Type Petrol
Export Marker Not Applicable
Vehicle Status SORN Not Due
Vehicle Colour BLUE

It was manufactured in 1983 but not registered until the date that you have stated in your listing. I would normally wish you well with the sale but on this occasion the listing sounds suspicious and i hope you get stuck with the car.

Will wait and see what response i get.

jefco 78

Spent all that money on it and didnt bother putting electric windows and opening rear quarter lights in. Never mind devils in the detail

Mint FRST

iTrader: (1)

Why if the car was a non custom to start with? Adds to the authenticity for me. As you say 'devils in the detail'

Shings

I put lecy windows and central locking in mine. Why not. Makes the car more modern.

rog

iTrader: (2)

He'd be better off taking Ł500 off and being honest, it looks like a nice car so he should'nt have to lie.

STAFFY OWNER

Back on again:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...#ht_3442wt_934

1.9 xr2 on 40's

reg'd in uk it could say, if it was registered in 83 somewhere else then came here it would be reg 84 but an 83 car (as plenty of cars are, 2007 reg but a shokey old evo2)
could have done the 1st service elsewhere liek south ireland for example then rereg here

that would be an honest explanation, altho it appears the 83/84 issue was a mistake