
Funnier though is this line from Honest John's page on the car "A sub-editing nightmare in the Which? Car office - there are more things wrong with the 406 than we could fit in our summaries."
Went to see the cav. It was shit.griffo20022 wrote:Christ it sounds as though that car was riddled with the equivelant of raging aids man! Never have I heard of so many things all happen in one go like that lol!
BTW those Isuzu engines are the f*cking b*llocks! I had a 1.7TD Mk3 Astra for my first car with the Isuzu engine and it's was amazing, great on fuel, nippy for what it was and extremely reliable! The fact it's in a Cavalier makes it a million times better as they look awsome IMO!
when was that?SteveP wrote:Buy that one on Retro Rides for £375!! (can't remember where it is though!)
Don't do what I did and try and fix it. The story will go on and on ...volvosneverdie wrote:The 406 is dead. It's still pissing water and oil all over my street, but at least it's dead. .
It's true that some of these breakdown statistics are more than a little biased. Of course a Porsche Boxter and a Mercedes SLK are more reliable than a Chrysler Voyager and a Renault Espace. Rich OAP vs. cash-strapped family man always wins. But my 405 was seriously pampered and it still fell apart. AFAIK it was made in Coventry ...macplaxton wrote:I put these things down to regular maintenance and a preventative approach. It might be that these nationalities of cars attract owners that don't look after them...
My Gli has had six back boxes (and the damn thing is blowing again), four of them were from Volvo. Judging by the previous owners' bills, the original ones haven't lasted any longer than the Bosal ones ... The original ones were made by some UK company, I forget the name.foggyjames wrote:Blame Bosal / Walker / whoever for that...the genuine ones are ok!trabitom99 wrote:the back box lasted 8 years (beat that, V300!)