Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
J-2 ◊ 2006-05-19 19:53	This Massearti had an very bad end...
antp ◊ 2006-05-19 19:55
appassionato ◊ 2006-05-19 19:57
J-2 ◊ 2006-05-19 20:06	Ok...(a picture is better than 1000 words) -- Last edit: 2006-05-30 22:05:50
The STIG ◊ 2006-11-04 00:30	Ah, the skip stunt.
crazyforcars12 ◊ 2007-07-22 20:53	Why wreck such a nice car?? The car is wearing a private number plate so it's very hard to tell the year it was built/first registed. J is 1991-1992, was the original Biturbo shape still produced in these years? -- Last edit: 2007-08-22 16:52:05
crazyforcars12 ◊ 2007-09-29 12:42	J50 JDL: Vehicle Details 1 for registration number J50JDL Make: SKODA Year of manufacture: 1992 Model: FAVORIT LS Engine size:(CC)1289
JAG XJ12 ◊ 2007-10-19 04:46	A FEW Jaguar XJ40 Prototypes were made off these cars thru 1973-1980
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-19 09:46	Oh well, I guess Clarkson mistook it for a Favorit. More seriously, I hope he was sued and fined for that!
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 19:10	@Bravada: but finally Mister Clarkson is right and has done right. I have a friend, who has owned a Biturbo for a while (for heavens sake bought cheap as a used cars). He was pissed and fucked up about this car as hell. Defects and breakdowns per dozens. He told me, that cars like a Talbot Horizon, Leyland Princess or Fiat Regata would have been better choices - because of the reliability. It was an impudence by Maserati to sell this piece of s... - and for such a lot of money.
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-27 19:13	This is a classic car, period. Classic cars are exempt from rights governing pedestrian A-to-B buttocks movers like Horizons, Escorts and the like. When you buy a Maserati, expect to cope with its being a Maserati. Destroying any car of which few are left is a crime and there's no redemption. I find Clarkson's penchant for destroying cars rather repulsive, especially that his taste is rather mundane and crude. -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 19:26:00
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 19:34	Surely, a classic and/or high priced luxoury or sports car is more than a vehicle, which takes you from A-to-B - but you cannot deny, that it also shall be able to manage the A-to-B-trip anyways! This A-to-B-trip is the absolute minimum, which every car should reach. Otherwise it's in fact an impudence by the manufacturer.
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-27 19:35	Poor reliability does not merit destroying a rare classic. Period. And Clarkson needs to meet Trinny and Susannah.
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 19:38	P.S.: A propos rare cars: I'm sure, that nowadays there are more Maserati's existing than Talbot Horizon's. There are a lot of more examples. Do you know, which car is getting now one of the rarest in Europe, don't minding the production-number? It's the Renault 6. No joke.
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-27 19:47	The Horizon thing might be true, I'd be just as mad at Clarkson for destroying a Horizon, or any other Talbot or Simca for that matter... Renault 6 - this might be true too, I had a hard time trying to recall what it was...
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 20:06	It's a typical way of (your) thinking: garbage with a big name (like the Biturbo above) has to be kept and bewared, but no thoughts about the "bread-and-butter-cars" (so we say in Germany). This is the reason, why a lot of classic-car-meetings are boring. The masses of Mercedes Pagode, Porsche 356, Big Healeys, Jaguar E and so on are boring for me. A lot of owners of these cars just want to show, that they are able to spend money for their hobbies. So these classic cars are nothing more than a symbol of the lifestyle, a show-object. Fans of former popular, now forgotten cars are totally different. And the status of these cars is different, too. Cars like Opel Kadett Caravan, Renault 12, Fiat 132, VW 1600 TL, VW Jetta I, 1979 Ford Escort Turnier, Ford P6, VW K 70 (yes, me again), and so on... A question to you as a Polish: how many Syrena's are still existing? How often you can see some on the streets? Low prices, no popularity, a low reputation, a problematical spare-part-situation. Reasons, why former all-day-cars, often millionsellers are gone. Problems, a Porsche, Mercedes, Rolls and so on never will have (o.k. exceptions are exisiting, for example the Porsche 924). -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 20:07:47
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-27 21:12	I am all for preservation of all kinds of cars, and both underdogs and "bread-and-butter" cars (how do you say that in German, Brot und Butter, nie gehoert...) get my favors. My list of favorite "classic" cars includes (almost all) Talbots, with Tagora as the frontrunner, Chrysler 180, Isuzu Florian etc. I am with you on what you've said - I can't understand the infatuation with the boring, ubiquitous Mercedes' or the unimaginative supersportscars or Porsches. As concerns Syrenas, they aren't a common sight, but I guess there is a healthy population of them still running, proppelled by a sizeable enthusiast community. Do remember they were short of the only car available to the common man for a long time, and even after their production ceased, cars came in short supply so many examples were treasured and nursed for many years. Afterwards, they became cheap, fairly ubiquitous, familiar and relatively easy to fix, so the typical old-school fandom developed. -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 21:13:07
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 21:35	The reason for my statement with the "boring" depends at first on the reason, that I don't have any personal realations-ship to these cars. Yes, every car-interested school-boy have known them, the Porsche 356 in the 50ies and the Mercedes Pagode and Jaguar E in the 60ies. But not only for the school-boys, for nearly all people in that times, they were never cars, where you could imagine personal feelings for it (like the Bugatti Veyron nowadays) - because you only know these cars from magazines or auto-quartett-games. Normally your father didn't have them in his garage. Personal relation-caused feelings you had for the "bread-and-butter"-cars, because they were around you every day. Cars your parents were driving, your teacher had or which were standing in front of your house. Really, some classic-car-meetings are overloaded with Pagodas, 356 and 911's. Go to classic car-meetings in Germany (in Western Germany, this is still important) and see it on yourself. So the last years on the big "Techno Classica"-exhibition in Essen it was strange - everywhere Mercedes Pagode. Outside, at the Mercedes Benz-stand, at the dealer's area, everywhere. No joke: due to the re-imports nowadays in Germany are more Porsche 356 on the streets than during the years of production! I think, with Pagodes it's similar.
antp ◊ 2007-10-27 22:12	Ingo wrote @Bravada: but finally Mister Clarkson is right and has done right. I have a friend, who has owned a Biturbo for a while (for heavens sake bought cheap as a used cars). He was pissed and fucked up about this car as hell. Defects and breakdowns per dozens. He told me, that cars like a Talbot Horizon, Leyland Princess or Fiat Regata would have been better choices - because of the reliability. It was an impudence by Maserati to sell this piece of s... - and for such a lot of money. The Biturbo is not especially unreliable. The problem is that it requires a good servicing and to be used with some care (e.g. when engine is cold). Like Ferrari or other luxury cars actually. The problem is that the servicing costs much, unlike the car. So people afford the car but not the servicing. As you said: "bought cheap". There is the same for other similar cars. There is a Lancia with a Ferrari engine in one of its versions (Thema?) which is quite fragile if you use it like an ordinary car, driving in high rpm before the engine is at good temperature, not doing the planned servicing in serious garages, etc. At the other extreme, you have cars like many Toyota, and some old Peugeot/Mercedes, that will always run no matter what you do Even if I like the Biturbo, I agree with you about the "boring" classic/expensive cars that you cited I usually find much more interesting/impressive to see an old popular car in good shape "like if it was new" than an expensive collection car which is usually always seen in good state. And most of the time I am more interested in ordinary cars than in luxury/expensive cars. -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 22:27:44
chris40 ◊ 2007-10-27 22:53	I suspect Ingo and Bravada are never going to agree ... I have some sympathy for both points of view. Some cars are classics and deserve to be preserved - E-types, 911s, even Pagodas; but don't let's forget that a car - any car, be it Rolls-Royce or Deuche, Mini or Ferrari, is basically a tool designed to serve its owner, not make a slave of him. If someone wants to own a Biturbo and is prepared to coddle it, fine, but that's not to my mind what owning a car is about; even a classic should be usable, if possible as easily usable as what Bravada calls buttock-movers. I appreciate what Ingo says about relating more to bread-and-butter cars, in my case my father's Morris Eight Series E and Austin A40 Devon of my childhood, the Rover 12 and Morris Minor 1000 which were my own earliest cars, the 60s Minis,the VW 1300 and the two Fiat 127s, the Peugeot 504 ... I could go on at length but will spare users the whole tale. I love to see these cars being preserved, but even more I like to see them being used. -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 22:54:04
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 23:05	Hmm, you mean cars, where the journalists of the classic car-magazines usually choose the euphemism "capricious" - which means nothing less than stubborn, unreliable and unintelligent constructed. Yes, a good servicing is neccessary - but the posession of a luxoury car shall not mean, that "servicing" (you can say "nerve-destroying marathon-repairing-trip", too) is the main reason and main occupation, which costs more time (and nerves, and money) than the simple driving. Say, what you want, but the A-to-B-trip is an absolute, non discutable must, which every car must be able for, if it's a Biturbo, a brand new Ferrari or a Cairoan Peugeot 504-Taxi with over two millions kilometers on the clock (have you ever used an Cairoan two-million-504-taxi? You should do that, a great experience O.K., I\'m stubborn, too. For me a car must make one thing: to make reliable a lot of kilometers over a lot of years. A high age or high mileage doesn\'t excuse anything - the construction naturally nothing, surely. During my years of car-experience I was always happy with my "system": cheap, old cars, which you normally can repair with not much more than a big hammer. One of my K 70 I had to start with a hammer (starter and distributor) and a screwdriver (ignition-lock). Rustholes I've repaired with chewing cum (you can paint it over!) For my NSU 1200 I always had several magnetic ignition-valves in my pockets and my file-map. Also weekly fresh "napkins" were neccessary for the garage-ground). Due to the increasing oil-consumption it was no problem to fill in the old oil from the cars of my friends. New oil would have been to expensive. The exhaust of a 200 000 km-Toyota Celica we've repaired with a tin "Bonduelle famous carrots", a 240 000 km 1987 Passat Variant I had also to start with as hammer. At a 700 D-Mark 1984 Audi 80 I've cutted off the hand-brake-cable, because it was broken, made noisy sounds and I was too miserly to pay money for the repair. An old cloth in the hole of the handbrake-handle (to avoid the cold air from outside) and a wooden bloc for the parking - and it was good. With all these junk-cars I had during 15 years less breakdown than one colleague with his three brand new C-Class-Mercedes withing 3 years. No joke. My actual K 70 is in quite goodn condition, not totally perfect, but very original. It's age of 34 years and it's rarity is no apology to avoid long vacation-trips for 2000 or 3000 km across half Europe. So we went one year to Scotland in others to Sweden, Poland or Estonia. Trips like these must be possible, otherwise zhe car is not worth to consume money, time and work. -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 23:07:29
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-27 23:15	Your understanding of an automobile is that of a means of transportation - but not all automobiles are like that and not all people share that understanding. A Maserati is not something more than a means of transportation - it is something DIFFERENT THAN a means of transportation. And, let me reiterate, deliberately destroying one is absolutely inexcuseable.
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 23:18	@antp: you give the example Ferrari: I have a japanese friends, which friends are very rich. One own a Ferrari Testarossa. When it's raining, you must stop at the emergency-lane for one reason (the water) with two results: a) you're getting wet, because the body is leaking everywhere and b) the electronic of the ignition is getting wet, too. With a Porsche you will not make this experience. A Porsche is good enough for some hundredthousands of kilometers. In the early 80ies parents of a friend must to had a brand new 12-cylinder Jaguar (2 1/2 series) as a business-car. Nice car, leather-seats, wooden dashboard, wollen carpets, roof-cloth made by silk - but this fucking car avoided to run. O.k., the Jags of the early 80ies (and other British cars, too) were the worst ever - but it was very expensive nevertheless. Good for my friend's familiy, that the company has paid everything. No joke, after a time the family used the Jaguar only for going shopping at the ALDI-supermarket in their village - the distance of 3 kilometers was short enough to walk back after the next breakdown. The business-trips my friends father made with his rusty K 70 LS or even with the Audi 50 of the mother. Naturally his bosses were mad and pissed about that, but he said stubbornly: "The Jaguar dosn't run, my own old cars are doing it, so kiss my a.." -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 23:19:05
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-27 23:29	You are obviously biased towards the K70 - which, coincidentally, did not go down in history as an overly reliable car...
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 23:33	Bravada wrote Your understanding of an automobile is that of a means of transportation - but not all automobiles are like that and not all people share that understanding. A Maserati is not something more than a means of transportation - it is something DIFFERENT THAN a means of transportation. And, let me reiterate, deliberately destroying one is absolutely inexcuseable. When automobiles "don't like" the using as a transportation-vehicle, they aren't worth their money. What is the exact translation of "automobile"? You see? To be "automobile" in it's simple maning is the main reason for the existing of automobiles. Yes, I've destroyed rare cars and their parts deliberately, too. Me and my friends had a lot of quite rare cars, mostly K 70, also NSU Prinz and RO 80. Not all of them were woth to save. Others were worth, but noone was interested in them and our space was full - so we have destroyed them. We have wrecked them and brought them to the shredder of the steel-factory. The parts of these destroyed car I've put in my garage (exactly two or three garages). Unfortunately noone was interested in these parts over a couple of years. Naturally I know a lot of other NSU-freaks and nearly every other K 70-freak of the world. These guys have the same problem: full spare-part-garages. So after several successless tries to get rid of the parts, I've picked out the stuff, I will problably need within the next years and some more parts, which I probably can send to other freaks - and all others I've thrown away. Metal-parts to the shredder, other into the garbage-container, several hundreds of kilogrammes spare parts of rare cars, part for cars, made by a sunk, nowadays often forgotten company. -- Last edit: 2007-10-27 23:53:23
antp ◊ 2007-10-27 23:38	Ingo wrote @antp: you give the example Ferrari: [...] A Porsche is good enough for some hundredthousands of kilometers. Yes, the Porsche can be used as a everyday car, not the Ferrari. The Maserati is closer to the Ferrari for that.
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-27 23:40	Bravada wrote You are obviously biased towards the K70 - which, coincidentally, did not go down in history as an overly reliable car... This is a question of experience. My experience and the experience of my friends were good (otherwise we wouldn't be still fans). Before I bought in March 2004 my actual all-day-car at the German army, a 1999 Opel Omega DTI, I was confused and suspicious: the ADAC-test has said, that the Opel Omega is the car of the upper middle-class with the absolutely most defects (after the Ford Scorpio was gone), expecially the Diesel and especially the 1999-model. What shall I say, 3 1/2 years and 124 000 km later (actually 216 000 km) later: one single breakdown, a broken generator-disc.
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-27 23:51	There are pieces of clothing that are admirable works of art, while being rubbish at providing a comfortable wearing experience, protecting from cold etc. Same with automobiles - sometimes applied art serves as an excuse to create an exercise in aesthetics or more broadly defined experiment in expressing a statement. I believe works of art do not deserve to be deliberately destroyed. It is also sad to read there weren't people at hand to take care of all the precious resources you have amassed... But then it also has a positive side to it - supply exceeded demand, which is the favorable situation when it comes to "endangered" cars... It is also nice to hear there is a community committed to supporting some of the least desirable cars in history - though I must say I have started to experience a change of attitude towards NSUs of late... I guess I am getting old...
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-28 00:16	Bravada wrote I believe works of art do not deserve to be deliberately destroyed. I agree totally with you. But now we can start a philosophic dicussion "What is a works of art?" Surely, handmade cars (and other goods) in every case. And very rare pieces, too. In this meaning you can say, that a roboter-made Hyundai will never get the reputation as a "works of art", or what do you think? Also personal and historical minds are important. Things, which were owned for years by familiy-members have annother reputation than things, you never had a relation to it (my grandmother had a 1971 DAF 44, so this car I see with other eyes than a BMW 7series, because noone in my family ever had a BMW). Reminding the historic facts, I'm looking to a 1943 VW Kübelwagen with other eyes than to a 1937 Duesenberg. Yes, the Duesenberg was an handmade, rare and exorbitant car of the highest class, and the Kübelwagen was mass-product, produced very fast and cheap - but it was produced by POW's and even KZ-prisoners under the regiment of brutal SS-soldiers, in the danger of daily bombardement by the allied airforces. In the last 2 years my grandmothers died, also the grandfather of my wife. I can promise, that during the clearing-off of their houses, I've checked every single piece of the household, if it can have a historic, a personal or a monetary value. My mother act in the same way. We were busy days, more weeks, with it - and we felt better after finishing. Other people, even some of our relatives, would have let made this work by a professional company, as fast as possible - for me and my mother this way of thinking and acting would be impossible. -- Last edit: 2007-10-28 00:17:44
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-28 01:03	@Bravada: for me this scene: /vehicle_91413-Opel-Kapitan-P-LV-1960.html is much more horrible than the destroying of the Maserati above.
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-28 01:10	I don't feel the urge to "value" acts of destruction - they are just horrible and wrong. And the Maserati has the added value for me of being a car made (and sold) "against all odds".
