Hello,

I have 4000 to get a car on the road and was wodneirng on any suggestions.

My uses will be for mainly in London and driving down to portsmouth.

Looking for all the modern bits and bobs. Prefer a 2 door hatch.

So far I have come up with the following but as I know next to nothing about
cars I though I could ask.

Citroen Saxo
Fiesta zetec 1.25
VW polo
VW golf

the vw's looking for quite new versions.

Any nudges in the right direction would be nice.

Thanks

"Souls"  wrote in message
news:da3pu6$5na$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Hello,
>
> I have 4000 to get a car on the road and was wodneirng on any
suggestions.
>
> My uses will be for mainly in London and driving down to portsmouth.
>
> Looking for all the modern bits and bobs. Prefer a 2 door hatch.
>
> So far I have come up with the following but as I know next to nothing
about
> cars I though I could ask.
>
> Citroen Saxo
> Fiesta zetec 1.25
> VW polo
> VW golf
>
> the vw's looking for quite new versions.
>
> Any nudges in the right direction would be nice.



Arguably the Festa would give you a newer car for your money , though the
VW's would probably hold their money better long term.

I would avoid the Saxo like the plague. It's an old design and though very
cheap to buy, it feels it! The 1.1 Saxo engine is also far less fun than the
1.25 Zetec engine in the Festa. For longish journeys like the A3(M) you
would probably be better off with a 1.4 or 1.5D Saxo if you have to buy one.
A basic Citroen C3 may be available for 4000 with higher miles. That money
would also get you a 2+ year old Vauxhall Corsa 1.2.

Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only from
www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................

Souls wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have 4000 to get a car on the road and was wodneirng on any suggestions.
> 
> My uses will be for mainly in London and driving down to portsmouth.
> 
> Looking for all the modern bits and bobs. Prefer a 2 door hatch.
> 
> So far I have come up with the following but as I know next to nothing about
> cars I though I could ask.
> 
> Citroen Saxo
> Fiesta zetec 1.25
> VW polo
> VW golf
> 
> the vw's looking for quite new versions.
> 
> Any nudges in the right direction would be nice.
> 


It looks like you're after a small car.

Half that budget and look around. It can be just as good (if not 
better/more) and it'll be cheaper.

For example, friend just last week got a S-reg Pegueot 306 1.4 with full 
electrics including air/con. for 1500 including new MOT and service 
history. Just needed to add tax.
Dunno if that was a good market price, but it's over half of 4k.

Doctor D wrote:

> 
> Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only from
> www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................
> 
> 


*wow*

Is that Rover 25 2.0 TurboDiesel the BMW engine?

> Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only from
> www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................


City Rover?  Isn't that the Chinese built POS?  Tata or something?

That's quite possibly the worst advice I've ever heard.  A 3-year old small 
VAG TDI would be a very good way to go.

Peter

>> Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only from
>> www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................
>
> *wow*
>
> Is that Rover 25 2.0 TurboDiesel the BMW engine?


Sadly not.  It's an L-series, which is a modern derivative (or should that 
be dervative?) of the old Perkins Prima in the old Maestro/Montego. 
Apparently known for throwing cambelts, so make sure the cambelt gets done, 
along with all tensioners, and preferably water pump, at the recommended 
intervals by a reputable person using genuine parts (if you can't find a 
local Rover dealer for parts, try and get decent quality OEM spec ones) - or 
slightly early.

They're a good engine, offering decent performance and very good economy, 
almost on a par with VAG TDIs and PSA HDIs.

Peter

AstraVanMan wrote:

>>>Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only from
>>>www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................
>>
>>*wow*
>>
>>Is that Rover 25 2.0 TurboDiesel the BMW engine?
> 
> 
> Sadly not.  It's an L-series, which is a modern derivative (or should that 
> be dervative?) of the old Perkins Prima in the old Maestro/Montego. 
> Apparently known for throwing cambelts, so make sure the cambelt gets done, 
> along with all tensioners, and preferably water pump, at the recommended 
> intervals by a reputable person using genuine parts (if you can't find a 
> local Rover dealer for parts, try and get decent quality OEM spec ones) - or 
> slightly early.
> 
> They're a good engine, offering decent performance and very good economy, 
> almost on a par with VAG TDIs and PSA HDIs.
> 


Hmm... can they be chipped or is the ECU something special?

>>>Is that Rover 25 2.0 TurboDiesel the BMW engine?
>>
>> Sadly not.  It's an L-series, which is a modern derivative (or should 
>> that be dervative?) of the old Perkins Prima in the old Maestro/Montego. 
>> Apparently known for throwing cambelts, so make sure the cambelt gets 
>> done, along with all tensioners, and preferably water pump, at the 
>> recommended intervals by a reputable person using genuine parts (if you 
>> can't find a local Rover dealer for parts, try and get decent quality OEM 
>> spec ones) - or slightly early.
>>
>> They're a good engine, offering decent performance and very good economy, 
>> almost on a par with VAG TDIs and PSA HDIs.
>
> Hmm... can they be chipped or is the ECU something special?


I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around 80bhp and 
105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated on earlier Rover 
models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp, whereas 220D/220SD weren't - 
geddit?), and I think they're chippable to around 130bhp or so.

Peter

AstraVanMan wrote:

>>>>Is that Rover 25 2.0 TurboDiesel the BMW engine?
>>>
>>>Sadly not.  It's an L-series, which is a modern derivative (or should 
>>>that be dervative?) of the old Perkins Prima in the old Maestro/Montego. 
>>>Apparently known for throwing cambelts, so make sure the cambelt gets 
>>>done, along with all tensioners, and preferably water pump, at the 
>>>recommended intervals by a reputable person using genuine parts (if you 
>>>can't find a local Rover dealer for parts, try and get decent quality OEM 
>>>spec ones) - or slightly early.
>>>
>>>They're a good engine, offering decent performance and very good economy, 
>>>almost on a par with VAG TDIs and PSA HDIs.
>>
>>Hmm... can they be chipped or is the ECU something special?
> 
> 
> I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around 80bhp and 
> 105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated on earlier Rover 
> models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp, whereas 220D/220SD weren't - 
> geddit?), and I think they're chippable to around 130bhp or so.
> 


And they're only group 7 insurance!

See, if I was continuing my full-time work (with its business mileage) 
for the next 2-3 years I'd get one.
That's a lot of brand new car for 7k.

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
news:zrfxe.15230$zM2.5522@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> > Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only from
> > www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................
>
> City Rover?  Isn't that the Chinese built POS?  Tata or something?
>
> That's quite possibly the worst advice I've ever heard.  A 3-year old
small
> VAG TDI would be a very good way to go.
>
> Peter
>
>


Hi,

Appreciate the replies just finished de-crypting the 3 letter codes <g>

I've been reading a few reviews and found this the VW golf 1.4e 3 door 5599
on the motorpoint website probably find it quite a bit cheaper from
somewhere like autotrader. Going to check the second hand value on parkers.
Any thoughts on this car?

Cheers

> Appreciate the replies just finished de-crypting the 3 letter codes <g>
>
> I've been reading a few reviews and found this the VW golf 1.4e 3 door 
> 5599
> on the motorpoint website probably find it quite a bit cheaper from
> somewhere like autotrader. Going to check the second hand value on 
> parkers.
> Any thoughts on this car?


It'll be too underpowered if you ask me.  Get a 1.9TDI - even the 90bhp 
version is a bloody good engine.  Go for no less than a 1.8T if getting a 
petrol.  Use the nationwide search facility on autotrader.co.uk and find out 
what a decent price to pay really is.  Look at private sales as well.  Often 
you'll get a better looked after car than something for sale by a dealer 
anyway.

Peter

"T."  wrote in message 
news:42c58fc9$0$24052$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

> AstraVanMan wrote:

>> I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around 80bhp and 
>> 105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated on earlier Rover 
>> models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp, whereas 220D/220SD weren't - 
>> geddit?), and I think they're chippable to around 130bhp or so.
>>
>
> And they're only group 7 insurance!
>


Not if you chip them and declare it. And if you don't then you're uninsured 
if you crash it. They *do* check.

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
news:qrhxe.15267$zM2.10976@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> > Appreciate the replies just finished de-crypting the 3 letter codes <g>
> >
> > I've been reading a few reviews and found this the VW golf 1.4e 3 door
> > 5599
> > on the motorpoint website probably find it quite a bit cheaper from
> > somewhere like autotrader. Going to check the second hand value on
> > parkers.
> > Any thoughts on this car?
>
> It'll be too underpowered if you ask me.  Get a 1.9TDI - even the 90bhp
> version is a bloody good engine.  Go for no less than a 1.8T if getting a
> petrol.  Use the nationwide search facility on autotrader.co.uk and find
out
> what a decent price to pay really is.  Look at private sales as well.
Often
> you'll get a better looked after car than something for sale by a dealer
> anyway.
>
> Peter
>
>


Ok, thanks for the advice will have a look on autotrader.

