James May's Cars of the People
Discussion
Scuffers said:
ford sierra is not a good example, another case of new shape on archaic mechanics.
Vauxhall were the only (UK) ones to actually design new stuff, the first of the FWD cavaliers and Astra's were lightyears ahead of ford and BL.
Sierra is still lightyears ahead of an Ital though, and though yes I agree mostly on your points regarding the Cavalier, I'd also say the BX makes the Cavalier look pretty ordinary, if we're comparing cars in the list.Vauxhall were the only (UK) ones to actually design new stuff, the first of the FWD cavaliers and Astra's were lightyears ahead of ford and BL.
Mk2 Cavvy still had gutter rails (chrome effect on the CD too - very 70's), it had those doors that overlap the B-pillar, like a Marina, the proportions of the wheels relative to the bodywork etc - all pretty old school. BX had brand new all alloy engines, full depth bumpers, plastic door and flush-fitting boot handles....lots of things that are still used today. In fairness, the Sierra had some of these features too, whereas the Cavalier didn't. I think Vauxhall moved the game on with the mk3 Cavalier, personally. Lots of cars after that featured many similar design touches.
All still miles ahead of anything BL offered, and like I say, when the Montego arrived, it was no better despite being newer.
Kitchski said:
Sierra is still lightyears ahead of an Ital though, and though yes I agree mostly on your points regarding the Cavalier, I'd also say the BX makes the Cavalier look pretty ordinary, if we're comparing cars in the list.
Mk2 Cavvy still had gutter rails (chrome effect on the CD too - very 70's), it had those doors that overlap the B-pillar, like a Marina, the proportions of the wheels relative to the bodywork etc - all pretty old school. BX had brand new all alloy engines, full depth bumpers, plastic door and flush-fitting boot handles....lots of things that are still used today. In fairness, the Sierra had some of these features too, whereas the Cavalier didn't. I think Vauxhall moved the game on with the mk3 Cavalier, personally. Lots of cars after that featured many similar design touches.
All still miles ahead of anything BL offered, and like I say, when the Montego arrived, it was no better despite being newer.
to a point, you're right.Mk2 Cavvy still had gutter rails (chrome effect on the CD too - very 70's), it had those doors that overlap the B-pillar, like a Marina, the proportions of the wheels relative to the bodywork etc - all pretty old school. BX had brand new all alloy engines, full depth bumpers, plastic door and flush-fitting boot handles....lots of things that are still used today. In fairness, the Sierra had some of these features too, whereas the Cavalier didn't. I think Vauxhall moved the game on with the mk3 Cavalier, personally. Lots of cars after that featured many similar design touches.
All still miles ahead of anything BL offered, and like I say, when the Montego arrived, it was no better despite being newer.
the issue I have with the Sierra is that mechanically, it's the same old s
te, if you ever drove one, they were simply terrible.Yes, the BX was years ahead, as were quite a few others.
Lastly, the Montego and Maestro were actually not that bad in engineering terms, let down by some questionable styling and lack of investment in engines.
Scuffers said:
to a point, you're right.
the issue I have with the Sierra is that mechanically, it's the same old ste, if you ever drove one, they were simply terrible.
Yes, the BX was years ahead, as were quite a few others.
Lastly, the Montego and Maestro were actually not that bad in engineering terms, let down by some questionable styling and lack of investment in engines.
I've driven quite a few Sierras of varying specs, and own millions of BXs. There's quite a gulf between them I admit in terms of how modern they feel, which is odd, given they're the same age. The Sierra feels like they've taken an old concept, tried to modernise bits of it and then wrapped it up in a fairly daring body. With the BX it feels like they started with a blank page. But then if you love the Sierra, you'd probably hate the BX as they're so different. Cavalier probably sits halfway between, with the Ital at the bottom of a lake.the issue I have with the Sierra is that mechanically, it's the same old s
te, if you ever drove one, they were simply terrible.Yes, the BX was years ahead, as were quite a few others.
Lastly, the Montego and Maestro were actually not that bad in engineering terms, let down by some questionable styling and lack of investment in engines.
Beati Dogu said:
The first Sierra I saw was in a ditch. They were a bit of pig in crosswinds I seem to remember.
I drove a 1.8i once and the power steering was really floaty and bad.
The first Sierras were indeed a bit too slippy in cross winds as Neil Kinnock found out to his costI drove a 1.8i once and the power steering was really floaty and bad.
They came up with a modded rear window surround to prove a better 'departure point' at the rear of the car for air passing over/around the car
Kitchski said:
Scuffers said:
to a point, you're right.
the issue I have with the Sierra is that mechanically, it's the same old ste, if you ever drove one, they were simply terrible.