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-28 18:18	In Germany the is an "artist", who make musical happenings, by showing, what melodic sounds you can make with destroying a car. He is strictly and takes only Opel Kadett E (for free delivered from a scrapyard close to Hamburg) for this, because he hates this car.
chris40 ◊ 2007-10-28 18:32	-- Last edit: 2007-10-28 18:33:03
Bravada ◊ 2007-10-28 21:18	This is permissible with Kadett Es. Same should be done to the cars of people persisting with calling Astra As "Fs" etc.
Ingo ◊ 2007-10-28 21:29	Also a question of personal thinking. I'm not allowed to go such an happening - by my wife. She (now driving an Astra G DTI) still loves the Kadett E. A Kadett E (a boring white 1991 "Fun") was the car, she had loved most. I still have photos in my desk, which I'm not allowed to show around: when she was mounting off the license-plates after the last journey, directly to the scrapyard. She was crying over and over. A reliable car, the Kadett E. It runs on the own axle into the shredder. -- Last edit: 2007-10-28 21:29:55
Bravada ◊ 2007-11-01 17:28	This should merit a doubled sentence.
G-MANN ◊ 2007-11-02 00:29	Yes crazyforcars, he mainly wrecked it for the hell of it, it wouldn't have been any fun if he'd just said "I don't like this car" and left it at that, but he wouldn't deliberately destroy something he truly admired. The Top Gear lads like to wreck junk cars and stuff they don't like, like caravans. You won't see them wrecking a Ferrari 250 GTO. The only time I think they ever came close to ruining a fine car was when Clarkson drove that Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow into a swimming pool, but then it wasn't in good shape thus it wasn't particularly valuable, you can still find plenty of old Rollers at cheap prices. Same with the Jaguar XJS they launched off an aircraft carrier, a lot of those things are wrecks now. -- Last edit: 2007-11-02 00:31:58
antp ◊ 2007-11-02 00:34	There is still the crash of the Alpine A610 to explain
G-MANN ◊ 2007-11-02 00:34	Bravada wrote This is a classic car, period. No, not really, not a true classic, it wasn't one of the great Maserati designs and it's only 15 years old anyway.
G-MANN ◊ 2007-11-02 00:39	Now I really don't know why he destroyed the Reanult Alpine A610, because he actually liked that car when it came out (he once listed in his top 100 cars, the program of it is listed on this site), although the funny thing is it sold apallingly in Britain (something like 25 were sold I think), no idea why, it's like the public did it to spite him! -- Last edit: 2007-11-02 00:40:59
crazyforcars12 ◊ 2007-11-20 16:31	Worst selling cars in GB: Renault Vel Satis Renault Avantime Subaru B4 Tribeca
Ingo ◊ 2007-12-13 23:40	To come back to the discussion about "high performance car" in assiciation with this car, have you checked that: Link to "suchen.mobile.de" It's indeed a cheap garbage-car, so the "Top Gear"-makers haven't spend much money. The only "high performance" here is the old reputation of the name "Maserati"
paul4990 ◊ 2008-01-15 17:25	there are cars missing, in an episode (4x10) there is a 2cv, lada, pacer, maestro and favorit doing a long jump. the plate J50JDL is from that Favorit, proborably so the owner doesnt know its his biturbo.
Kowalski ◊ 2008-04-13 22:56	You may like this car and you can cry as much as you want, but it can't and won't change the fact the Biturbo was mud on Maserati's face. Maseratis are supposed to look sleek and sexy, they have to be fast and fun to drive, and they have to be beautifully made. The Biturbo wasn't neither of those things and symbolized a dark era for Maserati which now they most definitely want to forget. Jeremy Clarkson was more than right when he said the Biturbo is an affront to what a proper Maserati should be, therefore it deserved to be destroyed. In the same way that a Vaneo should be destroyed for being an affront to the three pointed star of Mercedes-Benz.
Kooshmeister ◊ 2008-04-14 03:39	Kowalski wrote You may like this car and you can cry as much as you want, but it can't and won't change the fact the Biturbo was mud on Maserati's face. Hey, man, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
dudley ◊ 2010-05-25 17:28	Meanwhile, another one bites the dust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiORhKnwXF4
smbdy ◊ 2016-08-03 22:17	Did this car save Maserati so it was still in business by the time Ferrari bought it.

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

1985 Maserati Biturbo 2.5 [AM331]

1985 Maserati Biturbo [AM331] in Top Gear, Non-fiction TV, 2002-2015 Ep. 6.02

Comments about this vehicle

Add a comment

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising