 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Alfa Romeo Cars / September 2005147 & other Alfa owners
I am just after your advice. I really like the 147 and think it is one of the best looking hatches on the market. I am interested to know though if you have had many problems with your 147 or other Alfa model? And if you have had the odd issue, how much has it hurt you in the wallet to get it fixed? Are Alfa main dealers really poor when it comes to servicing and repairs? And do you just go to an independent place to get any repairs/maintenance done? How many MPG on average would you get from a 1.6 litre 147? I don't have a car at present but am looking to get something a few years old very shortly. I am considering a 1.6 petrol 147, an Ibiza Tdi, a petrol 1.4 or 1.6 Civic and a diesel Corolla D-4D. Budget between £5k and just over £7k. These are examples of what I have been looking at so far: 147 (£5k to £7k) http://tinyurl.com/ca6n3 Ibiza Tdi (Have seen 130hp Tdis for just over £7k) http://tinyurl.com/bogs7 1.4 Civic (R-Type bodykit) £5500 http://tinyurl.com/avwb2 Corolla D-4D 2.0l (Just over £7k) http://tinyurl.com/b9xao What would you go for if you were in my shoes and were choosing between these? And what about if you were in your own shoes? What cars do you personally like at the moment that you would realistically consider for yourself if you were on the market for a new or used car? Thanks for your advice. John > How many MPG on average would you get from a 1.6 litre 147? Not sure but around late 30's very early 40's > I don't have a car at present but am looking to get something a few > years old very shortly. > I am considering a 1.6 petrol 147 Slow and chuggy > an Ibiza Tdi Guzzler but fast > a petrol 1.4 or 1.6 Civic I get a 1.6 civic SE from work. £40 and 300 miles to the tank (unless you drive everywhere at 55mph... dont beleive the 44mpg. >diesel Corolla D-4D. Budget Never had one ad cannot comment > between £5k and just over £7k. If you are willing to stretch to 8k I can sell you a 55mpg 1.9JTD Alfa with full cream leather. a couple of years old and full service history finished in black. You can still see it here... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4568948554&ssPageName= STRK:MEUS:IT > What would you go for if you were in my shoes and were choosing > between these? Alfa 1.6 is not the best performer, even though it is an alfa I reckon you will dissapointed with the drive/handling (or thats the feel I get from 147 courtesy cars I drive) i'd stear clear of the civic unless you are looking at the Type-R Never heard any bodys opinions on a corolla - is that good or bad? Granny car me thinks like the civic 1.6. Seat TDI would be fun but dont expect luxury. >And what about if you were in your own shoes? What cars do you personally >like at the moment that you would realistically consider for yourself if >you >were on the market for a new or used car? a two-three year old Alfa 156 would be top of my list in your boots. Decent car, better than the 147. You should also consider the Mini - thery're coming down in price now, and maybe the new fiesta - thats looks kinda cool in a full kit. The new civic is out soon so you might want to wait a wee while. That look hot ! > > How many MPG on average would you get from a 1.6 litre 147? > > Not sure but around late 30's very early 40's Lol. If you drive it like a nun, maybe. > > I don't have a car at present but am looking to get something a few > > years old very shortly. > > > I am considering a 1.6 petrol 147 > > Slow and chuggy No, slow and revvy. They need revving like hell to get anything out of them. > > an Ibiza Tdi > > Guzzler but fast You have a funny definition of 'guzzler' - my mate has a Passat with that engine and has just done a steady motorway run at 69mpg average. His normal more rapid use sees over 50mpg. > > a petrol 1.4 or 1.6 Civic > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4568948554&ss >PageName=STRK:MEUS:IT When are you going to take the hint that you're asking too much money. You've been touting this around for several weeks with not a sniff of interest - that's sort of a hint that you're way OTT with the price. > > What would you go for if you were in my shoes and were choosing > > between these? Get a 156 2lt TSpark. You'll pick up a very nice 5 year old example for around £3k with a bit of shopping around (our 99V cost us £2800).  SignatureSteve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > I am just after your advice. I really like the 147 and think it is > one of the best looking hatches on the market. I am interested to [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > John LOL! Since you posted to a Toyota group, you should realize that my answer will be to go for a Toyota. Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t together on Diesles! > Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY > Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t > together on Diesles! You've obviously never driven a Fiat/Alfa JTD or a VAG TDI, then. SignatureSteve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away >> from ANY Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has >> their sh!t together on Diesles! > > You've obviously never driven a Fiat/Alfa JTD or a VAG TDI, then. <what he said, from a 16V JTD owner> >>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away >>> from ANY Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <what he said, from a 16V JTD owner> I ain't called 'Hachiroku' for nothin'... >> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t >> together on Diesles! > > You've obviously never driven a Fiat/Alfa JTD or a VAG TDI, then. UGH!!! YOU SAID FIAT!!!!! Had a GF that worked at a Fiat dealership as a salesperson. Called 'em Ratburgers. Sorry, but there's a REASON Fiat left the US and never came back (well, I guess they do sell Ferrarris after all...) Fix It Again, Tony! Had a Fiat 124 spyder come in for an inspection, 1971. Immaculate. Ya know, here in the US I watch the History Channel, and they do a lot of shows about cars. Now, really, when it comes right down to it, the marques that made their names did so by breaking speed barriers in, what, the 30's? Audi, Fiat, Alfa, etc. All did their thning back in the Dark Ages of the automobile. What have they done recently? I suppose the Audi Quattro rallye car is an exception, except it gets it's a.s handed to it by Subaru STis. The glory days are gone. Audi is a glorified VW, and that ain't good. Fiat has been on the brink of going out of business so many times it's unbelievable, ditto for Alfa. Lamborghini and Ferrarri are awesome, but not affordable for anybody without a 7-figure salary. if there ARE any nice, solid, dependable Euro cars, we AIN'T getting them over here! i WILL give you that Euro design is awesome! > if there ARE any nice, solid, dependable Euro cars, we AIN'T getting them > over here! Thing is. I'm selling my Celica GT4/Alltrac. It has 147k miles on it. It is too thirsty and expensive to maintain. I've bought a Saab convertible. 2 years newer, 212k miles, body is in about same condition maybe better. Big ends were gone. So the last owner totally rebuilt it, fitted a recon box and turbo at the same time. The suspension is fine, the steering is good, because it is a convertible there is more rattle and scuttle shake, but it drives great, and uses far less fuel. Oh and they are reliable. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> if there ARE any nice, solid, dependable Euro cars, we AIN'T getting them >> over here! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > convertible there is more rattle and scuttle shake, but it drives great, > and uses far less fuel. Oh and they are reliable. Saabs, and most Euro cars over here, seem to be a 50/50 proposition for some reason. The most you ever see a Euro car over here is sitting outside the repair center... Even the Big Boys, M-B and BMW spend more time on the lift than on the road. BTW, I saw a NICE, REALLY NICE 2002 yesterday. Some young lady owns it, says it's her second. i am trusting she will park it before the first snowflakes... >>> if there ARE any nice, solid, dependable Euro cars, we AIN'T getting >>> them [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > i am trusting she will park it before the first snowflakes... I am from Pennsylvania, over here in the states, and I was wondering how everyone in Europe gets along without driving a pickup. I never see any pickups on the road over there whenever I watch "The Amazing Race" or news stories involving Europe. Are we Americans addicted to pickups for no reason? I know most American families survived without them during the '50s and most of the '60s. I love small economical vehicles. I am amazed at the different makes and models available to Europeans and not to the US market. A majority of the vehicles over here that are on the road are gas guzzling bricks on wheels. On another note, remember that Mercedes has been contaminated by Chrysler - but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of late. Buyers buy the vehicles they want and can afford. In Europe vehicles and fuel are heavy taxed to pay for their socialist system of government so they can get FREE medical care etc, making it more expensive to own a operate a car. There are plenty of vehicles available in the US from domestic and import brands, for those the choose to buy them, but apparently few choose to do so. If buyers can afford to buy larger safer vehicles they will do so. The recent spike in gas prices did not slow larger vehicle sales as much as it increased small vehicle sales. Apparently those that could afforded to buy the vehicles they wanted continued to do so and some went out a bought a small vehicles to use as well. It was the poorer folks, that can not afford to buy larger safer vehicles, that were effect by high gas prices not those that drive the larger safer vehicles. It was the small car buyers that cut back on their driving or converted some of their discressionary spending over to fuel.. WalMart and McDonalds were effected butt upper class stores and restaurants. Unlike Europe, Americas population is more spread out over the country where their is little or no public transportation and people need cars and trucks in their daily work and lives. >>>> if there ARE any nice, solid, dependable Euro cars, we AIN'T getting >>>> them [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Chrysler - but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of > late. > Buyers buy the vehicles they want and can afford. In Europe vehicles and > fuel are heavy taxed to pay for their socialist system of government so they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to do so. If buyers can afford to buy larger safer vehicles they will do > so. i'd /love/ to know where this "larger safer vehicles" myth comes from. have you ever looked at any of the insurer or nhtsa fatality stats? suvs kill many more times the number of their occupants than cars. it's because they're so unstable and because there are no rules regarding cabin crush safety like there are cars. c'mon guy, get with the facts. > The recent spike in gas prices did not slow larger vehicle sales as much > as it increased small vehicle sales. Apparently those that could afforded [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >>Chrysler - but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of >>late. You better do a bit more research, if that is what you believe, because your information is not based on facts. Only around 2% of ALL of the hundreds of thousand accidents in the US involve a rollover and the majority of rollovers are the result of striking, or being struck by something, not from instability.. The fast majority of ALL accidents are frontal collisions. The larger the vehicle the less likely properly belted passengers will be injured or killed. If a vehicles height actually made it more likely for it to rollover one should expect to see six wheel trucks rolled over on a daily basis. mike >> Buyers buy the vehicles they want and can afford. In Europe vehicles and >> fuel are heavy taxed to pay for their socialist system of government so [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>>Chrysler - but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of >>>late. >You better do a bit more research, if that is what you believe, because your >information is not based on facts. Only around 2% of ALL of the hundreds of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >mike You should think about what you're saying. Height is not the be all and end all, neither is mass. Build a 10ft tall car made of lead. Fact is, high cars tend to kill people in the OTHER car. a frontal-colision (aka a dual front-on collision) is not the most common either - no idea where you got that preosterous notion from. Maybe a lack of research The safer cars are ones with an integrated safety system wih full energy dissipation. I always come back to the last major accident i was in - a brand new VR6 golf hit the rear of my Volvo340 in september 2000 at the end of a british motorway. The golf was scrap, mine needed minor repairs only. There was also a demonstrative video i saw a few months back. Showed a 4x4 hitting a regular car. a Shogun, and a civic iirc. in a side impact. Well, the high front on the shogun oblitirated the passenger compartment of the civic, then the height of the shogun rode OVER the civic, and rolled over itself. Typical of car-SUV crashes in fact (except a rear-ender). This is how nice tall vehicles roll over. Next time, if you're going to critisize soeone saying they've not done any research, try actually doing some yourself first. >>> Buyers buy the vehicles they want and can afford. In Europe vehicles and >>> fuel are heavy taxed to pay for their socialist system of government so [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>>>Chrysler - but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of >>>>late. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, you are entitled to you own opinion, I'm not going to debate someones opinion. I am a retired automotive engineer, with a degree is metallurgy. The facts concerning crash dynamics I posted where not an opinion, they are based on my experience in automobile crash dynamics gained during my thirty years as an automotive design engineer involved with body structure. I helped design those crumple zones and SRS systems. The larger the vehicle the more efficiently they do the job for which they are designed, that is to reduce the terminal speed at which ones organs strike one skeleton, referred to as the 'third collision.' The second being when ones body strikes their belt and SRS system restraints. One can not defy the laws of physics. In nine out of ten collisions the larger the vehicle the less likely proper belted passengers will be injured or killed, period. Those that hate SUVs and do not want others to drive them like to distort the facts about accidents to favor their cause. I don't own an SUV, I drive only larger RWD vehicles. From what I know I will never ride in a small FWD car just to save a few hundred dollar a year on fuel. mike >>You better do a bit more research, if that is what you believe, because >>your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The safer cars are ones