Yes, the BX was years ahead, as were quite a few others.
Lastly, the Montego and Maestro were actually not that bad in engineering terms, let down by some questionable styling and lack of investment in engines.
I've driven quite a few Sierras of varying specs, and own millions of BXs. There's quite a gulf between them I admit in terms of how modern they feel, which is odd, given they're the same age. The Sierra feels like they've taken an old concept, tried to modernise bits of it and then wrapped it up in a fairly daring body. With the BX it feels like they started with a blank page. But then if you love the Sierra, you'd probably hate the BX as they're so different. Cavalier probably sits halfway between, with the Ital at the bottom of a lake.the issue I have with the Sierra is that mechanically, it's the same old s
te, if you ever drove one, they were simply terrible.Yes, the BX was years ahead, as were quite a few others.
Lastly, the Montego and Maestro were actually not that bad in engineering terms, let down by some questionable styling and lack of investment in engines.
DoubleD said:
strummerville said:
Perhaps not the best analogy - however, yes, designed & built in Britain but funded by Tata.
Yeah very un British to be proud of something that we've done well. Shame on them!Designed by British talent, and providing jobs for the good folk of the west midlands is what counts for me
otolith said:
Kitchski said:
And, when the replacement came, the Montego, it still wasn't as good as most of the cars above!
My dad had all the contemporary repmobiles as company cars, and actually preferred the Montego to the Sierra or Cavalier.The BX made all the family seasick. You can make it as advanced as you like, but if the occupants are barf-ready within minutes of leaving you're not going to rule the World automotively. The un-restricted non-turbo diesel engine and extra large sunroof were plus points though.
otolith said:
Kitchski said:
And, when the replacement came, the Montego, it still wasn't as good as most of the cars above!
My dad had all the contemporary repmobiles as company cars, and actually preferred the Montego to the Sierra or Cavalier.Kitchski said:
...Unless you want to fk them, how somebody looks is not important...
This seems counter-intuitive on a visual medium.k them, how somebody looks is not important...James May has chosen to appear as a duffer in more than one episode of a well known weekly show, whilst it is clear he isn't (from watching the series with Oz Clarke for example). But that's how he looks...
The Don of Croy said:
This seems counter-intuitive on a visual medium.
James May has chosen to appear as a duffer in more than one episode of a well known weekly show, whilst it is clear he isn't (from watching the series with Oz Clarke for example). But that's how he looks...
Maybe the choice of presenters and the 'role' they play is geared towards altering the viewpoint of the sort of people who watch telly programmes, and actually care what the presenter looks like? Maybe I'm in the minority. All I know is I didn't switch it on and even notice how the bloke looks, let alone form an opinion on it. If he was presenting a programme called 'How to look good enough for men to like you on a slightly right-wing, middle-class, car-based internet forum" or something, then maybe I'd have evaluated his appearance a bit more. James May has chosen to appear as a duffer in more than one episode of a well known weekly show, whilst it is clear he isn't (from watching the series with Oz Clarke for example). But that's how he looks...
s m said:
MartG said:
s m said:
MartG said:
ta22gt said:
Escort3500 said:
I enjoyed it as I did the last series. The bit with the Japanese and American guys being driven around was a bit too long but otherwise it was well put together. The S3 E Type was a sorry successor to the earlier versions, it never worked for me. Also, I seem to remember that the twin cam Celica was an altogether better car than the 2-litre GT that featured, though I might be wrong on this.
The 2000 GT is also a twin-cam. Both have very similar performance, (sub 9 second 0-60 - in the mid 1970's) and equipment; twin-cam, 5-speed, LSD, live axle, terrible steering box etc In the end which is the better car seems to be decided by which look you prefer.... The Liftbacks sold in the UK had the 18R 2.0 pushrod engine in the ST model while the GT got the 18R-G DOHC. Other markets got other engines like the 2.2 cars sold in the US.
Back in the mid 80s, friend owned one for a few months in between Mk2 Escorts
Shame they never put a decent r&p system on them
)I'm trying to find my old pics of it next to my RS2000 - we did have an entertaining convoy drive back up through Wales after he bought it
The one on Top Gear looked in great nick
Kitchski said:
Maybe the choice of presenters and the 'role' they play is geared towards altering the viewpoint of the sort of people who watch telly programmes, and actually care what the presenter looks like? Maybe I'm in the minority. All I know is I didn't switch it on and even notice how the bloke looks, let alone form an opinion on it. If he was presenting a programme called 'How to look good enough for men to like you on a slightly right-wing, middle-class, car-based internet forum" or something, then maybe I'd have evaluated his appearance a bit more.
Slightly!?Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff