WARRANTY WARNING!!!!!!!!!!
18 July 2002, 03:35 PM
#91
i dont have time to give all the details at the moment, that will have to wait till tonight, but basically, the MSA is charged by parliament to control certain aspects of motorsport. The modified road trafic act can be applied to you as regards dangerous driving, even if off the public highway and on track, unless the event is sanctioned by the MSA.
I'll scan the relevent section of the act tonight.
I'll scan the relevent section of the act tonight.
18 July 2002, 03:46 PM
#92
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok.... Sign on name changed to protect the innocent 
Direct from the Warrenty booklet, we have:
----------------
What is not covered
Defects, Malfunctions of failure resulting from misuse (e.g. overloading, rallying or racing), speed trials, negligence, modification, alteration , tampering. disconnection, improper adjustments or repairs, accidents, installation of parts not equivalent in quality and design to parts supplied by SUBARU (UK) LIMITED, add-on parts, improper maintenance or use of fuels, oils and/or lubricants other than those recommended.
----------------
Interesting to me are the words "resulting from" in my mind, that means the modification must be identified as being the cause of the warranty claim and that blanket voiding of warranties is actually in breach of this contract.
The trackday issue is a grey area. I guess SUBARU (UK) LIMITED are acting under the misuse clause.
Scooter.
[Edited by Sc00ter - 7/18/2002 3:47:57 PM]
Direct from the Warrenty booklet, we have:
----------------
What is not covered
Defects, Malfunctions of failure resulting from misuse (e.g. overloading, rallying or racing), speed trials, negligence, modification, alteration , tampering. disconnection, improper adjustments or repairs, accidents, installation of parts not equivalent in quality and design to parts supplied by SUBARU (UK) LIMITED, add-on parts, improper maintenance or use of fuels, oils and/or lubricants other than those recommended.
----------------
Interesting to me are the words "resulting from" in my mind, that means the modification must be identified as being the cause of the warranty claim and that blanket voiding of warranties is actually in breach of this contract.
The trackday issue is a grey area. I guess SUBARU (UK) LIMITED are acting under the misuse clause.
Scooter.
[Edited by Sc00ter - 7/18/2002 3:47:57 PM]
18 July 2002, 04:40 PM
#93
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key word in that extract from the handbook is "misuse". I agree with scooter that this would be used in respect of trackdays.
Speaking from personal experience and rather stupidly saying to the dealer "I wouldn't expect that to fail after two trackdays" A warranty repair will not be simply refused!
But there's nothing to say it will be accepted either. It's going to be down to how your local service manager sees it, same with resulting from!
More worrying, you could buy a car that's had the mods removed before sale then find it's been blacklisted. They wont show that on an HPI check.
Speaking from personal experience and rather stupidly saying to the dealer "I wouldn't expect that to fail after two trackdays" A warranty repair will not be simply refused!
But there's nothing to say it will be accepted either. It's going to be down to how your local service manager sees it, same with resulting from!
More worrying, you could buy a car that's had the mods removed before sale then find it's been blacklisted. They wont show that on an HPI check.
18 July 2002, 04:43 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Scoobysport, Basildon, UK
Posts: 4,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scooter, I don't think the track day issue is a grey area.
It is not motorsport. And to prove the point, when the SIDC (which is an MSA affiliated club) ran its first few track days, we applied for and got an MSA "Permit". We did this, as we are then covered by the MSA insurance policy for public liability and damage to landowners property, for a negligable premium.
The MSA then refused cover as a result of a track incident I was involved in. I hit a patch of spilt fuel, ejected from the back of a minging old Mustang, on a Group B Car Club day. Group B had not applied for a permit for the day and did not have any insurance to cover thrid parties or damage to landowners property (be very careful who you go on track with). The upshot was I complained to MSA about the lack of insurance cover and permit. The MSA ruled that a track day is not a motorsport day or a competitive day and as such a permit cannot be issued for a track day. A track day could not even be classified as a gymkana, as even this required some timing or other competitive element.
Anyone go to Company Car in Action last month? Anyone get driven around the handling circuit in an STi, or around the bowl with the car held against the speed limiter at 155mph? Anyone buy a car because of the performance demonstrated on the track at a Subaru UK or (Subaru sanctioned) dealer track day/demo day?
If you did and told the judge that you bought the car because of the track ability demonstrated to you, or witnessed by you, or by other close associates, then my monies on you.
The warranty booklet doesn't exclude track use. We had this with insurance companies a couple of years ago and they lost. That is the precident. They changed their wording to explicitly exclude track use. They used almost the same wording as the warranty booklet (racing, rallying...) and we got free track cover because of it. If you haven't changed insurance companies, then you still do
It is not motorsport. And to prove the point, when the SIDC (which is an MSA affiliated club) ran its first few track days, we applied for and got an MSA "Permit". We did this, as we are then covered by the MSA insurance policy for public liability and damage to landowners property, for a negligable premium.
The MSA then refused cover as a result of a track incident I was involved in. I hit a patch of spilt fuel, ejected from the back of a minging old Mustang, on a Group B Car Club day. Group B had not applied for a permit for the day and did not have any insurance to cover thrid parties or damage to landowners property (be very careful who you go on track with). The upshot was I complained to MSA about the lack of insurance cover and permit. The MSA ruled that a track day is not a motorsport day or a competitive day and as such a permit cannot be issued for a track day. A track day could not even be classified as a gymkana, as even this required some timing or other competitive element.
Anyone go to Company Car in Action last month? Anyone get driven around the handling circuit in an STi, or around the bowl with the car held against the speed limiter at 155mph? Anyone buy a car because of the performance demonstrated on the track at a Subaru UK or (Subaru sanctioned) dealer track day/demo day?
If you did and told the judge that you bought the car because of the track ability demonstrated to you, or witnessed by you, or by other close associates, then my monies on you.
The warranty booklet doesn't exclude track use. We had this with insurance companies a couple of years ago and they lost. That is the precident. They changed their wording to explicitly exclude track use. They used almost the same wording as the warranty booklet (racing, rallying...) and we got free track cover because of it. If you haven't changed insurance companies, then you still do
18 July 2002, 04:48 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think the track day was an issue.
if it was, why would they bother asking any questions?
they would just note the plates of all the UK cars on track and simply book'em all.
I dont see a problem with warranty voiding for mods. But I dont agree with unrelated modding voiding things, such as changing the springs voiding an engine warranty etc.
Just want to make a point clear regarding this european law people keep mentioning. It is nonsense.
Along time ago there were two landmark cases from ford and leyland daf, which basically tried to stop companies from making pattern parts. The action was brought under design registration law and copyright law (unregistered design right actually). They almost won until I higher principle was brough in called "non derogation from grant" that is you have the right to repair anything you have bought by any means you deem fit. A manufacturer cannot supply somethign to you then claim all rights (effectively a monopoly) on supplying spares.
It was national law, not european law, although I suppose it could have been appealed up to the eurpean court of justice but I dont think it was.
Either way this is not the same as a warranty company insisting on a certain quality of part in order to maintain a warranty which is effectively an insurance policy and nothing more.
It would be tantamount to insuring your house against theft then intentionally burning it down. you could not expect to be paid out for that.
if it was, why would they bother asking any questions?
they would just note the plates of all the UK cars on track and simply book'em all.
I dont see a problem with warranty voiding for mods. But I dont agree with unrelated modding voiding things, such as changing the springs voiding an engine warranty etc.
Just want to make a point clear regarding this european law people keep mentioning. It is nonsense.
Along time ago there were two landmark cases from ford and leyland daf, which basically tried to stop companies from making pattern parts. The action was brought under design registration law and copyright law (unregistered design right actually). They almost won until I higher principle was brough in called "non derogation from grant" that is you have the right to repair anything you have bought by any means you deem fit. A manufacturer cannot supply somethign to you then claim all rights (effectively a monopoly) on supplying spares.
It was national law, not european law, although I suppose it could have been appealed up to the eurpean court of justice but I dont think it was.
Either way this is not the same as a warranty company insisting on a certain quality of part in order to maintain a warranty which is effectively an insurance policy and nothing more.
It would be tantamount to insuring your house against theft then intentionally burning it down. you could not expect to be paid out for that.
18 July 2002, 04:53 PM
#96
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for shedding some more light on things Pete. However this does'nt explain Krytens situation.
As an aside my policy excludes 'racing,competitions,rallies or trials'. Does this mean i'm insured for SIDC trackdays?
An official statement from IM/Subaru would clear a lot of things up for everyone...
As an aside my policy excludes 'racing,competitions,rallies or trials'. Does this mean i'm insured for SIDC trackdays?
An official statement from IM/Subaru would clear a lot of things up for everyone...
18 July 2002, 05:31 PM
#98
As I recall, a key case was refered to the insurance ombudsman by a motorcyclist who had a claim turned down by his insurers.
As he wasn't racing his case was upheld and the company was forced to pay out. However I understand a number of insurance companies then altered the wording and so "if you were to have an accident in a carnival procession at a circuit there would be no recourse to the insurer" quote!
This is tucked away in the depths of the policy documentation. If that quote is from your covernote it may not mean quite what is says.
As he wasn't racing his case was upheld and the company was forced to pay out. However I understand a number of insurance companies then altered the wording and so "if you were to have an accident in a carnival procession at a circuit there would be no recourse to the insurer" quote!
This is tucked away in the depths of the policy documentation. If that quote is from your covernote it may not mean quite what is says.
18 July 2002, 07:31 PM
#99
Has anyone thought that IM have got the result that they wanted by doing this at an SIDC day? Look at this post and the number of replies.
Perhaps they wanted to put out the message that mods will not be tolerated and it wasn't a PR ****-up? Well, they've succeded haven't they?
Maybe all the slagging that the PPP gets, is not so funny anymore.
I'm just posing some questions, not agreeing with them
Personally, I don't think they are anti-track day, just anti non pro drive mods, but I have heard of cases where standard cars have had warranty claims refused for suspected hard driving on the roads, let alone track days.
IM don't want to pay out on a warranty claims for anything other than a faulty component. They don't want to pick up the tab for excess wear caused by un approved mods or excessive thrashing.
Someone is going to now state that these are performance cars and should be driven as such. Well yes, I would agree, but IM sell the lifestyle/aura of a sports car - they don't actually want you to take this literally.....
F
PS they're not the only manufacturer that behaves this way.
Perhaps they wanted to put out the message that mods will not be tolerated and it wasn't a PR ****-up? Well, they've succeded haven't they?
Maybe all the slagging that the PPP gets, is not so funny anymore.
I'm just posing some questions, not agreeing with them
Personally, I don't think they are anti-track day, just anti non pro drive mods, but I have heard of cases where standard cars have had warranty claims refused for suspected hard driving on the roads, let alone track days.
IM don't want to pay out on a warranty claims for anything other than a faulty component. They don't want to pick up the tab for excess wear caused by un approved mods or excessive thrashing.
Someone is going to now state that these are performance cars and should be driven as such. Well yes, I would agree, but IM sell the lifestyle/aura of a sports car - they don't actually want you to take this literally.....
F
PS they're not the only manufacturer that behaves this way.
18 July 2002, 08:27 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JohnF
You stated "All motorsport events in the UK have to be sanctioned by the MSA by law". This is totally wrong. Anybody reading that would believe that all they need to do is see if the event is sanctioned by the MSA and conclude, if it wasn't, that it wasn't moorsport and their warranty would be safe. This is not so.
I suspect that what you are refering to is the changes in the RTA that reflected an anomily in the act whereby it didn't apply on private land. This meant that on any private housing estate or land you could do what the hell you liked. In fact, my brother wrote off 2 cars on a private housing estate and the police could do nothing.