Cheers

PC Paul wrote:

>>AstraVanMan wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around 80bhp and 
>>>105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated on earlier Rover 
>>>models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp, whereas 220D/220SD weren't - 
>>>geddit?), and I think they're chippable to around 130bhp or so.
>>>
>>
>>And they're only group 7 insurance!
>>
> 
> 
> Not if you chip them and declare it. And if you don't then you're uninsured 
> if you crash it. They *do* check.
> 


How do they check?
If the dealer themselves can't find it, how can an insurance co.

Besides, the increase might not actually be that much.

"T."  wrote in message 
news:42c5a976$0$24082$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

> PC Paul wrote:
>>>AstraVanMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around 80bhp and 
>>>>105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated on earlier Rover 
>>>>models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp, whereas 220D/220SD weren't - 
>>>>geddit?), and I think they're chippable to around 130bhp or so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And they're only group 7 insurance!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not if you chip them and declare it. And if you don't then you're 
>> uninsured if you crash it. They *do* check.
>>
>
> How do they check?
> If the dealer themselves can't find it, how can an insurance co.
>
> Besides, the increase might not actually be that much.


If a young bloke writes off his car, especially if it's been 'smartened up', 
do you think they wouldn't take the top off the ECU just to check? I would. 
OK you could hide it well, but then if they suspect for some reason (broken 
seals on the ECU?) and check the chip contents with the manufacturer you're 
in a whole heap more trouble.

You could always ask the insurance company. Given that many online brokers 
didn't even want to touch a standard 1.6 with aftermarket alloys for me 
recently, good luck!

AstraVanMan  wrote:


> > Appreciate the replies just finished de-crypting the 3 letter codes <g>
> >
> > I've been reading a few reviews and found this the VW golf 1.4e 3 door
> > 5599
> > on the motorpoint website probably find it quite a bit cheaper from
> > somewhere like autotrader. Going to check the second hand value on 
> > parkers.
> > Any thoughts on this car?
> 
> It'll be too underpowered if you ask me.  Get a 1.9TDI - even the 90bhp
> version is a bloody good engine.  Go for no less than a 1.8T if getting a
> petrol.  Use the nationwide search facility on autotrader.co.uk and find out
> what a decent price to pay really is.  Look at private sales as well.  Often
> you'll get a better looked after car than something for sale by a dealer
> anyway.


<whispers>

The 1.8T is a cracking engine.


-- 
Steve 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 #

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
news:zrfxe.15230$zM2.5522@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> > Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only from
> > www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................
>
> City Rover?  Isn't that the Chinese built POS?  Tata or something?
>
> That's quite possibly the worst advice I've ever heard.  A 3-year old
small
> VAG TDI would be a very good way to go.
>
> Peter
>


Sorry, I should have finished with a :-) ! City Rover was indeed a
collaboration with Tata. I've yet to actually see one on the road.

The .....................was an invitation to comment - and I think your
comment is probably bang on. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. It's
priced at 3999 for a very good reason!

It should also be noted that VOSA issued a warning about some of these where
the wheel trims can rub (and damage) the sidewall of the tyres!

"Doctor D"  wrote in message 
news:42c5b452$0$17875$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

>
> "AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
> news:zrfxe.15230$zM2.5522@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> > Or you could buy a 54 plate City Rover 1.4 with delivery miles only 
>> > from
>> > www.motorpoint.co.uk for 3999......................
>>
>> City Rover?  Isn't that the Chinese built POS?  Tata or something?
>>
>> That's quite possibly the worst advice I've ever heard.  A 3-year old
> small
>> VAG TDI would be a very good way to go.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Sorry, I should have finished with a :-) ! City Rover was indeed a
> collaboration with Tata. I've yet to actually see one on the road.
>
> The .....................was an invitation to comment - and I think your
> comment is probably bang on. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. It's
> priced at 3999 for a very good reason!
>
> It should also be noted that VOSA issued a warning about some of these 
> where
> the wheel trims can rub (and damage) the sidewall of the tyres!
>
>


Take the trims off and you have a car for less than the average price of a 
motorbike/

"Stuart Gray" <me@home> wrote:


> > Sorry, I should have finished with a :-) ! City Rover was indeed a
> > collaboration with Tata. I've yet to actually see one on the road.
> >
> > The .....................was an invitation to comment - and I think your
> > comment is probably bang on. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. It's
> > priced at 3999 for a very good reason!
> >
> > It should also be noted that VOSA issued a warning about some of these
> > where
> > the wheel trims can rub (and damage) the sidewall of the tyres!
> >
> >
> 
> Take the trims off and you have a car for less than the average price of a
> motorbike/ 


Invalid comparison.

A 4k bike will do close on 150mph.
-- 
Steve 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 #

The VAG serial port tuning is a lot harder to pick up. No broken seals on 
ECU and they have to dump the ecu hex coding and compare to standard. not 
easy an probably not worth the hassle. Revo,jabba AMD, upsolute all do 
serial port tuning now for all the VAG cars. SKODA,SEAT, AUDI and VW and 
Porsche.


"PC Paul"  wrote in message 
news:O%hxe.52184$Vo6.15420@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "T."  wrote in message 
> news:42c5a976$0$24082$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> PC Paul wrote:
>>>>AstraVanMan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around 80bhp and 
>>>>>105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated on earlier Rover 
>>>>>models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp, whereas 220D/220SD weren't - 
>>>>>geddit?), and I think they're chippable to around 130bhp or so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And they're only group 7 insurance!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not if you chip them and declare it. And if you don't then you're 
>>> uninsured if you crash it. They *do* check.
>>>
>>
>> How do they check?
>> If the dealer themselves can't find it, how can an insurance co.
>>
>> Besides, the increase might not actually be that much.
>
> If a young bloke writes off his car, especially if it's been 'smartened 
> up', do you think they wouldn't take the top off the ECU just to check? I 
> would. OK you could hide it well, but then if they suspect for some reason 
> (broken seals on the ECU?) and check the chip contents with the 
> manufacturer you're in a whole heap more trouble.
>
> You could always ask the insurance company. Given that many online brokers 
> didn't even want to touch a standard 1.6 with aftermarket alloys for me 
> recently, good luck!
>
>
>
>
> 

> I have 4000 to get a car on the road and was wodneirng on any 
> suggestions.
>
> My uses will be for mainly in London and driving down to portsmouth.
>
> Looking for all the modern bits and bobs. Prefer a 2 door hatch.


You don't *have* to spend all 4K on the car - personally I would spend 
around half that then think about getting LPG conversion or similar - I 
think it exempts you from the congestion charge which makes a considerable 
saving over a few years!  Of course, if you're not generally affected by the 
CC then buy a diesel; they're good for the mileages going between London and 
Portsmouth regularly and wear less at idle such as in London traffic!

Darren

>> Sorry, I should have finished with a :-) ! City Rover was indeed a
>> collaboration with Tata. I've yet to actually see one on the road.
>>
>> The .....................was an invitation to comment - and I think your
>> comment is probably bang on. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. It's
>> priced at 3999 for a very good reason!
>>
>> It should also be noted that VOSA issued a warning about some of these 
>> where
>> the wheel trims can rub (and damage) the sidewall of the tyres!
>
> Take the trims off and you have a car for less than the average price of a 
> motorbike/


Yes, for very sketchy definitions of "car".

Peter

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz1n7y.1w8htd1kngy7nN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> "Stuart Gray" <me@home> wrote:
>
>> > Sorry, I should have finished with a :-) ! City Rover was indeed a
>> > collaboration with Tata. I've yet to actually see one on the road.
>> >
>> > The .....................was an invitation to comment - and I think 
>> > your
>> > comment is probably bang on. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. 
>> > It's
>> > priced at 3999 for a very good reason!
>> >
>> > It should also be noted that VOSA issued a warning about some of these
>> > where
>> > the wheel trims can rub (and damage) the sidewall of the tyres!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Take the trims off and you have a car for less than the average price of 
>> a
>> motorbike/
>
> Invalid comparison.
>
> A 4k bike will do close on 150mph.



And get you wet when it rains.
Hurt you when you make a little mistake.
Plus only carry one other person.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"Souls"  wrote in message 
news:da3pu6$5na$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Hello,
>
> I have 4000 to get a car on the road and was wodneirng on any 
> suggestions.
>
> My uses will be for mainly in London and driving down to portsmouth.
>
> Looking for all the modern bits and bobs. Prefer a 2 door hatch.
>
> So far I have come up with the following but as I know next to nothing 
> about
> cars I though I could ask.
>
> Citroen Saxo
> Fiesta zetec 1.25
> VW polo
> VW golf
>
> the vw's looking for quite new versions.
>
> Any nudges in the right direction would be nice.



I'd nudge you one or two sizes bigger, and drop the two (three) door if 
possible.  You'll find that a three door Focus (a better drive than the 
above although the Fiesta runs it close) should sell at a significant 
discount to the five door.  But you'll also lose more when you resell it, 
because few people buy something this size with three doors.

Generally speaking, the larger the car the better value - although Alfa 
Romeos put this to pot, they're never good value for money.

The mark four Golf is probably going to be too expensive for your budget and 
in any event, almost all examples are as interesting as watching the rust 
form on a Fiat.

The Saxo is a puntable little car and is arguably worth considering if it's 
(a) cheap, as in, much cheaper than your budget, and (b) the 1.5 diesel, 
which is as good if not better for motorway refinement as the petrol cousins 
but much more economical.

The previous generation Fiesta (1995 to 2002) is a real hoot to drive.  The 
1.25 Zetec-SE engine (now called the Duratec 16v) is a gem on the open road. 
In the city, especially if the car has air conditioning, it can be a real 
pain at lower engine speeds.  That's the only fault I can think of with the 
donk per se (and it infuriated me when we had one for a few days, see my 
website, look for the review of the Fiesta).

I've tried to like the Polo and failed.  In isolation, they have a decent 
motorway ride and refinement but they're just not exciting to drive.  They 
have a job to do and they do it, but I prefer to drive something that makes 
me want to drive it, rather than something that I need to use to go to 
places.  This can either be a good or a bad thing - I suspect it won't make 
any difference to you, heh! :)  Otherwise, I don't like the Polo's high 
service and repair costs, less-than-you'd-expect-of-a-Volkswagen build 
quality and snooty dealers.

You could have a look at the Mondeo / Vectra class, going for the diesel or 
smaller petrol variants.  Yes, I know it's bigger but on the long runs 
providing you pick something in the ordinary range (that is, four cylinder 
petrol) it should still be economical enough on the long runs.  Do consider 
an LPG conversion, or a pre-converted vehicle.  Although the V6 might sound 
sweet, fuel consumption maymake you weep in the city.

Otherwise, if you're determined to keep small, Saxos are really, really 
cheap.  2,000 should get you a superb example.  The Peugeot 106 is 
mechanically very similar to the Saxo so have a look for these too.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

PC Paul wrote:

> "T."  wrote in message
> news:42c5a976$0$24082$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> PC Paul wrote:
>>>> AstraVanMan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around
>>>>> 80bhp and 105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated
>>>>> on earlier Rover models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp,
>>>>> whereas 220D/220SD weren't - geddit?), and I think they're
>>>>> chippable to around 130bhp or so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And they're only group 7 insurance!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not if you chip them and declare it. And if you don't then you're
>>> uninsured if you crash it. They *do* check.
>>>
>>
>> How do they check?
>> If the dealer themselves can't find it, how can an insurance co.
>>
>> Besides, the increase might not actually be that much.
>
> If a young bloke writes off his car, especially if it's been
> 'smartened up', do you think they wouldn't take the top off the ECU
> just to check? I would. OK you could hide it well, but then if they
> suspect for some reason (broken seals on the ECU?) and check the chip
> contents with the manufacturer you're in a whole heap more trouble.


Not especially likely unless it's an enormous claim. The insuranc assessor
normally has a lot of cars to see in lots of different places and not much
time to do it.

Souls wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have 4000 to get a car on the road and was wodneirng on any
> suggestions.
>
> My uses will be for mainly in London and driving down to portsmouth.
>
> Looking for all the modern bits and bobs. Prefer a 2 door hatch.
>
> So far I have come up with the following but as I know next to
> nothing about cars I though I could ask.
>
> Citroen Saxo
> Fiesta zetec 1.25
> VW polo
> VW golf
>
> the vw's looking for quite new versions.
>
> Any nudges in the right direction would be nice.
>
> Thanks


No to the saxo. Maybe to the Fiesta. They're small, but so is the Polo, and
they're a ford, which means they're not all that well screwed together. My
experience of VWs has been very good, but it's all of the older ones. A mate
has a polo, and the interior is looking a bit tatty, so they're no the be
all and end all of build quality they once were. I'd go and test drive them
all, and try all the other various VW Polo / Golfalikes (SEATs, Skodas etc.
all built on VW chassis with VW parts). Fabia is the polo equivalent, Leon
and Octavia are Golf / Bora equivalent. I'd also go and look at the Yaris,
which has a very good reputation for build quality and not using much juice.

DervMan wrote:


> The Saxo is a puntable little car and is arguably worth considering
> if it's (a) cheap, as in, much cheaper than your budget, and (b) the
> 1.5 diesel, which is as good if not better for motorway refinement as
> the petrol cousins but much more economical.


Good fucking god. The 1.5 as fitted to the 106 and Saxo is an absolutely
horrible horrible horrible engine. Combined with the crappy cramped interior
of the car it makes for a fucking terrible way to get around.

"T."  wrote in message 
news:42c5a976$0$24082$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

> PC Paul wrote:
>>>AstraVanMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I think they can.  They're available in two flavours - around 80bhp and 
>>>>105bhp, I think.  Get the higher power one (indicated on earlier Rover 
>>>>models by an 'i' - i.e. 220SDi was 105bhp, whereas 220D/220SD weren't - 
>>>>geddit?), and I think they're chippable to around 130bhp or so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And they're only group 7 insurance!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not if you chip them and declare it. And if you don't then you're 
>> uninsured if you crash it. They *do* check.
>>
>
> How do they check?
> If the dealer themselves can't find it, how can an insurance co.


They plug a diagnostics into the car and compare the code with what should 
be there.


> Besides, the increase might not actually be that much.


That's irrelevant.  It may reduce the power, increase it or make no 
difference.  Fact is that it's been modified.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"doki"  wrote in message 
news:da5p2h$22q$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

>
> DervMan wrote:
>
>> The Saxo is a puntable little car and is arguably worth considering
>> if it's (a) cheap, as in, much cheaper than your budget, and (b) the
>> 1.5 diesel, which is as good if not better for motorway refinement as
>> the petrol cousins but much more economical.
>
> Good fucking god. The 1.5 as fitted to the 106 and Saxo is an absolutely
> horrible horrible horrible engine. Combined with the crappy cramped 
> interior
> of the car it makes for a fucking terrible way to get around.



Absolute tosh.  Have you tried driving the 1.1 and 1.5d back to back?  The 
extra sound insulation put into the diesel makes it significantly quieter. 
It's a much nicer powerplant for long haul trips than a whiney little petrol 
engine with short gearing.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 11:11:33 +0100, "doki"  wrote:


> I'd also go and look at the Yaris,
>which has a very good reputation for build quality and not using much juice.



As does the new Micra, if you don't mind the looks.
-- 
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

SteveH wrote:

> 
> <whispers>
> 
> The 1.8T is a cracking engine.
> 
> 


This the 150bhp thing?

I've always wondered about it. I've never driven it, but have had races 
with cars that have that engine. I was in a Fiat 1.8 115bhp thing at the 
time. Starting from about 10-20mph, and they only started leaving me 
after 60.

Why's that? They too heavy?

In article <da5oto$225$1@news.freedom2surf.net>, mrdoki@gmail.com (doki) 
wrote:


> No to the saxo. Maybe to the Fiesta. They're small, but so is the 
> Polo, and
> they're a ford, which means they're not all that well screwed 
> together


though, like all fords, you can get cheap parts from the Breakers, 
and they can be serviced with a blunt screwdriver...

-- 
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

DervMan wrote:

> 
> Generally speaking, the larger the car the better value - although Alfa 
> Romeos put this to pot, they're never good value for money.
> 


Never? I disagree. They depreciate loads, and that's a good thing.

T.  wrote:


> SteveH wrote:
> > 
> > <whispers>
> > 
> > The 1.8T is a cracking engine.
> > 
> > 
> 
> This the 150bhp thing?
> 
> I've always wondered about it. I've never driven it, but have had races
> with cars that have that engine. I was in a Fiat 1.8 115bhp thing at the
> time. Starting from about 10-20mph, and they only started leaving me 
> after 60.
> 
> Why's that? They too heavy?


The other driver isn't trying ;-)

Seriously, the Panzerwagen is booked at something respectably quick for
the 0-60 dash (8.5 secs, ISTR). It's certainly enough to give the local
Max Tosser population a bit of a surprise.
-- 
Steve 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 #

DervMan  wrote:


> >> Take the trims off and you have a car for less than the average price of
> >> a
> >> motorbike/
> >
> > Invalid comparison.
> >
> > A 4k bike will do close on 150mph.
> 
> 
> And get you wet when it rains.
> Hurt you when you make a little mistake.
> Plus only carry one other person.


And?

When I can get over 150mph and 0-60 in less than 3 secs for my 4k, why
would I care about passengers and rain?
-- 
Steve 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 #

doki  wrote:


> DervMan wrote:
> 
> > The Saxo is a puntable little car and is arguably worth considering
> > if it's (a) cheap, as in, much cheaper than your budget, and (b) the
> > 1.5 diesel, which is as good if not better for motorway refinement as
> > the petrol cousins but much more economical.
> 
> Good fucking god. The 1.5 as fitted to the 106 and Saxo is an absolutely
> horrible horrible horrible engine. Combined with the crappy cramped interior
> of the car it makes for a fucking terrible way to get around.


Indeed it is. I kicked a driving school into touch because their AX 1.5D
was light years behind the 1.1 Metro 'Kensington' their local rivals
had.

-- 
Steve 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 #

T.  wrote:


> DervMan wrote:
> > 
> > Generally speaking, the larger the car the better value - although Alfa
> > Romeos put this to pot, they're never good value for money.
> > 
> 
> Never? I disagree. They depreciate loads, and that's a good thing.


Depreciate loads, then level out. At around the 10 year mark, you can
often buy a Merc or BMW for less than the equivalent Alfa.
-- 
Steve 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 #

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz32jd.wdiyxw15atb1jN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> doki  wrote:
>
>> DervMan wrote:
>>
>> > The Saxo is a puntable little car and is arguably worth considering
>> > if it's (a) cheap, as in, much cheaper than your budget, and (b) the
>> > 1.5 diesel, which is as good if not better for motorway refinement as
>> > the petrol cousins but much more economical.
>>
>> Good fucking god. The 1.5 as fitted to the 106 and Saxo is an absolutely
>> horrible horrible horrible engine. Combined with the crappy cramped 
>> interior
>> of the car it makes for a fucking terrible way to get around.
>
> Indeed it is. I kicked a driving school into touch because their AX 1.5D
> was light years behind the 1.1 Metro 'Kensington' their local rivals
> had.



That would be because of the car, the engine would be irrelevant here.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"T."  wrote in message 
news:42c6baff$0$4095$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

> DervMan wrote:
>>
>> Generally speaking, the larger the car the better value - although Alfa 
>> Romeos put this to pot, they're never good value for money.
>>
> Never? I disagree. They depreciate loads, and that's a good thing.


Just being cheap doesn't make something good value.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz32dg.a915wx2wejfN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> T.  wrote:
>
>> SteveH wrote:
>> >
>> > <whispers>
>> >
>> > The 1.8T is a cracking engine.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> This the 150bhp thing?
>>
>> I've always wondered about it. I've never driven it, but have had races
>> with cars that have that engine. I was in a Fiat 1.8 115bhp thing at the
>> time. Starting from about 10-20mph, and they only started leaving me
>> after 60.
>>
>> Why's that? They too heavy?
>
> The other driver isn't trying ;-)
>
> Seriously, the Panzerwagen is booked at something respectably quick for
> the 0-60 dash (8.5 secs, ISTR). It's certainly enough to give the local
> Max Tosser population a bit of a surprise.



Have you taken it down the strip?  Unless you get an absolutely perfect 
launch, you'll find most of the Max Tosser population will give _you_ a 
surprise.

It's a fine engine, but it is better as a high gear slogger than a low gear 
racer.  The previous generation Vectra with the 2.0 engine has an identical 
0 - 62 acceleration time (8.7 seconds) and the 2.2 version is quicker (8.5 
seconds).  Both produce less power and the weight difference is only a few 
donuts, too...

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

SteveH wrote:


> Seriously, the Panzerwagen is booked at something respectably quick
> for the 0-60 dash (8.5 secs, ISTR). It's certainly enough to give the
> local Max Tosser population a bit of a surprise.


Shame it's so dull, crap sounding, uninspiring and forgettable.


-- 
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"

              "Would you rather silent but deadly?"

DervMan wrote:

> "SteveH"  wrote in message
> news:1gz32dg.a915wx2wejfN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...
>> T.  wrote:
>>
>>> SteveH wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <whispers>
>>>>
>>>> The 1.8T is a cracking engine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This the 150bhp thing?
>>>
>>> I've always wondered about it. I've never driven it, but have had
>>> races with cars that have that engine. I was in a Fiat 1.8 115bhp
>>> thing at the time. Starting from about 10-20mph, and they only
>>> started leaving me after 60.
>>>
>>> Why's that? They too heavy?
>>
>> The other driver isn't trying ;-)
>>
>> Seriously, the Panzerwagen is booked at something respectably quick
>> for the 0-60 dash (8.5 secs, ISTR). It's certainly enough to give
>> the local Max Tosser population a bit of a surprise.
>
>
> Have you taken it down the strip?  Unless you get an absolutely
> perfect launch, you'll find most of the Max Tosser population will
> give _you_ a surprise.
>
> It's a fine engine, but it is better as a high gear slogger than a
> low gear racer.  The previous generation Vectra with the 2.0 engine
> has an identical 0 - 62 acceleration time (8.7 seconds) and the 2.2
> version is quicker (8.5 seconds).  Both produce less power and the
> weight difference is only a few donuts, too...


<homer> mmmmm.... donuts.... </homer>

-- 
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"

              "Would you rather silent but deadly?"

DervMan  wrote:


> > Seriously, the Panzerwagen is booked at something respectably quick for
> > the 0-60 dash (8.5 secs, ISTR). It's certainly enough to give the local
> > Max Tosser population a bit of a surprise.
> 
> 
> Have you taken it down the strip?  Unless you get an absolutely perfect
> launch, you'll find most of the Max Tosser population will give _you_ a
> surprise.
> 
> It's a fine engine, but it is better as a high gear slogger than a low gear
> racer.  The previous generation Vectra with the 2.0 engine has an identical
> 0 - 62 acceleration time (8.7 seconds) and the 2.2 version is quicker (8.5
> seconds).  Both produce less power and the weight difference is only a few
> donuts, too...


Obviously, someone who has only passing knowledge of the engine and car
it's fitted to knows better than the person who's covered around 13k
miles in one since January.

Ultimately, the 156 is quicker, but you have to rev it to get it to
match the Passat, which doesn't need revving.
-- 
Steve 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 #

DervMan  wrote:


> > Indeed it is. I kicked a driving school into touch because their AX 1.5D
> > was light years behind the 1.1 Metro 'Kensington' their local rivals
> > had.
> 
> 
> That would be because of the car, the engine would be irrelevant here.


Ahhh, yes, I was forgetting that engines don't make the slightest bit of
difference to the driving experience.

Frankly, the 1.5D was utter *wank* compared with a 1.1 petrol K series.
-- 
Steve 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 #

SteveH wrote:


> Ultimately, the 156 is quicker, but you have to rev it to get it to
> match the Passat, which doesn't need revving.


But the Alfa makes you /WANT/ to drive it, and alfa reliability makes it 
even more a tease. The Passat is just a machine, no soul, no charisma 
(notice the H...), turn the key and it works, but sometimes you just wish it 
wouldn't so you had to take the alfa....


-- 
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"

              "Would you rather silent but deadly?"

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz32kz.dxl8mj1nq08q5N%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> T.  wrote:
>
>> DervMan wrote:
>> >
>> > Generally speaking, the larger the car the better value - although Alfa
>> > Romeos put this to pot, they're never good value for money.
>> >
>>
>> Never? I disagree. They depreciate loads, and that's a good thing.
>
> Depreciate loads, then level out. At around the 10 year mark, you can
> often buy a Merc or BMW for less than the equivalent Alfa.


Thats rarity that is - very few Alfa's last that long...

Tim S Kemp  wrote:


> SteveH wrote:
> 
> > Ultimately, the 156 is quicker, but you have to rev it to get it to
> > match the Passat, which doesn't need revving.
> 
> But the Alfa makes you /WANT/ to drive it, and alfa reliability makes it
> even more a tease. The Passat is just a machine, no soul, no charisma
> (notice the H...), turn the key and it works, but sometimes you just wish it
> wouldn't so you had to take the alfa....


Oh, agreed, yes.

But the Passat is very good at getting me to and from work - performance
without having to think about it, IYSWIM.

Averaged 58mph door-to-door in it this morning. Not bad when you take
into account the 30, 40 and 50 limits en route :-)
-- 
Steve 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 #

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz33mo.h95hbm14z4cyxN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> > Seriously, the Panzerwagen is booked at something respectably quick for
>> > the 0-60 dash (8.5 secs, ISTR). It's certainly enough to give the local
>> > Max Tosser population a bit of a surprise.
>>
>>
>> Have you taken it down the strip?  Unless you get an absolutely perfect
>> launch, you'll find most of the Max Tosser population will give _you_ a
>> surprise.
>>
>> It's a fine engine, but it is better as a high gear slogger than a low 
>> gear
>> racer.  The previous generation Vectra with the 2.0 engine has an 
>> identical
>> 0 - 62 acceleration time (8.7 seconds) and the 2.2 version is quicker 
>> (8.5
>> seconds).  Both produce less power and the weight difference is only a 
>> few
>> donuts, too...
>
> Obviously, someone who has only passing knowledge of the engine and car
> it's fitted to knows better than the person who's covered around 13k
> miles in one since January.

Yes.

> Ultimately, the 156 is quicker, but you have to rev it to get it to
> match the Passat, which doesn't need revving.


I'm not sure of the relevance of the statement nor of the accuracy either. 
Did you miss the word "Vectra" and see "Alfa Romeo."  Did you not read "high 
gear slogger" and think that I supposed the 1.8T needs caning?

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz32g8.9ktvgb9fc9aaN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> >> Take the trims off and you have a car for less than the average price 
>> >> of
>> >> a
>> >> motorbike/
>> >
>> > Invalid comparison.
>> >
>> > A 4k bike will do close on 150mph.
>>
>>
>> And get you wet when it rains.
>> Hurt you when you make a little mistake.
>> Plus only carry one other person.
>
> And?
>
> When I can get over 150mph and 0-60 in less than 3 secs for my 4k, why
> would I care about passengers and rain?



You tell me, Mr. Cinquecento-Sporting-Has-Lots-Of-Room-In-It-And-Is-Quick.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz33pi.1ngc7co1gr17zN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> > Indeed it is. I kicked a driving school into touch because their AX 
>> > 1.5D
>> > was light years behind the 1.1 Metro 'Kensington' their local rivals
>> > had.
>>
>> That would be because of the car, the engine would be irrelevant here.
>
> Ahhh, yes, I was forgetting that engines don't make the slightest bit of
> difference to the driving experience.

> Frankly, the 1.5D was utter *wank* compared with a 1.1 petrol K series.


We're not just discussing the engine and power delivery full stop, but how 
the donk fits in with the package and the original posted.

That little 1.1 K-series is reasonably muted in all applications but the 1.5 
XUD benefits from additional soundproofing.  This also prevents road noise 
from getting through.  Oh and to add to that, the Metro had gutter rails - 
how quaint - and produces a surprising amount of wind noise.

The little Metro is a nice enough car to drive, I don't suppose you covered 
30,000 miles in a handful in the early 1990s?  A pity Rover lost sales 
because of the quaint manual choke (on all, only the Rover 100 and 200 had 
fuel injection on the 1.1, the Metro used a regulated carb) and four speed 
on many, where other manufacturers were offering "automatic choke" (fuel 
injection).

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan  wrote:


> > Ultimately, the 156 is quicker, but you have to rev it to get it to
> > match the Passat, which doesn't need revving.
> 
> I'm not sure of the relevance of the statement nor of the accuracy either.
> Did you miss the word "Vectra" and see "Alfa Romeo."  Did you not read "high
> gear slogger" and think that I supposed the 1.8T needs caning?


You seem to think the average hot hatch could catch me out in it.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
-- 
Steve 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 #

DervMan  wrote:


> >> > A 4k bike will do close on 150mph.
> >>
> >>
> >> And get you wet when it rains.
> >> Hurt you when you make a little mistake.
> >> Plus only carry one other person.
> >
> > And?
> >
> > When I can get over 150mph and 0-60 in less than 3 secs for my 4k, why
> > would I care about passengers and rain?
> 
> 
> You tell me, Mr. Cinquecento-Sporting-Has-Lots-Of-Room-In-It-And-Is-Quick.


You'll note that not only do I have a couple of cars, but also a couple
of bikes. Even the shit one will outrun most cars away from the lights.

Given the choice of CityRover or bike, I know which one I'd take. Every
time.
-- 
Steve 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 #

DervMan  wrote:


> "SteveH"  wrote in message 
> news:1gz33pi.1ngc7co1gr17zN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...
> > DervMan  wrote:
> >
> >> > Indeed it is. I kicked a driving school into touch because their AX
> >> > 1.5D
> >> > was light years behind the 1.1 Metro 'Kensington' their local rivals
> >> > had.
> >>
> >> That would be because of the car, the engine would be irrelevant here.
> >
> > Ahhh, yes, I was forgetting that engines don't make the slightest bit of
> > difference to the driving experience.
> 
> > Frankly, the 1.5D was utter *wank* compared with a 1.1 petrol K series.
> 
> We're not just discussing the engine and power delivery full stop, but how
> the donk fits in with the package and the original posted.
> 
> That little 1.1 K-series is reasonably muted in all applications but the 1.5
> XUD benefits from additional soundproofing.  This also prevents road noise
> from getting through.  Oh and to add to that, the Metro had gutter rails -
> how quaint - and produces a surprising amount of wind noise.
> 
> The little Metro is a nice enough car to drive, I don't suppose you covered
> 30,000 miles in a handful in the early 1990s?  A pity Rover lost sales
> because of the quaint manual choke (on all, only the Rover 100 and 200 had
> fuel injection on the 1.1, the Metro used a regulated carb) and four speed
> on many, where other manufacturers were offering "automatic choke" (fuel
> injection).


<thinks back>

In hindsight it was probably a Rover 111i Kensington.

The 1.5D is a horrible little asthmatic heap of shit.

-- 
Steve 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 #

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz36ib.tr17ks844gwkN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> > Ultimately, the 156 is quicker, but you have to rev it to get it to
>> > match the Passat, which doesn't need revving.
>>
>> I'm not sure of the relevance of the statement nor of the accuracy 
>> either.
>> Did you miss the word "Vectra" and see "Alfa Romeo."  Did you not read 
>> "high
>> gear slogger" and think that I supposed the 1.8T needs caning?
>
> You seem to think the average hot hatch could catch me out in it.
> Nothing could be further from the truth.



That's a bit of a wriggle, eh?

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz36k1.1qu3ggzi7s6zvN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> >> > A 4k bike will do close on 150mph.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And get you wet when it rains.
>> >> Hurt you when you make a little mistake.
>> >> Plus only carry one other person.
>> >
>> > And?
>> >
>> > When I can get over 150mph and 0-60 in less than 3 secs for my 4k, why
>> > would I care about passengers and rain?
>>
>>
>> You tell me, Mr. 
>> Cinquecento-Sporting-Has-Lots-Of-Room-In-It-And-Is-Quick.
>
> You'll note that not only do I have a couple of cars, but also a couple
> of bikes. Even the shit one will outrun most cars away from the lights.
>
> Given the choice of CityRover or bike, I know which one I'd take. Every
> time.



So why don't you commute to work on a bike, then?

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan  wrote:


> > You'll note that not only do I have a couple of cars, but also a couple
> > of bikes. Even the shit one will outrun most cars away from the lights.
> >
> > Given the choice of CityRover or bike, I know which one I'd take. Every
> > time.
> 
> 
> So why don't you commute to work on a bike, then?


You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
you wouldn't ask that question.
-- 
Steve 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 #

SteveH wrote:


> Averaged 58mph door-to-door in it this morning. Not bad when you take
> into account the 30, 40 and 50 limits en route :-)


Trafalgar square  car park (congestion charge receipt) 16:05. London Gateway 
17:05 (food receipt) . Woodall 19:04 (petrol receipt), Hull 19:40.

Volvo Rocks.



-- 
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"

              "Would you rather silent but deadly?"

SteveH wrote:


> You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
> you wouldn't ask that question.


Lol - 30 mpg and 300 quid tyres every 2000 miles...


-- 
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"

              "Would you rather silent but deadly?"

Tim S Kemp  wrote:


> SteveH wrote:
> 
> > Averaged 58mph door-to-door in it this morning. Not bad when you take
> > into account the 30, 40 and 50 limits en route :-)
> 
> Trafalgar square  car park (congestion charge receipt) 16:05. London Gateway
> 17:05 (food receipt) . Woodall 19:04 (petrol receipt), Hull 19:40.
> 
> Volvo Rocks.


Bear in mind, my commute is all single carriageway A-roads.

I've been edging closer to the 60mph average, but, frankly, unless I
drive like an absolute cunt, I don't think it's possible.

I can't carry any more corner speed (my tyres are protesting and looking
very 'riffled' on the outside edges already), and I don't consider
100mph on the A465 to be sensible or safe.
-- 
Steve 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 #

Tim S Kemp  wrote:


> SteveH wrote:
> 
> > You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
> > you wouldn't ask that question.
> 
> Lol - 30 mpg and 300 quid tyres every 2000 miles...


Not far off.

30mpg is about right if you use the full rev range.... tyres, a
'touring' rear in 4-5k miles and a front every other rear.

They're 170 a pair.

Oil and filter every 4k miles (not expensive, say 30 quid), air filter
every 8k miles (25 quid), chain and sprockets every 10-15k miles (100
quid), valve clearances every 16k miles.... the list goes on.

When I was commuting around 50 miles / day, I took the bike every time
(had something a little more sensible on consumables at the time), but
at 100 miles / day there's no way I'd use a big sports or sports-touring
bike.
-- 
Steve 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 #

"SteveH"  wrote in message
news:1gz3fu6.1mh52t9gi1fm8N%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> Tim S Kemp  wrote:
>
> > SteveH wrote:
> >
> > > Averaged 58mph door-to-door in it this morning. Not bad when you take
> > > into account the 30, 40 and 50 limits en route :-)
> >
> > Trafalgar square  car park (congestion charge receipt) 16:05. London
Gateway
> > 17:05 (food receipt) . Woodall 19:04 (petrol receipt), Hull 19:40.
> >
> > Volvo Rocks.
>
> Bear in mind, my commute is all single carriageway A-roads.
>
> I've been edging closer to the 60mph average, but, frankly, unless I
> drive like an absolute cunt, I don't think it's possible.
>
> I can't carry any more corner speed (my tyres are protesting and looking
> very 'riffled' on the outside edges already), and I don't consider
> 100mph on the A465 to be sensible or safe.


Shropshire > Essex > Sleep > Shropshire, 450 miles round trip average of
59mph (steady 85 on the motorway) and 34.9 mpg.

S70 2.5.

Whats your average MPG Tim?!

Tim2..

Tim..  wrote:


> > I can't carry any more corner speed (my tyres are protesting and looking
> > very 'riffled' on the outside edges already), and I don't consider
> > 100mph on the A465 to be sensible or safe.
> 
> Shropshire > Essex > Sleep > Shropshire, 450 miles round trip average of
> 59mph (steady 85 on the motorway) and 34.9 mpg.


I did Ystrad Mynach to Manchester at an average of 78mph just after
Christmas. This included a couple of stops at the services.

It's easy to get high averages on dual carriageway / motorways, but I'm
really struggling to beat the 60mph average on my commute.

One day, I may get a totally clear run and do it. But I've been trying
for over a year now and still haven't managed it :-(
-- 
Steve 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 #

"Tim S Kemp"  wrote in message
news:B-ednYXyXM8_mlrfRVn-ug@karoo.co.uk...

> SteveH wrote:
>
> > You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
> > you wouldn't ask that question.
>
> Lol - 30 mpg and 300 quid tyres every 2000 miles...

getting 40 mpg out of mine at the mo, and only just had a set of tyres just
after I bought it.

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message 
news:Ljlxe.15466$zM2.7415@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

>>> Sorry, I should have finished with a :-) ! City Rover was indeed a
>>> collaboration with Tata. I've yet to actually see one on the road.
>>>
>>> The .....................was an invitation to comment - and I think your
>>> comment is probably bang on. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. 
>>> It's
>>> priced at 3999 for a very good reason!
>>>
>>> It should also be noted that VOSA issued a warning about some of these 
>>> where
>>> the wheel trims can rub (and damage) the sidewall of the tyres!
>>
>> Take the trims off and you have a car for less than the average price of 
>> a motorbike/
>
> Yes, for very sketchy definitions of "car".
>
> Peter
>


 Just seen my first one today. Was sitting in a restaurant wondering what 
the little red car with the preposterously long name badge on the back was. 
It was out of focal range. When I left for the carpark it was still there. 
The lettering probably accounts for 1/2 the value and weight of the damn 
thing !!

In message <1gz3gza.1n9sbq71xy91o3N%steve@italiancar.co.uk>, SteveH 
 writes

>Tim..  wrote:
>
>> > I can't carry any more corner speed (my tyres are protesting and looking
>> > very 'riffled' on the outside edges already), and I don't consider
>> > 100mph on the A465 to be sensible or safe.
>>
>> Shropshire > Essex > Sleep > Shropshire, 450 miles round trip average of
>> 59mph (steady 85 on the motorway) and 34.9 mpg.
>
>I did Ystrad Mynach to Manchester at an average of 78mph just after
>Christmas. This included a couple of stops at the services.
>
>It's easy to get high averages on dual carriageway / motorways, but I'm
>really struggling to beat the 60mph average on my commute.


I never did manage to do Llangurig to Aberystwyth in 25 minutes. I got 
surprisingly close to it in a 1300cc Maestro, so it would be pretty easy 
in the Civic, but I expect that road now has more reduced limits and 
speed cameras than you can shake an RPG launcher at.

-- 
Steve Walker

In message <1gz3fwx.1pv9w8f1unijdgN%steve@italiancar.co.uk>, SteveH 
 writes

>Tim S Kemp  wrote:
>
>> SteveH wrote:
>>
>> > You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
>> > you wouldn't ask that question.
>>
>> Lol - 30 mpg and 300 quid tyres every 2000 miles...
>
>Not far off.
>
>30mpg is about right if you use the full rev range.... tyres, a
>'touring' rear in 4-5k miles and a front every other rear.


A bike-owning mate used to have a fast two stroke. He reckoned it did 
30mpg irrespective of how you treated it, so it would have been churlish 
not to go flat out everywhere.

His driving license had seen a bit of ink, mind.

-- 
Steve Walker

Tim.. wrote:


> Shropshire > Essex > Sleep > Shropshire, 450 miles round trip average
> of 59mph (steady 85 on the motorway) and 34.9 mpg.
>
> S70 2.5.
>
> Whats your average MPG Tim?!
>
> Tim2..


Well that journey is 220 miles, across peak time, average 65 mph ish, and 
about 24mpg. Car will do better MPG but not with my right foot. And no, it 
wasn't a steady 85mph.

100k miles came up this week, proof that ETM life on 2001 volvos is 
optimised by thrashing the nuts of the car on a daily basis.

-- 
"Excuse me, would you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?"

              "Would you rather silent but deadly?"

SteveH wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>
>>This the 150bhp thing?
>>
>>I've always wondered about it. I've never driven it, but have had races
>>with cars that have that engine. I was in a Fiat 1.8 115bhp thing at the
>>time. Starting from about 10-20mph, and they only started leaving me 
>>after 60.
>>
>>Why's that? They too heavy?
> 
> 
> The other driver isn't trying ;-)
>


That can't be right. Once or twice maybe, but sometimes you just know 
what is going on ;-)
The A4 guy was funny - we were neck and neck, and he looked over in like 
surprise.



> Seriously, the Panzerwagen is booked at something respectably quick for
> the 0-60 dash (8.5 secs, ISTR). It's certainly enough to give the local
> Max Tosser population a bit of a surprise.


But this wasn't from 0mph.
I put it down to that 2nd gear acceleration was basically the same in 
both cars, even if one did have 35bhp more.

Probably a great engine for low down power, but not exactly blazing 
performance.

DervMan wrote:

> "T."  wrote in message 
> news:42c6baff$0$4095$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> 
>>DervMan wrote:
>>
>>>Generally speaking, the larger the car the better value - although Alfa 
>>>Romeos put this to pot, they're never good value for money.
>>>
>>
>>Never? I disagree. They depreciate loads, and that's a good thing.
> 
> 
> Just being cheap doesn't make something good value.
> 


Correct. So for the cheap price you get lots. That is value.

SteveH wrote:

>>>
>>
>>Never? I disagree. They depreciate loads, and that's a good thing.
> 
> 
> Depreciate loads, then level out. At around the 10 year mark, you can
> often buy a Merc or BMW for less than the equivalent Alfa.


At by that age looking for a good car becomes more of a task.

I'm talking about something 2-5 yrs old. You buy the Alfa and you keep 
it 10 years. That's low cost. You buy a BMW or Merc and it's a lot more.

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz3alg.sil2lcxkk1vdN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> > You'll note that not only do I have a couple of cars, but also a couple
>> > of bikes. Even the shit one will outrun most cars away from the lights.
>> >
>> > Given the choice of CityRover or bike, I know which one I'd take. Every
>> > time.
>>
>> So why don't you commute to work on a bike, then?
>
> You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
> you wouldn't ask that question.



No quite the opposite, I wanted you to point out that they're stupidly 
expensive to run.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"T."  wrote in message 
news:42c79bf9$0$21399$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

> DervMan wrote:
>> "T."  wrote in message 
>> news:42c6baff$0$4095$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>>DervMan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Generally speaking, the larger the car the better value - although Alfa 
>>>>Romeos put this to pot, they're never good value for money.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Never? I disagree. They depreciate loads, and that's a good thing.
>>
>>
>> Just being cheap doesn't make something good value.
>>
>
> Correct. So for the cheap price you get lots. That is value.


You forgot "rust" and "problems" from your comment! :)

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan  wrote:


> >> So why don't you commute to work on a bike, then?
> >
> > You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
> > you wouldn't ask that question.
> 
> 
> No quite the opposite, I wanted you to point out that they're stupidly
> expensive to run.


Exactly how much would a car cost to buy and run for similar
performance, though?

In those terms they're a bargain.

The original point still holds true - the CityRover is such an
abomination that even my East German 2-stroke would be a preferable
option.
-- 
Steve 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 #

DervMan  wrote:


> >> Just being cheap doesn't make something good value.
> >>
> >
> > Correct. So for the cheap price you get lots. That is value.
> 
> You forgot "rust" and "problems" from your comment! :)


You still live in the early 80s.

HTH.
-- 
Steve 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 #

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz4eu5.yhof1jk6e8weN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> >> So why don't you commute to work on a bike, then?
>> >
>> > You obviously know fuck all about the running costs of a big bike, or
>> > you wouldn't ask that question.
>>
>> No quite the opposite, I wanted you to point out that they're stupidly
>> expensive to run.
>
> Exactly how much would a car cost to buy and run for similar
> performance, though?


It's not comparable other than sheer performance.  If I had to go from York 
to Edinburgh with Charlie and luggage, I'd take the car.  Especially given 
how frequently it rains.


> In those terms they're a bargain.


So why do they sell supercars then?


> The original point still holds true - the CityRover is such an
> abomination that even my East German 2-stroke would be a preferable
> option.


But it would not be for all people under all circumstances.

And you'd get wet when it rains.  And break a leg when somebody spills 
diesel.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz4ewh.wz422f4itnlsN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> >> Just being cheap doesn't make something good value.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Correct. So for the cheap price you get lots. That is value.
>>
>> You forgot "rust" and "problems" from your comment! :)
>
> You still live in the early 80s.



*cough* from Mr. I-hate-Fords-because-I-had-some-older-ones, that's rich.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan  wrote:


> > Exactly how much would a car cost to buy and run for similar
> > performance, though?
> 
> It's not comparable other than sheer performance.  If I had to go from York
> to Edinburgh with Charlie and luggage, I'd take the car.  Especially given
> how frequently it rains.


I take the bike more often than the car if I'm visiting the frozen
North.

The disadvantages are by far outweighed by the fact that you can cover
the ground significantly faster.

-- 
Steve 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 #

DervMan wrote:

> "SteveH"  wrote in message 
> news:1gz4ewh.wz422f4itnlsN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...
> 
>>DervMan  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Just being cheap doesn't make something good value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Correct. So for the cheap price you get lots. That is value.
>>>
>>>You forgot "rust" and "problems" from your comment! :)
>>
>>You still live in the early 80s.
> 
> 
> 
> *cough* from Mr. I-hate-Fords-because-I-had-some-older-ones, that's rich.
> 


But Ford's *never* had character.

Alfa's have character, and also the problems. The difference being the 
problems are not here anymore, but the character still is.

I read somewhere a few months back that last year in a European 
reliabiilty index thing, Merc's came below Alfa. Both might have been 
quite low in the 'league', but wtf does that say to people who buy 
Merc's thinking they're l33t and those who comment about Alfa's being 
shit when they've never lived with one.

(I'm not saying you said they were shit, btw).

In news:42c801a2$0$10467$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk,
T.  decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a 
rant as follows

> DervMan wrote:
>> "SteveH"  wrote in message

>> *cough* from Mr. I-hate-Fords-because-I-had-some-older-ones, that's
>> rich.
>
> But Ford's *never* had character.


Bollocks. Utter bollocks.

Let me think now.

Sierra Cosworth, Escort Mexico, RS 1600,1800,2000 (RWD), Sierra 4x4, Focus 
RS, Capri 2.8i, 3.0S, RS3100, RS2600.

The normal, everyday Focus has more character than a Golf or 3 series.


>
> Alfa's have character, and also the problems. The difference being the
> problems are not here anymore, but the character still is.


Um, Selespeed has more problems than any other gearbox in history- and I 
*like* Alfas. I've owned enough of 'em.

>
> I read somewhere a few months back that last year in a European
> reliabiilty index thing, Merc's came below Alfa. Both might have been
> quite low in the 'league', but wtf does that say to people who buy
> Merc's thinking they're l33t and those who comment about Alfa's being
> shit when they've never lived with one.


I've lived with both, and I'd rate Ford, Alfa and Mercedes considerably 
better than BMW or VW.

Older Mercedes are still some of the best built cars of all time, unlike my 
current Range Rover...

-- 
Pete M

Range Rover Vogue SE, Ford Capri (ressurection stalling)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz4fdv.1jthg6v3mr91qN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> > Exactly how much would a car cost to buy and run for similar
>> > performance, though?
>>
>> It's not comparable other than sheer performance.  If I had to go from 
>> York
>> to Edinburgh with Charlie and luggage, I'd take the car.  Especially 
>> given
>> how frequently it rains.
>
> I take the bike more often than the car if I'm visiting the frozen
> North.
>
> The disadvantages are by far outweighed by the fact that you can cover
> the ground significantly faster.



You might, but I wouldn't.

Bikes are great but the biggest machine I've ridden was a 600cc - and that 
was far too quick to be able to get close to full performance on the road 
for more than extremely brief moments.  I don't really see the point of such 
overkill.  That and far too many people turn themselves into long red smears 
thanks to bikes.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan  wrote:


> > The disadvantages are by far outweighed by the fact that you can cover
> > the ground significantly faster.
> 
> 
> You might, but I wouldn't.


I fail to see how even the wussiest rider could cover ground slower than
a Ka.

Even my GP100 learner bike could manage that.
-- 
Steve 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 #

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz50os.197939bjm56p9N%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>> > The disadvantages are by far outweighed by the fact that you can cover
>> > the ground significantly faster.
>>
>> You might, but I wouldn't.
>
> I fail to see how even the wussiest rider could cover ground slower than
> a Ka.
>
> Even my GP100 learner bike could manage that.



It doesn't matter what the performance of the vehicle is, I follow the speed 
limits.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan  wrote:


> > I fail to see how even the wussiest rider could cover ground slower than
> > a Ka.
> >
> > Even my GP100 learner bike could manage that.
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the performance of the vehicle is, I follow the speed
> limits.


That's got absolutely nothing to do with it.

All it needs is one car doing 40mph in a 60 and the bike has gone.
-- 
Steve 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 #

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz57zg.uyf6m0i58auiN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> > I fail to see how even the wussiest rider could cover ground slower 
>> > than
>> > a Ka.
>> >
>> > Even my GP100 learner bike could manage that.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what the performance of the vehicle is, I follow the 
>> speed
>> limits.
>
> That's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> All it needs is one car doing 40mph in a 60 and the bike has gone.



So you manage to achieve an average speed of 58 by sticking to 60 in the 60 
limits, then?

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"DervMan"  wrote in message 
news:db4ye.16901$zM2.7499@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> "SteveH"  wrote in message 
> news:1gz57zg.uyf6m0i58auiN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...
>> DervMan  wrote:
>>
>>> > I fail to see how even the wussiest rider could cover ground slower 
>>> > than
>>> > a Ka.
>>> >
>>> > Even my GP100 learner bike could manage that.
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what the performance of the vehicle is, I follow the 
>>> speed
>>> limits.
>>
>> That's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>
>> All it needs is one car doing 40mph in a 60 and the bike has gone.
>
> So you manage to achieve an average speed of 58 by sticking to 60 in the 
> 60 limits, then?



Oh, I see your other point - overtaking.  Hmm.  No I don't think I'd be 
overtaking many more vehicles, regardless of the performance, heh.  Some 
will be overtaken sooner but the time saved won't be significant.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

In article <da3pu6$5na$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, 
souls2souls_uk@hotmail.com says...

> Hello,
> 
> I have £4000 to get a car on the road and was wodneirng on any suggestions.
> 
> My uses will be for mainly in London and driving down to portsmouth.
> 
> Looking for all the modern bits and bobs. Prefer a 2 door hatch.
> 
> So far I have come up with the following but as I know next to nothing about
> cars I though I could ask.
> 
> Citroen Saxo
> Fiesta zetec 1.25
> VW polo
> VW golf
> 
> the vw's looking for quite new versions.


Skoda Fabia 1.4 or TDi. The TDi might be a bit pricey.
If you want a car that can be battered in London, and keep running, 
Skoda Felicia.
1.3 is fine, 1.6 is a VW engine, not that much better than the 1.3 but 
heavier, but doesn't feel as rattley (cam chain on the 1.3). If you 
don't mind spending weeks getting anywhere Felicia 1.9 SDi. Slow as 
buggery, but good economy, and will climb anything.
-- 
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

<<Skoda Fabia 1.4 or TDi. The TDi might be a bit pricey.
If you want a car that can be battered in London, and keep running,
Skoda Felicia.
1.3 is fine, 1.6 is a VW engine, not that much better than the 1.3 but
heavier, but doesn't feel as rattley (cam chain on the 1.3). If you
don't mind spending weeks getting anywhere Felicia 1.9 SDi. Slow as
buggery, but good economy, and will climb anything.>>

Climb anything?  You're having a laugh!  On big long hills I had to make a 
real effort to keep the revs up to get my Seat Inca SDI up them (and that 
was only ever with light parcels in the back).  And the economy wasn't that 
good either.  On a long-ish run, combining around 80 on the motorway with 
normal speeds on country roads, it'd only do about 47mpg.  Crap, given how 
good the TDIs are on fuel.

Having said that though, they're quite usable around town, and actually have 
a better spread of torque lower down the rev range (like between idle and 
2000rpm) than TDIs, due to lack of lag, so if something just to be used 
around town, and barely ever on the open road, then an SDI is a good bet if 
it's cheap enough compared to a TDI.  No risk of a turbo to blow up, or oil 
cooler (something that I've had go on a TD engine before), and good enough 
on fuel (mine was actually better going in and out of London, with its fair 
share of London traffic, than it was going up hill and down dale on the open 
road).  But even so, an identical sized TDI is probably going to be no worse 
on fuel than the SDI, and is not going to be painfully slow to take up steep 
hills should the need arise, so only get the SDI if it's *significantly* 
cheaper than a TDI.  Bear in mind no-one'll want it when you're done with it 
either, so allow for it to be worth a lot less too.

Peter

SteveH wrote:

	[...Shitty Rover...]


> A 4k bike will do close on 150mph.


....and be worth more than 2p tomorrow.



A

-- 
Trade Oil in

DervMan  wrote:


> >> That's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
> >>
> >> All it needs is one car doing 40mph in a 60 and the bike has gone.
> >
> > So you manage to achieve an average speed of 58 by sticking to 60 in the
> > 60 limits, then?
> 
> 
> Oh, I see your other point - overtaking.  Hmm.  No I don't think I'd be
> overtaking many more vehicles, regardless of the performance, heh.  Some
> will be overtaken sooner but the time saved won't be significant.


Don't you believe it.

Bikes can pull out very large leads on cars when you throw traffic into
the equation.
-- 
Steve 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 #

The message <1gz6uzb.6htiq712arzgiN%steve@italiancar.co.uk>
from steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) contains these words:


> Bikes can pull out very large leads on cars when you throw traffic into
> the equation.


Even bicycles can. I used to get from Amen Corner, Tooting to Warren
Street in 40 minutes on a Sturmey-Archer geared sit-up-and-beg bike. I
defy anyone to do that in a car without sirens and flashing lights.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

"SteveH"  wrote in message 
news:1gz6uzb.6htiq712arzgiN%steve@italiancar.co.uk...

> DervMan  wrote:
>
>> >> That's got absolutely nothing to do with it.
>> >>
>> >> All it needs is one car doing 40mph in a 60 and the bike has gone.
>> >
>> > So you manage to achieve an average speed of 58 by sticking to 60 in 
>> > the
>> > 60 limits, then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, I see your other point - overtaking.  Hmm.  No I don't think I'd be
>> overtaking many more vehicles, regardless of the performance, heh.  Some
>> will be overtaken sooner but the time saved won't be significant.
>
> Don't you believe it.


You don't have to.  I don't have a hairy enough (insert suitable body part) 
to have a bike, heh, we'll never know...


> Bikes can pull out very large leads on cars when you throw traffic into
> the equation.





-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message 
news:qh8ye.22311$Ar5.4233@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

> <<Skoda Fabia 1.4 or TDi. The TDi might be a bit pricey.
> If you want a car that can be battered in London, and keep running,
> Skoda Felicia.
> 1.3 is fine, 1.6 is a VW engine, not that much better than the 1.3 but
> heavier, but doesn't feel as rattley (cam chain on the 1.3). If you
> don't mind spending weeks getting anywhere Felicia 1.9 SDi. Slow as
> buggery, but good economy, and will climb anything.>>
>
> Climb anything?  You're having a laugh!


Nah, that's the way the SDI works.


> On big long hills I had to make a real effort to keep the revs up to get 
> my Seat Inca SDI up them (and that was only ever with light parcels in the 
> back).


But you made it up, though.


> And the economy wasn't that good either.  On a long-ish run, combining 
> around 80 on the motorway with normal speeds on country roads, it'd only 
> do about 47mpg.  Crap, given how good the TDIs are on fuel.


Ahhha but the SDI was _never_ as economical as the TDI when driven 
reasonably hard.  As in 80 indicated.  It's more economical when nailed 
everywhere, compared to nailing the TDI, or when driven very, very gently.*

*Going on the Polo and Golf models, and when fluffing about, there's 
statistically and materially no difference in the Golf.


> Having said that though, they're quite usable around town, and actually 
> have a better spread of torque lower down the rev range (like between idle 
> and 2000rpm) than TDIs, due to lack of lag, so if something just to be 
> used around town, and barely ever on the open road, then an SDI is a good 
> bet if it's cheap enough compared to a TDI.


That in some respects is their forte.  Is the engine running?  Right, well 
you're pretty much in the right gear then... :)


> No risk of a turbo to blow up, or oil cooler (something that I've had go 
> on a TD engine before), and good enough on fuel (mine was actually better 
> going in and out of London, with its fair share of London traffic, than it 
> was going up hill and down dale on the open road).


Aye - for a van that's probably all it needs.


> But even so, an identical sized TDI is probably going to be no worse on 
> fuel than the SDI, and is not going to be painfully slow to take up steep 
> hills should the need arise, so only get the SDI if it's *significantly* 
> cheaper than a TDI.  Bear in mind no-one'll want it when you're done with 
> it either, so allow for it to be worth a lot less too.


Hmm.  There's a market for SDIs in the Golf class, including the Octavia - 
minicabs.  Actually when we were looking to replace the Mondeo a verrrrry 
cheap Octavia SDI caught my eye.  The trouble is that it drove kinda like, 
well, erm, lets just say the Ka (not exactly notable for tarmac bustin' 
performance) was hugely more responsive.

That's the reason why I like mark four Golf SDIs so much.  I can catch them 
in the Ka over any road. :)  I can only catch the TDIs on twisty stuff.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

DervMan (dervman@ntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 


>> Climb anything?  You're having a laugh!

> Nah, that's the way the SDI works.

>> On big long hills I had to make a real effort to keep the revs up to
>> get my Seat Inca SDI up them (and that was only ever with light
>> parcels in the back).

> But you made it up, though.


Slow as hell, but you'll get there. Eventually. Yup, sounds like an atmo-
diseasel.

I seem to recall driving a 1.9(non-T)D ZX dragging a small car trailer 
(350kg+) bearing a Citroen Ami (750kg).

<pauses for Conor to have a go about irresponsible car drivers>

Out of the yard with the lockups, U-turn onto the road out the village, and 
then immediately into a nice climb.

Foot flat in 1st, pedal bending the floor, about 2500rpm, and a big cloud 
of smoke.

A bus overtook me...

The message 
from Adrian  contains these words:


> Slow as hell, but you'll get there. Eventually. Yup, sounds like an atmo-
> diseasel.


I like the idea of an atmospheric diesel - I've had a few that'd apply
to rather too well. You'r right though - you'll always get there up a
hill in a diesel - just that sometimes you have to wait.

I did the climb out of Robin Hood's Bay (1:4 in places) in a 1.6
atmodiesel 4-speed Astra with a dying CV joint.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Guy King (guy.king@zetnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 


>> Slow as hell, but you'll get there. Eventually. Yup, sounds like an
>> atmo- diseasel.

> I like the idea of an atmospheric diesel - I've had a few that'd apply
> to rather too well.


I don't think that a, erm, pressure-equalisation-aperture in the side of 
the block counts...

Pete M wrote:

> 
> 
> Um, Selespeed has more problems than any other gearbox in history- and I 
> *like* Alfas. I've owned enough of 'em.


Yeah, the early ones.
Now they're fine. The Maserati GranSport uses the same technology


> 
>>I read somewhere a few months back that last year in a European
>>reliabiilty index thing, Merc's came below Alfa. Both might have been
>>quite low in the 'league', but wtf does that say to people who buy
>>Merc's thinking they're l33t and those who comment about Alfa's being
>>shit when they've never lived with one.
> 
> 
> I've lived with both, and I'd rate Ford, Alfa and Mercedes considerably 
> better than BMW or VW.
> 
> Older Mercedes are still some of the best built cars of all time, unlike my 
> current Range Rover...
> 


Yeah, older anything is better :-)

In article <qh8ye.22311$Ar5.4233@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, 
Peter@Whataloadofforeskinbollocks.co.uk says...

> But even so, an identical sized TDI is probably going to be no worse 
> on fuel than the SDI, and is not going to be painfully slow to take up steep 
> hills should the need arise, so only get the SDI if it's *significantly* 
> cheaper than a TDI. 
> 

But there was no Felicia TFi, and the Felicia is always significantly 
cheaper than the Seat/VW equivalent,a nd does come in a useful sized 
small estate version should you want a little extra carrying capacity.
-- 
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com