with an integrated safety system wih full energy > dissipation. > You can choose to believe whatever you wish, you are entitled to you own > opinion, I'm not going to debate someones opinion. I am a retired [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not want others to drive them like to distort the facts about accidents to > favor their cause. since you bring up the subject of distortion; http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 didn't work for ford did you? > I don't own an SUV, I drive only larger RWD vehicles. > From what I know I will never ride in a small FWD car just to save a few [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>The safer cars are ones with an integrated safety system wih full energy >>dissipation. I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but... > One can not defy the laws of physics. In nine out of > ten collisions the larger the vehicle the less likely proper belted > passengers will be injured or killed, period. I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics. However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy? What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle? Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what? This is an escalation that does not make sense. As others have pointed out, all that large vehicles do is endanger the smaller ones. As hard as it may seem, one has to think not only egoistically (because that will get all of us killed), but also consider what's around you. I just shudder everytime I see one of those ridiculously *huge* SUVs, with one *tiny* person sitting in it, mostly on the cell phone (not paying attention to the traffic, thereby greatly increasing the risk of accidents). How dumb is that? It's not about the few hundred dollars a year of gas you save, it's about the insanity of just blowing away a finite resource that your children, and your grandchildren, and their kids will want to use, just to "make you feel safe" (Jim Beam has already touched on the "feel safe" vs. "be safe" points) > From what I know I will never ride in a small > FWD car just to save a few hundred dollar a year on fuel. But you *would* run over those wimpy folks in their Civics, wouldn't you? The main thing is you survive? I am not postulating anything, simply stating a fact. Anti SUV haters aside, the larger the vehicle the less likely properly belted passengers will be injured or killed in the most common type of accidents, period. Obviously even a semi looses to a locomotive. Once again the engineer will likely fair better than the truck driver even without crumple zones. One simply can not defy the laws of physics. ;) mike hunt >I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle? > Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what? >I am not postulating anything, simply stating a fact. Anti SUV haters >aside, the larger the vehicle the less likely properly belted passengers >will be injured or killed in the most common type of accidents, period. >Obviously even a semi looses to a locomotive. Once again the engineer will >likely fair better than the truck driver even without crumple zones. One >simply can not defy the laws of physics. ;) Or simple practical realities. You're quite right that in the initial impact they will sustain less injuries. HOWEVER the vehicles do ahve a tendency to roll afterwards, as they ride over smaller vehicles, causing much greater secondary injuries. As someone who's claimed to work in this field, surely you should know this fact which has been widely known and documented for over 20 years (and has been a facotr in millitary vehicle design since the late 20s) this is why there have been postulations about an 'impact bar' of a suitable height on all vehciles, so they all impact with each other with matching strength. Problem is, where do you put the bars on an elise, and a Land rover defender, so they match? >mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle? >> Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what? >I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >seem, one has to think not only egoistically (because that will get all of >us killed), but also consider what's around you. This has kind of diverted from my original post a bit. I think that there is a lack of understanding on both sides of the pond here. In Britain and Europe we mainly have Smaller economical manual cars because they are ideal for and designed for our needs. In the US they mainly have bigger automatic cars and SUVs because they are ideal for and designed for their needs. In the UK we don't really need a big car or large engine as we don't need to do as much driving. In the States they can afford to have bigger gas guzzlers, they need them and can afford to fuel them. I don't see what the big deal is. It is all about supply and demand and market forces. The reason the Americans probably don't think too much to a fair percentage of the cars made for our market, is because they are not suitable for theirs and it's the same vice-versa. The companies that customise cars for different markets, those cars will do well. There will only be the odd exceptions to that general rule. One point I would like to add on this whole crash thing, I would say that the newer a car is the better it will withstand a crash against a similar sized but older car. I seem to recall an episode of Top Gear here in the UK where they had two large 4x4 vehicles and they showed how the newest model just went straight through the older one in a crash with relatively minor damage whereas the older one was completely trashed and there could have been fatalities. That also has to be a factor in crashes from what little I know. So even if you have an SUV that may be slightly bigger than the other person on a collision course, you may come out of it worse if they have a brand new model. One thing I like about American cars is the seat belt. I was in I think it was a Saturn, and the seat belts moved across automatically for me to plug in. Are their any cars in Britain than do this? This is a serious question. I expect it may just be some of the executive cars with things like this. This Saturn though I believe that was just one of their basic cars. John >>I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but... >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > In the US they mainly have bigger automatic cars and SUVs because they > are ideal for and designed for their needs. Not really. I'd bet 3/4 of the SUVs in this country NEVER see ANY off-road use, and prolly 1/2 of those never even see dirt roads. "I need it for winter" (buy a Subaru...or a MAtrix AWD). I want my kids to be safe (at the expense of someone in a Yugo...) Nope...not necessary. I never saw the craze, myself. Who the hell wants to maintain a 4WD vehicle when you only really need the 4WD maybe 6 times a year? (he says after spending the weekend working on his AWD Grand Caravan... But I use my AWD van to move the amps and drums to gigs in the winter) > In the UK we don't really need a big car or large engine as we don't > need to do as much driving. In the States they can afford to have > bigger gas guzzlers, they need them and can afford to fuel them. Then why is is, EVERY SINGLE TIME I see someone on TV bitching about gas prices, they are driving an Excursion, or an Escalade, or a Suburban? > I don't see what the big deal is. It is all about supply and demand > and market forces. The reason the Americans probably don't think too > much to a fair percentage of the cars made for our market, is because > they are not suitable for theirs and it's the same vice-versa. The > companies that customise cars for different markets, those cars will > do well. There will only be the odd exceptions to that general rule. Like the SUVs in places like NYC and LA? > One point I would like to add on this whole crash thing, I would say > that the newer a car is the better it will withstand a crash against a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with things like this. This Saturn though I believe that was just one > of their basic cars. Toyotas once used the Ford system, where the shoulder harness would glide into place. After hangging out the window of a Camry when my BIL started the car, I think I know why they stopped (GAG!) > John >> In the US they mainly have bigger automatic cars and SUVs because >> they are ideal for and designed for their needs. > > Not really. I'd bet 3/4 of the SUVs in this country NEVER see ANY > off-road use, and prolly 1/2 of those never even see dirt roads. 75%? More like 98%+, especially those with the low profile tires and spinner rims... >>> In the US they mainly have bigger automatic cars and SUVs because >>> they are ideal for and designed for their needs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 75%? More like 98%+, especially those with the low profile tires and spinner > rims... Cruising down the Freeway in LA county? ;) >> 75%? More like 98%+, especially those with the low profile tires and >> spinner rims... > > Cruising down the Freeway in LA county? ;) Yeah, there too. >One thing I like about American cars is the seat belt. I was in I >think it was a Saturn, and the seat belts moved across automatically [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >John the US had a law sometime in the ealy 90s or late 80s, requiring a form of passive restraint system that didn't require the driver to do anything. Many went for the airbags (and thats what is used exclusively now) but early on, many distrust them, and went for a system using seatbelts. When the door was closed, the seatbelt was at the shoulder position, when it was open, it was somewhere on the a-pillar. This meant you only had to get in, and sit down, and when you closed the door you had a seatbelt which went from shoulder to hip, no effort etc. There was then a second inertia reel belt usually on the door side, by the hip, you brought across as a lap belt. Was a simpler and easier solution than airbags, but easily circumventable - just use the clip to undo th seatbelt (required for large packages and other situatiosn when such a belt would be a hinndrence. not sure when, but i believe airbags are now required, and the motorised belt system can not be installed in cars any more. (note, i'm a brit who only started driving in the US in 98, and only moved here in 03 so i don't know the 'history' that well) >I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics. > >However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy? >What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle? >Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what? Exactly. It's an "arms war" mentality, where EVERYBODY loses, due to all the wasted resources. > I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > one *tiny* person sitting in it, mostly on the cell phone (not paying > attention to the traffic, thereby greatly increasing the risk of accidents). You've been reading my posts again, eh? Plagarism...you'll be hearing from my Lawyers... Honest to God true story: saw a woman on a rural highway (2 laner) about to enter the highway, talking on the phone, eating a sandwich and doing something that looked like drying her nails, while driving an Expedition. > How dumb is that? It's not about the few hundred dollars a year of gas you > save, it's about the insanity of just blowing away a finite resource that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But you *would* run over those wimpy folks in their Civics, wouldn't you? > The main thing is you survive? >> I just shudder everytime I see one of those ridiculously *huge* >> SUVs, with one *tiny* person sitting in it, mostly on the cell phone >> (not paying attention to the traffic, thereby greatly increasing the >> risk of accidents). > > You've been reading my posts again, eh? Not at all. It's personal experience in the oh-so-offroady SF Bay Area, augmented by survival instinct (in my 88 Civic and on my bicycle in traffic, both of which I know will leave me dead if an SUV decides to run over me). > Plagarism...you'll be hearing from my Lawyers... :) > Honest to God true story: saw a woman on a rural highway (2 laner) > about > to enter the highway, talking on the phone, eating a sandwich and > doing something that looked like drying her nails, while driving an > Expedition. *shakes head*... >Those that hate SUVs and do >not want others to drive them like to distort the facts about accidents to >favor their cause. Bullshit. What you say about "size helping" is true, but what you conveniently leave out is that the higher mass of the SUV inflicts higher-than necessary damage on the other vehicle. With proper engineering, people can be SAFER in a car than in an SUV, and NOT be the danger to everyone else on the road that heavy trucks and SUV's are. >I don't own an SUV, I drive only larger RWD vehicles. >From what I know I will never ride in a small FWD car just to save a few >hundred dollar a year on fuel. I can understand why you feel that way, considering all the freaking BARGES on the roads these days... I disagree - the facts show the higher center of gravity, the worse off you are. I watched an Explorer barrel roll with 5 kids in it after changing lanes at 50 MPH - probably because the air pressure in the tires was to high. I also watched a Jeep Grand Cherokee make a panic stop at 55 MPH with it's rear end hopping all over and eventually rolling on its side. The next time you see a Jeep pass you on the highway at 80, just know that if it makes a panic stop, the family inside is s__t out of luck. > You better do a bit more research, if that is what you believe, because > your information is not based on facts. Only around 2% of ALL of the [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >>>>Chrysler - but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of >>>>late. I agree, SUVs may appear to be safer, and if they are involved with a smaller vehicle in a crash they will be less affected, however, after the initial crash, the spinning and barrel rolling will ultimately kill and maim. In our state, the vehicles with the highest injury rate are SUVs and motorcylces. >> Buyers buy the vehicles they want and can afford. In Europe vehicles and >> fuel are heavy taxed to pay for their socialist system of government so [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>>Chrysler - but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of >>>late. >>>> if there ARE any nice, solid, dependable Euro cars, we AIN'T getting >>>> them [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > On another note, remember that Mercedes has been contaminated by Chrysler - > but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of late. LOL. I thought Chryslr was getting a leg up from M-B! My college roommate had a 2002 Tii. Amazing car! Drove like on rails. Was 3 years old. Couldn't pass the local BMW dealer... Same with my '73 Volvo 1800ES, 3 years old, 52,000 miles. Amazing cars, nickle and dime you (well, a couple Franklins here and there) out of your bank account! Wife (er, EX, that is) has a '94 325i with 45,000 when she bought it, now has 80,000, always calling me with issues. Is on it's THIRD tranny... > LOL. I thought Chryslr was getting a leg up from M-B! Oh they are. Chryslers have come on in leaps and bounds, so much that Chrysler/Dodge and probably soon Plymouth brands will be seen on UK streets as normal. The Neon and PT cruiser are badged Chrysler here, but the 300 Sedan is a Dodge. It is just that Mercedes got the rough end of the stick. Chrysler improves, mercedes gets weakened. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com Well, Chrysler improves? I haven't seen it. The service manager at our local Chrysler dealership says that they can't keep up with all the problems, and half of the problems don't have a solution yet. Across the street at Honda, the only backup they have on service is the oil change lane. >> LOL. I thought Chryslr was getting a leg up from M-B! >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is just that Mercedes got the rough end of the stick. Chrysler > improves, mercedes gets weakened. >I am from Pennsylvania, over here in the states, and I was wondering how >everyone in Europe gets along without driving a pickup. I never see any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >A majority of the vehicles over here that are on the road are gas guzzling >bricks on wheels. BBC's top gear did a review of an F150 in the UK a few months back. Actually it was the F150 lightning, but still. Anyway Pro - 2/3 seats, qualified for commercial vehicle rates, large load area, car-like driving position cons - huge reletively unpowerfull engine, handles like sh.t, load area open. There are *some* pickups, but they're not common, mainly rangers and hi-lux (a downloadable clip on bbc.co.uk/topgear/ does show them trying to destroy a hi-lux pickup - a must watch) but the drop-side transit is far more popular. Its not hard to see why either. The load capacity is greater, the engine more efficient, and, you can drop the sides, makes it more of a flat-bed with fencing. For everyday work, you've got a range of vans, of variosu sizes, from car-based ones capable of taking a full pallet with a car front-end, to long wheelbase hi-cube vans with a 3.5ton GMVW. Did i mention that these are enclosed, so hearer to steal from, and also more efficient, since you've not got the bed's door acting like a 'chute. They're not even that slow - a standard road legal Diesel transit can manage the nurenburg ring in just over 10 minutes. In short, pickups are too over-engined for family use (engines detuned for those damned slush-boxes) fuel inefficient, don't drive very nicely (poor handling and turning circles) and leave anything carried easily stealable. >>I am from Pennsylvania, over here in the states, and I was wondering how >>everyone in Europe gets along without driving a pickup. I never see any [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cons - huge reletively unpowerfull engine, handles like sh.t, load > area open. Hmmmm....my boss had a Lightening and I asked for a 'ride', he said "Key's in it" didn't have to tell ME twice. I thought it was a pretty damn good truck for a '68 Corvette! The fact that it handled that well and that fast amazed me. > There are *some* pickups, but they're not common, mainly rangers and > hi-lux (a downloadable clip on bbc.co.uk/topgear/ does show them > trying to destroy a hi-lux pickup - a must watch) I've actually seen that on US telly and on the web. but the drop-side > transit is far more popular. Its not hard to see why either. The load > capacity is greater, the engine more efficient, and, you can drop the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > nicely (poor handling and turning circles) and leave anything carried > easily stealable. > Hmmmm....my boss had a Lightening and I asked for a 'ride', he said "Key's > in it" didn't have to tell ME twice. > > I thought it was a pretty damn good truck for a '68 Corvette! > The fact that it handled that well and that fast amazed me. Mayu handle well in the US for a US vehicle, but, UK roads are narrower and we have corners and twisty roads. It doesn't quite have the precission needed for a vehicle that is so big compared to the road it needs to be driven on over here. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> Hmmmm....my boss had a Lightening and I asked for a 'ride', he said "Key's >> in it" didn't have to tell ME twice. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > precission needed for a vehicle that is so big compared to the road it > needs to be driven on over here. Drove it on an old US (two lane...they were just marking the Brand New pavement (uh, that's NOT a sidewalk for those of you from Yirrup...) and then on the Interstate. Pretty good to me. Uh, he had made some 'mods', like exhaust and chipping the thing. Est. 425 HP... > >> Hmmmm....my boss had a Lightening and I asked for a 'ride', he said "Key's > >> in it" didn't have to tell ME twice. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Uh, he had made some 'mods', like exhaust and chipping the thing. Est. 425 > HP... Please explain how you 'chip' a '68 Corvette. SignatureSteve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> >> Hmmmm....my boss had a Lightening and I asked for a 'ride', he said "Key's >> >> in it" didn't have to tell ME twice. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Please explain how you 'chip' a '68 Corvette. No, no, no! Please DO try to keep up! I said the performance of the LIGHTENING was the same as a '68 Vette. He Chipped the Lightening to 425HP Sheesh!!! ;) (the trick here was; look at my first sentance. Then in the second one I said the truck was pretty good for a '68 Vette...because that's what it felt like I was driving...sorry for the confusion!) >>>I am from Pennsylvania, over here in the states, and I was wondering how >>>everyone in Europe gets along without driving a pickup. I never see any [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I thought it was a pretty damn good truck for a '68 Corvette! >The fact that it handled that well and that fast amazed me. I have to say, you've obviously never had much experiance with high-end vehicles then. Turning is sloppy and vaugue, suspension is floaty and nausia inducing, unless its in a sports car where they've decided that shock absorbers are a weighty extravigence. Build quality is usually poor, and engines are usually detuned to give more torque low-down for the ubixuitus slush-boxes to work best. in 99, i used to drive a 98 TVR cerbera for a daily driver, the speed8 with the 4.5 I think.I had to make a trip to LA. I was staying with a friend, and he let me use his car when i needed to (a brand new, 2000 corvette) First time i drove it, I thought it was in limp mode. I took the cars owner out in it later that day, and said 'can't you feel it?' "Feels fine to me". A small fibreglass car with that big of an engine should not perform that badly. It was on a par with a delorian, and that should say something. >> There are *some* pickups, but they're not common, mainly rangers and >> hi-lux (a downloadable clip on bbc.co.uk/topgear/ does show them >> trying to destroy a hi-lux pickup - a must watch) > >I've actually seen that on US telly and on the web. yeah, i gave you the weblink, wasn't sure though if it'd been on the discovery channel yet. > but the drop-side >> transit is far more popular. Its not hard to see why either. The load [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> nicely (poor handling and turning circles) and leave anything carried >> easily stealable. >>>>I am from Pennsylvania, over here in the states, and I was wondering how >>>>everyone in Europe gets along without driving a pickup. I never see any [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > in 99, i used to drive a 98 TVR cerbera for a daily driver, the speed8 > with the 4.5 I think. HOLY CRAP!!!! I've never even SEEN one except for the magazines. Fire-breathing monster, from what I hear... > I had to make a trip to LA. I was staying with a > friend, and he let me use his car when i needed to (a brand new, 2000 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> nicely (poor handling and turning circles) and leave anything carried >>> easily stealable. >>>> if there ARE any nice, solid, dependable Euro cars, we AIN'T getting >>>> them [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >On another note, remember that Mercedes has been contaminated by Chrysler - >but I don't know why BMW is having reliability problems as of late. You don't see pickups over here cos we have to be able to go around corners in our cars, unlike you boys we also pay 65-70% tax on fuel so big 5L gas guzzlers don't sell that well. but we can all dream of the day when America rules the world and we all get to be a yank! Alfas are not bought cos they are rock solid and never break down, they are bought because we love them. We don't want to be Yanks thats why we don't buy those PICKUP things. >> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t >> together on Diesles! > >You've obviously never driven a Fiat/Alfa JTD or a VAG TDI, then. nor has he driven a jag, peugeot, citroen, european ford, or indeed any car with a MODERN deisel engine in them (as opposed to a NEW engine, which is a recently made old design) >>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any car with a MODERN deisel engine in them (as opposed to a NEW > engine, which is a recently made old design) What I have driven: BMW 2002Tii BMW 325i '58 M-B Convertible Fiat 600 Fiat 125 (128???) '73 911 '88 928 Ferrarri Dino. '73 ("tethered"; the owner was sitting right next to me looking like a nervous father...) '73 Volvo 1800ES (mine) '63 SAAB 3-cylinder 2-stroke (also mine...used to call it Purple Haze, since the oiling system was broken and had to mix gas:oil for worst-case (highway speed) scenarios. Left a blue cloud at stop signs) '58 Jaguar sedan '82 Jaguar XJS (again with a 'nervous parent'!) '70(? '69?) Jaguar XKE (for about 3 minutes around a car lot...) '78 Alfa Romeo Convertible (open the dictionary and look up 'cowl shake'...) '58(? '59?) BMW Isetta, 'coupe' and 'limousine' versions. '68 TVR '75 MG Midget '73 MGB-GT '72 Jensen-Healy 4WD '6something Healy '74 Triumph TR6 '68 Triumph TR3 (4a?) '80 Triumph TR8 '74 Triumph Spitfire '88 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon That's just the Europeans Add to that Mustangs, a '63 Corvette Split-window coupe, Camaros, Firebirds, etc. And, add to that, just about every model of Toyota imported to the US since 1968 (except a 2000GT :( ),and a pile of Nissans from the 510 to the 300Z, and a Mazda Cosmos and rx-7's from '80 to '98. >>>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >>>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Add to that Mustangs, a '63 Corvette Split-window coupe, Camaros, >Firebirds, etc. I notice a conspicious lack of diesel engined cars there, ven the BMW diesels (for instance, the 330d is now the most powerful+fastest 3-series) >And, add to that, just about every model of Toyota imported to the US >since 1968 (except a 2000GT :( ),and a pile of Nissans from the 510 to the >300Z, and a Mazda Cosmos and rx-7's from '80 to '98. Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry, its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87 caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie steel for you. >>>>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >>>>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie > steel for you. Google 'hachiroku' I have had more Toyotas than anything. Least time owned, 2 years (accident) Most time owned, 19 years and counting. Currently... 1985 Corolla GT-S (hachiroku) 256,000 and counting (bought with 10,000 miles in '86) 1985 Celica GT-S, 254,000 nice body, replaced engine last fall 1988 Supra. Lots of leaks, but a nice running car. A good 5 years left anyway. 1986 Camry, 83,000 keeps on ticking... Like Lee Iacocca said in the '80's, "If you can find a better built car, buy it". So I did, and never stopped. Thanks, Lee! >Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over >the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised >theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry, >its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87 >caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie >steel for you. An '05 is "already rusting", huh? Yeah, that's real believable. The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short term, when it's galvaneeled and painted. >>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over >>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >An '05 is "already rusting", huh? Yeah, that's real believable. Rust was first visible in feb. Easy to remember, since i noticed it in the road outside my house, and it was whilst we were moving. >The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short >term, when it's galvaneeled and painted. Well, assumingits galvanised and painted right. But with all the shakeups at all ifferent levels of the corp, the financial switching arond and so forth, you'd be amazed. Amazing what you find out when a reletive owns a company that supplies toyotas metal (or rather did, and never got paid for it, and has been trying to get payment via the courts for 5 years) >>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over >>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Rust was first visible in feb. Easy to remember, since i noticed it in >the road outside my house, and it was whilst we were moving. Sure. >>The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short >>term, when it's galvaneeled and painted. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and never got paid for it, and has been trying to get payment via the >courts for 5 years) Cite, please. >>>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over >>>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Cite, please. Damn, man, you're starting to sound like bb... >>>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over >>>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Cite, please. Case is Pastafont Steel Vs Toyota - if you're able to get the documents, you'll also know how to find them. >>>>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over >>>>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Case is Pastafont Steel Vs Toyota Google search revealed nothing, save one post from one person in a Web forum. >- if you're able to get the >documents, you'll also know how to find them. There's logic for ya... Lack of evidence noted. >>>>>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over >>>>>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Lack of evidence noted. yes.. As i suspected, no clue, thinking google knows all and searches all. So, in reality, you searched only the most public 10% of the web, and are surprised to find no documents to an upcomming court case. As I said, if you had any chance of being able to read the documents, you'd be able to find them. Or, to spell that out in simpler language for you, If you have either a) the ability to find the documents through research, checking and deduction, OR if you had access to the appropriate search engines for the task, then you'd be able to read the,. A single search on google shows no effort, ability, or inteligence. Unlike you, i did some followup checking (which you were too lazy to do) and i found the poster K`Tetch listed on the court documents, having some ties to the case (under his real name, which about 20 minutes work found me. Tis amazing what you can do when you actually a) have a brain and b) USE IT. >Tis amazing what you can do when you actually a) have a brain and b) >USE IT. Still no evidence form you. > Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY > Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t > together on Diesles! Europe is a totally different ball game for oil burners. They are the biggest sellers in the non-luxury large car markets, making grounds in the luxury large car markets, and the medium family car markets. Even some of the "Hot Hatch" small hatch back models by VW/Seat/Skoda/Audi have the best performance model being a turbo diesel. With petrol in europe being so expensive, performance diesels are just as popular because of the better fuel consumption. Oh and some of them "run fine" of Veg oils and bio diesel fuels. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as popular because of the better fuel consumption. Oh and some of them > "run fine" of Veg oils and bio diesel fuels. Yeah, I know diesels are a lot more popular in Yurrip, but our experience over here is that, unless you're running a Kenworth or something with a Cummins in it, stay away. The exception being the Rabbit ('75-82 Golf) diesels, esp the little trucklet they made. Those seem to run forever with about the same maintenance one would put into a Corolla...sometimes, that is. I've seen them with a half a mil on them! Thanks, Skoda-Sleeker-NeedFor... I guess the meatballs are ON, eh? ;) > >> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY > >> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I guess the meatballs are ON, eh? ;) Yep. Yep, topless, leather and a fine old girl :) All in a car related topic. Thing is, while I'm trying to sell it, I take the Celica out for the odd quick run to make sure that the battery stays charged etc. And while it does my back (Sciatica and yes it can get you in your 30's), it feels so tight and flat cornering, and drives so well. The Saab is wallowy (in comparison) and rolls through corners, but isn't actually that much slower. It actually hangs on very well for a fwd soft convertible cruiser. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> >> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >> >> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > does my back (Sciatica and yes it can get you in your 30's), it feels so > tight and flat cornering, and drives so well. Yeah, I've had it since my 20's! All it takes is bending the wrong way ONCE! Then it's an on-again-off-again thing for therest of your life. I work it out riding a 10 speed. Why sell the Celica? Run it into the ground if you can. > The Saab is wallowy (in comparison) and rolls through corners, but isn't > actually that much slower. It actually hangs on very well for a fwd soft > convertible cruiser. > Why sell the Celica? Run it into the ground if you can. Fuel costs. Makes the difference. The difference between £35 a week in the Celica, and £28 in the Saab. Also, the celica is losing/burning oil. Not enough to kill it, but enough for it to need almost weekly/200 mile topups. The Saab was totally rebuilt and is completley oil tight on full synthetic. Actually considering selling both now (or advertising both), drive the one that doesn't sell, keep advertising that one, and when it goes get something, silly, small, old, cheap, diesel, and run it on vegetable oil mix or bio diesel. SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > All it takes is bending the wrong way ONCE! Then it's an > on-again-off-again thing for therest of your life. I think mine was from changing shocks on a car (crawling on the floor), and driving it with motorsport bucket seats in. Got better after I got my first Saab. Has slowly crept back since owning the Celica and having the suspension put right. the more I improved the handling, the worse my back got. Guess I need a Bentley or something else with air suspension "honestly dear, for health reasons" ;) SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> All it takes is bending the wrong way ONCE! Then it's an >> on-again-off-again thing for therest of your life. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the Celica and having the suspension put right. the more I improved the > handling, the worse my back got. One thing about Euro (esp Swedish) cars is that they ARE comfortable! > Guess I need a Bentley or something else with air suspension "honestly > dear, for health reasons" ;) Right. "Honey, I need to unass $275,000US for a Bentley cause of my bad back..." >>> All it takes is bending the wrong way ONCE! Then it's an >>> on-again-off-again thing for therest of your life. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >One thing about Euro (esp Swedish) cars is that they ARE comfortable! Damned right. The seats in my 340 i can take for 9+ hours easily. Never managed more than 3 in anything else without back pain, unless i've 'modified' the seatback to match the volvo's, with a towel or similar. >> Guess I need a Bentley or something else with air suspension "honestly >> dear, for health reasons" ;) > >Right. "Honey, I need to unass $275,000US for a Bentley cause of my bad >back..." its possible to redo suspensions to totally different systems. Not sure on the air-ride, but I did modify some citroen stuff for my MG metroTT, to give it the power hydraulic suspension of their old Bx series, with the activ system they fit in their xantia's (meant I could alter the ride height, and it had an active anti-roll system, giving 1deg of body-roll max.) Was a very comfortable and smooth ride. Wasn't easy, not entirely trouble free, or low-maintaince either, but works VERY well. I'd suggest you looked into it trueno, but i assume you're in NA where citroen parts are hard to find. >>>> All it takes is bending the wrong way ONCE! Then it's an >>>> on-again-off-again thing for therest of your life. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > works VERY well. I'd suggest you looked into it trueno, but i assume > you're in NA where citroen parts are hard to find. I was working in an auot parts store 2-3 years ago and a guy came in looking for a brake light swtitch for a Citroen XM. Right... He pulled the old one out on the spot and we matched it with a Ford switch. Said there were HUNDREDS of <<'s at UMass. Went there and was overwhelmed! There was a group of Traction Avants that had gone around the world! They started in Paris; some went from Paris to the West Coast (California) and some went the whole route, island hopping in the Pacific, to Australia and then to San Francisco to cross the US. The next stop was NYC for some, others were going to Montreal first. Simply amazing cars, oldest was a '38. Some were rough, others were stunningly beautiful. The friendliest Parisienne there told me all about his, it had been restored to original using as many authentic materials as he could find, it was truly a stunning ride. Along with that was every model of 2CV you could think of, along with some other << 'oddities'. There weren't as many 'Goddesses' (DS) as I would have thought, but there were a few. There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance (number 3, I think!) Man, I was in Hog Heaven! I have always thought the TA was one of the nicest cars ever built, and here I was surrounded by them! Never actually saw inside one before, though. Very simple machine; guys were literally fixing them with bailing wire! When I was a kid in somewhat-rural Massachusetts there was a guy that owned a gas station in a very small town that had a passle of them, and did repairs to them, too. Probably the only (somewhat) << repair in Western Mass! Had a pile of DSs, even a station ("Estate") wagon. I can still see it in my mind's eye, 30 years later rusting behind a barn. What a waste... >There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their >new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance >(number 3, I think!) not a big fan of modern Rally cars. They're getting to be so sensitive, and delicate, and computer controlled. I'll stick with 6R4's and my fathers old 71 escort rally car. >>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their >>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sensitive, and delicate, and computer controlled. I'll stick with > 6R4's and my fathers old 71 escort rally car. Was it '88? '90? '92? Ford RS200 Rallye car. What a machine! >>>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their >>>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ford RS200 Rallye car. What a machine! yeah, and what a shame the 6R4 metro kept kicking its backside the escort was a 1971. (hence '71 escort') most of the 6R4's i've driven were 83-84ish, groupB like the RS200s >>>>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their >>>>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>Was it '88? '90? '92? Was it '88? '90? '92?Ford RS200 Rallye car. What a machine! Um, this is what I meant... > yeah, and what a shame the 6R4 metro kept kicking its backside > > the escort was a 1971. (hence '71 escort') I remember the Escorts. We had a different model here. The looked kind of similar, but you guys got the GOOD looking one! > most of the 6R4's i've driven were 83-84ish, groupB like the RS200s Gruppe B..the Killer B's. They cancelled for what, one year? Two years? Killing off your spectators is NOT a good way to advance your sport! Kinda like 'football' (soccer) or Rugby. I remember watching a race from Spain and a car went off the road, into the crowd, running over a Mother and her 12 YO son, killing the boy. Can't remember the driver; if I said the name you'd know it. Poor kid probably bugged his Mom for hours or days to get her to take him... >>>>>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their >>>>>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Was it '88? '90? '92?Ford RS200 Rallye car. What a machine! >Um, this is what I meant... the RS200's were group B cars, and thus only made 82-84, I think. Thats pretty much the entire time period for all the group B rally cars, although the 6R4 was made until 85, iirc, because of the success of the baby 250hp version in club-level rallyin. >> yeah, and what a shame the 6R4 metro kept kicking its backside >> >> the escort was a 1971. (hence '71 escort') > >I remember the Escorts. We had a different model here. The looked kind of >similar, but you guys got the GOOD looking one! they didn't look that good in 71-72 when they first came out. >> most of the 6R4's i've driven were 83-84ish, groupB like the RS200s > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the crowd, running over a Mother and her 12 YO son, killing the boy. Can't >remember the driver; if I said the name you'd know it. Thats the risk that goes with every Rally, even nowadays. One of the hardest parts too, because you have to ignore the spectators and hope they WILL get out of the way in timeYou watch the covereage of some of the WRC races now, and you'll see that sometimes the cars miss the photorgaphers by a foot or two, as the guys scampering back to the bank, after taking a head-on shot. It really does take all your nerve to keep going, and not stop through sheer instinct to avoid 'possibly hitting people' >Poor kid probably bugged his Mom for hours or days to get her to take him... WE all did (well, mine was more along the lines of 'can i be your co-driver this time') >>>>>>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their >>>>>>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > to keep going, and not stop through sheer instinct to avoid 'possibly > hitting people' I've seen photogs get hit! >>Poor kid probably bugged his Mom for hours or days to get her to take him... > > WE all did (well, mine was more along the lines of 'can i be your > co-driver this time') Must have been fun. My mom HATES cars! ('Cause i have so many?) >>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >over here is that, unless you're running a Kenworth or something with a >Cummins in it, stay away. Well yeah, if you will insist on running 20yo diesel engine designs, expect them to behave like 20yo designs. Spent sunday helping a friend work on a F250 with a 7.3l powerstroke diesel. That engine design was older than the 1.9 diesel a friend had in his 93 Ford fiesta company van When you start getting modern Diesel fuel, you'll get modern diesel engines. >The exception being the Rabbit ('75-82 Golf) diesels, esp the little >trucklet they made. Those seem to run forever with about the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I guess the meatballs are ON, eh? ;) >>>> Unless you're really strapped for cash, though, I would stay away from ANY >>>> Diesel! I don't think there is a company out there that has their sh!t [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > older than the 1.9 diesel a friend had in his 93 Ford fiesta company > van The 7.3 is a fairly decent engine. International built. > When you start getting modern Diesel fuel, you'll get modern diesel > engines. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >>I guess the meatballs are ON, eh? ;) > The 7.3 is a fairly decent engine. International built. Don't they build Combines? SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> The 7.3 is a fairly decent engine. International built. >> > Don't they build Combines? Ya, dot too.... <snip> >147 (£5k to £7k) >http://tinyurl.com/ca6n3 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >cars do you personally like at the moment that you would realistically >consider for yourself if you were on the market for a new or used car? The 147 is based quite closely on a 156. Some time ago, I saw running cost figures (can't remember where - motoring mag probably) that indicated that a 156 would cost the same to run as a Porsche Boxter when main dealer serviced. My experience has led me to agree with that finding..they can be frighteningly expensive come service time. If you're on any tight budget, do yourself a favour and get something else. As I can cope with the running costs, I'd get what I've had for over four years now...best looking and best car I've ever had.. SignatureZ Scotland Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD Veloce Leather 'Oil' be seeing you.. (Email without 'Alfa' in subject are auto-deleted..sorry!) > Ibiza Tdi (Have seen 130hp Tdis for just over £7k) > http://tinyurl.com/bogs7 For performance against fuel and insurance cost I really don't think you can beat these. goto www.seatcupra.net/forums for more info Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I am probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may be too expensive for my budget. John > Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec > engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I am > probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may be too > expensive for my budget. An Alfa is never too expensive..... just look at the depreciation ;-) SignatureSteve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec >> engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I >> am probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may >> be too expensive for my budget. > > An Alfa is never too expensive..... just look at the depreciation ;-) lol > >> Thanks for a |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message