Pistonheads vehicles you don't "get"
Discussion
Modern Mini, headed in the wrong direction and no one seems to care.
ALL those Tonka pick ups that people with Hot tubs and Rottie's seem to drive and love to prove how fast they are and how well they handle at every corner / set of lights.
The 7 Series, sigh, why?
BMW et all for telling us RWD and three box saloons with welded rear seats are for driving perfection then quietly bringing us FWD hatch backs.
All UK car manufacturers, support your local buying public, product made here should be cheaper for motorists who live here to buy as opposed to those in Japan / China / the US - don't give me the different spec rubbish, you all abuse treasure island.
ALL those Tonka pick ups that people with Hot tubs and Rottie's seem to drive and love to prove how fast they are and how well they handle at every corner / set of lights.
The 7 Series, sigh, why?
BMW et all for telling us RWD and three box saloons with welded rear seats are for driving perfection then quietly bringing us FWD hatch backs.
All UK car manufacturers, support your local buying public, product made here should be cheaper for motorists who live here to buy as opposed to those in Japan / China / the US - don't give me the different spec rubbish, you all abuse treasure island.
GreenArrow said:
Clio172/182. Wanted to love it so much, but two test drives didn't convince. Only felt quick when absolutely leathered, cramped inside (more than the 205 GTI I had at the time) and felt distinctly wobbly when the sales person tried to max it around a roundabout. The 197 felt a far superior car overall when I drove it, albeit even more gutless low down!
Well I am gonna defend the 182 as I have one! I think it took me a while to love this car but I got there in the end , it's one of the best cars I have ever owned ! Not without faults agreed but that's mostly cheap finish on the interior and slightly bad seating position , but for a B road blast nothing comes close , I reckon as with most cars some are better put together than others , go try another one ! 
Ali_T said:
911s. I just don't see why having an over light, constantly bobbing, fidgety front end combined with a heavy rear end is anything other than stupid and just a bit scary. That they now have no steering feel makes them doubly worrying IMO. Maybe you get used to it? I don't intend to.
I have a soft spot for the 935.Otherwise the 911 leaves me just feeling 'meh'. Never had one, but I guess my previous sentence is reason enough...
So, yeah, the PH car I don't get is the 911, and I guess the 'I don't get' factor is really tempered by the massive porsche fanboy mob. Other cars I don't really 'get' for sure, but they don't have the same level of fanboyishness. So M135i - yep, big engine, relatively small car - get that, but doesn't make me cry out for one.
neil-935ql said:
Well I am gonna defend the 182 as I have one! I think it took me a while to love this car but I got there in the end , it's one of the best cars I have ever owned ! Not without faults agreed but that's mostly cheap finish on the interior and slightly bad seating position , but for a B road blast nothing comes close , I reckon as with most cars some are better put together than others , go try another one !
I agree. I have a 182 and a mk 2.5 mx5 and I must say for any journey I will pick the Clio. So much more engaging of a drive on any road, including B roads. The MX5 is only good if you want a tan and in fact I am putting it up for sale soon as I "don't get it"I'm going to say what everyone else has already said - MX5.
they all look rubbish no matter the year, although the newer ones look fairly okay but still bland.
Not quick and IMO they don't even handle that well either, it's the sensation of speed that makes you think they do, when in reality others cares are much faster around the bends.
Oh and it's a convertible, so you can really hear the sound of that lovely V8 in the front..... not.
they all look rubbish no matter the year, although the newer ones look fairly okay but still bland.
Not quick and IMO they don't even handle that well either, it's the sensation of speed that makes you think they do, when in reality others cares are much faster around the bends.
Oh and it's a convertible, so you can really hear the sound of that lovely V8 in the front..... not.
dme123 said:
I'll defend Volvo and say they are PH but in quite a subtle way. They aren't exciting and even the quick ones go about their business in quite an aloof way, but they are good at practically everything and truly bad at nothing that is really important in an everyday/family car. They're just... competent. This doesn't make for an exciting car but it does make for an excellent daily driver, which then gives you the freedom to have something as stupid as you want for a 2nd car.
They also don't have any particular d
head image, they're generally engineered and built very well, the engines are very good and have enough character to be enjoyable without having any foibles that irritate and the ergonomics and human interface aspects are absolutely spot on.
That said I had no idea what the appeal was until I owned one for a while, and I was very surprised to find out how much I came to like and respect the thing.
Volvo's are not fun or particularly sexy but they are so good at the comfy/practical stuff. We have an XC90 as the family car and it gets used as a removal van at times too. Just done a camping trip in the Lakes and it did everything it needed to so well. I've driven a few of the recent saloon and estate cars and whilst I'd never admire the looks, I always get out comfy, refreshed and thinking how well thought out they are. They also don't have any particular d
head image, they're generally engineered and built very well, the engines are very good and have enough character to be enjoyable without having any foibles that irritate and the ergonomics and human interface aspects are absolutely spot on.That said I had no idea what the appeal was until I owned one for a while, and I was very surprised to find out how much I came to like and respect the thing.
As for PH cars I don't get. The MX5. I've never driven one so maybe that would change my mind but to me the performance on paper coupled with the girly looks and soft top just put me right off.
itiejim said:
Lamborghinis - inevitably less resolved than the comparable Ferrari, excruciatingly crass to look at and with no motorsport heritage. Since the VW Audi takeover they don't even have that charm of being authentically Italian.
Why, why, why.
Utter rubbish.Why, why, why.
Many years before VW were involved Lamborghini had decided that a factory race team was too big a drain on resources.
That however has not stopped many private race teams from running Lamborghinis during the 70s all the way up to current GT3, LM, GT & super GT , endurance events an so on.
As for not being authentically Italian, how do you figure that one out? A product that is designed in Italy by an Italian (Filippo Perini - who ironically formerly worked Ferrari) and assembled in Italy isn't Italian ?
Don't tell me you think Lamborghinis are VWs in different dresses.
aka_kerrly said:
Utter rubbish.
Many years before VW were involved Lamborghini had decided that a factory race team was too big a drain on resources.
That however has not stopped many private race teams from running Lamborghinis during the 70s all the way up to current GT3, LM, GT & super GT , endurance events an so on.
As for not being authentically Italian, how do you figure that one out? A product that is designed in Italy by an Italian (Filippo Perini - who ironically formerly worked Ferrari) and assembled in Italy isn't Italian ?
Don't tell me you think Lamborghinis are VWs in different dresses.
Maybe not back in the day but they are now. The new Audi R8 V10 Plus and the Lamborghini Huarachan to me are nigh on the same car under the skin. There is nothing that Seperates a new Lamborghini anymore or makes it stand out to me...Many years before VW were involved Lamborghini had decided that a factory race team was too big a drain on resources.
That however has not stopped many private race teams from running Lamborghinis during the 70s all the way up to current GT3, LM, GT & super GT , endurance events an so on.
As for not being authentically Italian, how do you figure that one out? A product that is designed in Italy by an Italian (Filippo Perini - who ironically formerly worked Ferrari) and assembled in Italy isn't Italian ?
Don't tell me you think Lamborghinis are VWs in different dresses.
Ali_T said:
911s. I just don't see why having an over light, constantly bobbing, fidgety front end combined with a heavy rear end is anything other than stupid and just a bit scary. That they now have no steering feel makes them doubly worrying IMO. Maybe you get used to it? I don't intend to.
From what I have read in recent years, compared to front engine/RWD and mid-engined layouts (assuming the cars are otherwise like for like), the rear-engined layout boils down to two things:1. Can brake later and harder - the weight transfer onto the front wheels is reduced, i.e. weight distrubition under braking is more even, so rear brakes can do more work and overall braking potential for the 4 tyres is therefore increased.
2. Can get on the power earlier out of turns - more weight over the rear wheels gives better traction out of corners.
The downside is increased risk of lift-off oversteer and trickier trail braking.
The 911 having rear seats should also not be underestimated. If you have young kids/grandkids, being able to put kids in the back is a big practicality bonus. For those without kids, it's a lot easier to fit in golf clubs/camping gear/the wife's holiday luggage etc.
it's funny what PHers get and don't get, it's a bit like the 'Tell me I;m wrong' threads.
I used to dream of a hot hatch in the 90s, but now I don't see the point of them!
the new crop of hyper hatches just do not excite me, bar the new Type-R because it's got childish wings and things.
they seem a bit jack-of-all-trades, master of non to me...
and for that £300 a month +insurance, you could own, insure, and maintain a real sports car (Elise?!) with a shed for the commute.