However, the lawmakers in making the change recognised that the RTA was still inapropriate for certain circumstances and motorsport was deemed to be one. Events sanctioned by MSA are exempt. However, this doesn't mean that all motorsport has to be sanctioned by the MSA and it doesn't mean that if it isn't sanctioned by MSA it isn't motorsport.
You stated "All motorsport events in the UK have to be sanctioned by the MSA by law". This is totally wrong. Anybody reading that would believe that all they need to do is see if the event is sanctioned by the MSA and conclude, if it wasn't, that it wasn't moorsport and their warranty would be safe. This is not so.
I suspect that what you are refering to is the changes in the RTA that reflected an anomily in the act whereby it didn't apply on private land. This meant that on any private housing estate or land you could do what the hell you liked. In fact, my brother wrote off 2 cars on a private housing estate and the police could do nothing.
However, the lawmakers in making the change recognised that the RTA was still inapropriate for certain circumstances and motorsport was deemed to be one. Events sanctioned by MSA are exempt. However, this doesn't mean that all motorsport has to be sanctioned by the MSA and it doesn't mean that if it isn't sanctioned by MSA it isn't motorsport.
18 July 2002, 08:31 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I am enjoying this thread 
Misuse I would say is putting the car round the track for 20+ laps. A warm up, 3 hot laps and a cool down is not abuse IMHO. Would be nice for IM to clarify I guess.
Also mods - IMHO IM would not object to the SS backbox - but be careful - if you take it to the letter the only approved products are Prodrive.
David
Misuse I would say is putting the car round the track for 20+ laps. A warm up, 3 hot laps and a cool down is not abuse IMHO. Would be nice for IM to clarify I guess.
Also mods - IMHO IM would not object to the SS backbox - but be careful - if you take it to the letter the only approved products are Prodrive.
David
18 July 2002, 08:32 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...all very interesting but still no official statement about track use with a standard out of the box car etc... Issue is being ducked in high places IMHO....
In the mean time until this is sorted I wont be going on any track days in my car....might buy a cheap grey to though....
should boost old grey prices and present a great picture for media coverage.... dozens of shiney new imprezas towing old grey ones to avoid the wrath of warranty voids over track days.......what a joke!
In the mean time until this is sorted I wont be going on any track days in my car....might buy a cheap grey to though....
should boost old grey prices and present a great picture for media coverage.... dozens of shiney new imprezas towing old grey ones to avoid the wrath of warranty voids over track days.......what a joke!
18 July 2002, 08:39 PM
#103
Sharky
What (IYHO) would be the attitude on a PPP not fitted by a dealer?
All the bits, as approved by IM & supplied by Prodrive, but fitted by another aftermarket dealer
Just wondering & not caring as PTMW! out of IM warranty, but it wasn't a secret before anyway...
What (IYHO) would be the attitude on a PPP not fitted by a dealer?
All the bits, as approved by IM & supplied by Prodrive, but fitted by another aftermarket dealer
Just wondering & not caring as PTMW! out of IM warranty, but it wasn't a secret before anyway...
18 July 2002, 08:48 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a great thread and to add fuel to the fire I pruchased an MY02 STi recently and Subaru gave me a voucher for an advanced driving course on a track here in Switzerland. Begs the question do I go or dont I??
18 July 2002, 10:25 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puffie
IMHO if you fit an induction kit you screw the warranty on your MAF sensor. SS or other back box - possible problem. 3rd party de cat, in any form - problem. Dawes device etc - big problem.
As a dealer if I have anydoubts I phone for advice.
And it's Shark not sharky
David
IMHO if you fit an induction kit you screw the warranty on your MAF sensor. SS or other back box - possible problem. 3rd party de cat, in any form - problem. Dawes device etc - big problem.
As a dealer if I have anydoubts I phone for advice.
And it's Shark not sharky
David
18 July 2002, 11:18 PM
#108
Scooby Regular
Phewie look at all you women!!! all hot under the collar because your warranty is voided as you spin your cars around a track!! 
Of course its voided - you are using a vehicle which is sold for use on the public highway ..... the warranty expects that to be the case ...... Subaru do NOT market it as a Track car, they may display it on a track and allow you to drive their test cars on a track - but that may have to do with insurance, keeping all the cars in view!! or one of a million other marketing reasons!!
The main point is that it IS a highway car and warranted as such, you deviate in any way from the conditions under which Subaru have offered the warranty and I am afraid IM is FULLY correct in voiding all and any claim - as racing, driving, whatever round a track is putting undue strain on all parts of the car - even the bulbs experience excessive g forces!!! and they go POP every week at normal road environments!!
So stop moaning, its simple - if you want a warranty dont be a naughty boy!!
Pete
Of course its voided - you are using a vehicle which is sold for use on the public highway ..... the warranty expects that to be the case ...... Subaru do NOT market it as a Track car, they may display it on a track and allow you to drive their test cars on a track - but that may have to do with insurance, keeping all the cars in view!! or one of a million other marketing reasons!!
The main point is that it IS a highway car and warranted as such, you deviate in any way from the conditions under which Subaru have offered the warranty and I am afraid IM is FULLY correct in voiding all and any claim - as racing, driving, whatever round a track is putting undue strain on all parts of the car - even the bulbs experience excessive g forces!!! and they go POP every week at normal road environments!!
So stop moaning, its simple - if you want a warranty dont be a naughty boy!!
Pete
19 July 2002, 01:07 AM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pslewis sorry but you are talking twaddle IMHO, when is a road a track or a track a road ,think carefully before you answer. If any car was marketed and promoted more as a high performance drivers car then I dont know about it, the point we are making is that you can stress your car to the limit by acting like a complete idiot on the public highway (as many more may now do) or you can learn to control and develope your driving skills with trained instructors in a more responsible way in a safer enviroment. We are not talking street racing here, you would be kicked of any track, airfield or what ever if you tried that, we are talking about using a standard car on a road within the same limits that a driver if he so wished could apply on any road he chose to drive on. Why should this void a warranty????
Oh and can you explain your comment with respect to us being women
I'd just like you to explain this in a bit more detail.
Oh and can you explain your comment with respect to us being women
I'd just like you to explain this in a bit more detail.
19 July 2002, 08:13 AM
#111
Scooby Regular
Scoobycar60 - pslewis sorry but you are talking twaddle IMHO, when is a road a track or a track a road??
WHAT?? you are driving and cant tell the difference between a piece of tarmac with regulations and one where practically anything goes??? I seriously suggest you hand in your licence at the nearest Police Station !!!!!!!
Got a bit touchy over the women jibe did we sweetie??
Pete
WHAT?? you are driving and cant tell the difference between a piece of tarmac with regulations and one where practically anything goes??? I seriously suggest you hand in your licence at the nearest Police Station !!!!!!!
Got a bit touchy over the women jibe did we sweetie??
Pete
19 July 2002, 08:54 AM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Pete "Planet sized wooden spoon" Lewis, ( 
)
quote:
----------------
What is not covered
Defects, Malfunctions of failure resulting from misuse (e.g. overloading, rallying or racing), speed trials, negligence, modification, alteration , tampering. disconnection, improper adjustments or repairs, accidents, installation of parts not equivalent in quality and design to parts supplied by SUBARU (UK) LIMITED, add-on parts, improper maintenance or use of fuels, oils and/or lubricants other than those recommended.
----------------
So, what is really being discussed is what "misuse" means. I would say that you could probably argue both that track use is and also is not misuse, depending upon your standpoint. To say:
is clearly not the bone of contention as there is no mention of track vs highway use. This statement would clearly apply equally to misuse of the car driven on the road (if this could be proved) as on the track. I would imagine that IM would try to argue that going on the track in itself constitutes misuse, which I think would be difficult for them to prove, particularly in light of their track launches and Prodrive Live events.
So, if you're serious (i.e. not just on a wind up),
If you're not and are just up to your usual stiring tactics,
One other general point, you notice that it says:
What is not covered, Malfunctions of failure resulting from....installation of parts not equivalent in quality and design to parts supplied by SUBARU (UK) LIMITED
On that basis, I would say you could argue that the full decat exhaust system does not void your warranty, as long as it is of equivalent quality to say the PPP exhaust.
Thoughts?
Matt
)quote:
----------------
What is not covered
Defects, Malfunctions of failure resulting from misuse (e.g. overloading, rallying or racing), speed trials, negligence, modification, alteration , tampering. disconnection, improper adjustments or repairs, accidents, installation of parts not equivalent in quality and design to parts supplied by SUBARU (UK) LIMITED, add-on parts, improper maintenance or use of fuels, oils and/or lubricants other than those recommended.
----------------
So, what is really being discussed is what "misuse" means. I would say that you could probably argue both that track use is and also is not misuse, depending upon your standpoint. To say:
Of course its voided - you are using a vehicle which is sold for use on the public highway
So, if you're serious (i.e. not just on a wind up),
If you're not and are just up to your usual stiring tactics,
One other general point, you notice that it says:
What is not covered, Malfunctions of failure resulting from....installation of parts not equivalent in quality and design to parts supplied by SUBARU (UK) LIMITED
On that basis, I would say you could argue that the full decat exhaust system does not void your warranty, as long as it is of equivalent quality to say the PPP exhaust.
Thoughts?
Matt
19 July 2002, 09:09 AM
#113
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points Matt.
But Subaru don't offer a full decat system. So there is'nt an equivalent. Even if they did an OEM one would have to be the same design, not just the same quality.
[Edited by Neil Smalley - 7/19/2002 9:10:47 AM]
But Subaru don't offer a full decat system. So there is'nt an equivalent. Even if they did an OEM one would have to be the same design, not just the same quality.
[Edited by Neil Smalley - 7/19/2002 9:10:47 AM]
19 July 2002, 09:52 AM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"WHAT?? you are driving and cant tell the difference between a piece of tarmac with regulations and one where practically anything goes"
Well that means that potentially any privately owned piece of tarmac can be classified as being beyond the scope of the warranty. After all they are not subject to regulations, therefore if the vehicle is on it then you are violating the terms of the warranty?? Hmmmm?
So that means Tesco's car park, your driveway etc....
A track is simply a privately owned road. Nothing more when not being used for competition. And as such then driving on one cannot it itself be termed as "abusing your car" or "using it beyond the scope for which it was intended"
And simply because a car is on a track that does not prove it is being "abused" any more than when it is in your driveway.
Indeed you can claim that if Subaru sell the car for the intention of it only being used on the UK highways, then that is contradicted by the car's ability to go WELL over 70mph, let alone the marketing strategies they use which include demonstrating the ability of their cars on a track. They are marketed as performance cars, therefore it is reasonable to use the performance they advertise.
Basically, they have no hope of invalidating warranties simply through the car being on a privately owned road which is at other times used for racing.
Well that means that potentially any privately owned piece of tarmac can be classified as being beyond the scope of the warranty. After all they are not subject to regulations, therefore if the vehicle is on it then you are violating the terms of the warranty?? Hmmmm?
So that means Tesco's car park, your driveway etc....
A track is simply a privately owned road. Nothing more when not being used for competition. And as such then driving on one cannot it itself be termed as "abusing your car" or "using it beyond the scope for which it was intended"
And simply because a car is on a track that does not prove it is being "abused" any more than when it is in your driveway.
Indeed you can claim that if Subaru sell the car for the intention of it only being used on the UK highways, then that is contradicted by the car's ability to go WELL over 70mph, let alone the marketing strategies they use which include demonstrating the ability of their cars on a track. They are marketed as performance cars, therefore it is reasonable to use the performance they advertise.
Basically, they have no hope of invalidating warranties simply through the car being on a privately owned road which is at other times used for racing.
19 July 2002, 10:03 AM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neil,
OK, fair point except to say that you could buy a full APS system which does have a CAT in it and this would be "equivalent in quality and design" (IMHO )
Matt
But Subaru don't offer a full decat system. So there is'nt an equivalent. Even if they did an OEM one would have to be the same design, not just the same quality
)Matt