I used to dream of a hot hatch in the 90s, but now I don't see the point of them!
the new crop of hyper hatches just do not excite me, bar the new Type-R because it's got childish wings and things.
they seem a bit jack-of-all-trades, master of non to me...
and for that £300 a month +insurance, you could own, insure, and maintain a real sports car (Elise?!) with a shed for the commute.
braddo said:
From what I have read in recent years, compared to front engine/RWD and mid-engined layouts (assuming the cars are otherwise like for like), the rear-engined layout boils down to two things:
1. Can brake later and harder - the weight transfer onto the front wheels is reduced, i.e. weight distrubition under braking is more even, so rear brakes can do more work and overall braking potential for the 4 tyres is therefore increased.
2. Can get on the power earlier out of turns - more weight over the rear wheels gives better traction out of corners.
The downside is increased risk of lift-off oversteer and trickier trail braking.
The 911 having rear seats should also not be underestimated. If you have young kids/grandkids, being able to put kids in the back is a big practicality bonus. For those without kids, it's a lot easier to fit in golf clubs/camping gear/the wife's holiday luggage etc.
This. Plus 911s haven't been tail heavy for years; nor are they remotely skittish. Oh yeah, and the 911 is nearly mid-engined.1. Can brake later and harder - the weight transfer onto the front wheels is reduced, i.e. weight distrubition under braking is more even, so rear brakes can do more work and overall braking potential for the 4 tyres is therefore increased.
2. Can get on the power earlier out of turns - more weight over the rear wheels gives better traction out of corners.
The downside is increased risk of lift-off oversteer and trickier trail braking.
The 911 having rear seats should also not be underestimated. If you have young kids/grandkids, being able to put kids in the back is a big practicality bonus. For those without kids, it's a lot easier to fit in golf clubs/camping gear/the wife's holiday luggage etc.
Gotta love PH for people spouting stuff they heard in the pub 20 years ago.
Joeguard1990 said:
I'm going to say what everyone else has already said - MX5.
they all look rubbish no matter the year, although the newer ones look fairly okay but still bland.
Not quick and IMO they don't even handle that well either, it's the sensation of speed that makes you think they do, when in reality others cares are much faster around the bends.
Oh and it's a convertible, so you can really hear the sound of that lovely V8 in the front..... not.
One day you might learn the difference between handling and grip.they all look rubbish no matter the year, although the newer ones look fairly okay but still bland.
Not quick and IMO they don't even handle that well either, it's the sensation of speed that makes you think they do, when in reality others cares are much faster around the bends.
Oh and it's a convertible, so you can really hear the sound of that lovely V8 in the front..... not.
MX-5s handle well. Audis have lots of grip.
If your username gives away your year of birth I'll let you off - you still have lots to learn but time to do so.
Ali_T said:
911s. I just don't see why having an over light, constantly bobbing, fidgety front end combined with a heavy rear end is anything other than stupid and just a bit scary. That they now have no steering feel makes them doubly worrying IMO. Maybe you get used to it? I don't intend to.
Yet the motorsport guys loved 'em, on stage or track. Won a snowy Monte Carlo outright back in '68, and appearing at Le Mans the same year and has done so to this day. They thought the car was great.
ORD said:
This. Plus 911s haven't been tail heavy for years; nor are they remotely skittish. Oh yeah, and the 911 is nearly mid-engined.
Bloody hell, are you sure? I've stood under my pals's '89 and just marveled at that whacking great lump sitting out the arse end. It really is something to marvel at, imo. Professional racing drivers would choose a car that constantly jabbed them up the arse with a pointy stick if it got them from A-B faster.
I didn't think the 997 was at all treacherous over the limit, certainly not on low grip surfaces anyway, though high speed slides with more momentum and weight transfer are always a different matter to poking them out of line on the slippery stuff. It just didn't float my boat. A bit too good at pretending to be an everyday car. No sense of occasion.
I didn't think the 997 was at all treacherous over the limit, certainly not on low grip surfaces anyway, though high speed slides with more momentum and weight transfer are always a different matter to poking them out of line on the slippery stuff. It just didn't float my boat. A bit too good at pretending to be an everyday car. No sense of occasion.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff