RE: SOTW: Renault Vel Satis
Discussion
Wowsers, 10 years old already!
I like the concept, pointless competing with the Germans making a sporty saloon, so go leftfield but I'm a bit put off by the dealers and reliability.
Back when these were brand spanking new, Renault UK sent me a nice e-mail (I was working for a lease company at the time) asking me if I'd like to borrow one for the weekend. "lovely" I thought and made the arrangements. Turned up at the local dealer on the Friday afternoon to pick it up. The DP looked me up and down and grunted to me "how old are you" "25", "you got a credit card" "yep" "hang on" walked out of the room, and left me there for about half an hour, before coming back in and barking without looking in my direction "there's been a mistake, you're not having it".
I was a bit pissed off, but figured no loss really, I was never going to buy one myself (being 25 and skint), and now I certainly wouldn't be raving about them to any of our customers, especially as Vauxhall, MG, Seat, Skoda and VW lent us Cars all the time and been lovely about it.
But on Monday, I got an e-mail from Renault again asking me what I thought about it, so full of youthful piss and vinegar I let them have it with my keyboard broadsword. In the afternoon I got the full hairdryer treatment from the DP down the phone about how I'd "blagged a test drive of HIS car" "I doubt you could afford the petrol for a weekend in it" "we don't want some kid doing joyrides for his mates all weekend in it".
That coupled with the 3 years of hell my friends had with their fleet of Laguna hatches would make me think twice about a new one, never mind a complex, rare and high spec 10 year old one.
I like the concept, pointless competing with the Germans making a sporty saloon, so go leftfield but I'm a bit put off by the dealers and reliability.
Back when these were brand spanking new, Renault UK sent me a nice e-mail (I was working for a lease company at the time) asking me if I'd like to borrow one for the weekend. "lovely" I thought and made the arrangements. Turned up at the local dealer on the Friday afternoon to pick it up. The DP looked me up and down and grunted to me "how old are you" "25", "you got a credit card" "yep" "hang on" walked out of the room, and left me there for about half an hour, before coming back in and barking without looking in my direction "there's been a mistake, you're not having it".
I was a bit pissed off, but figured no loss really, I was never going to buy one myself (being 25 and skint), and now I certainly wouldn't be raving about them to any of our customers, especially as Vauxhall, MG, Seat, Skoda and VW lent us Cars all the time and been lovely about it.
But on Monday, I got an e-mail from Renault again asking me what I thought about it, so full of youthful piss and vinegar I let them have it with my keyboard broadsword. In the afternoon I got the full hairdryer treatment from the DP down the phone about how I'd "blagged a test drive of HIS car" "I doubt you could afford the petrol for a weekend in it" "we don't want some kid doing joyrides for his mates all weekend in it".
That coupled with the 3 years of hell my friends had with their fleet of Laguna hatches would make me think twice about a new one, never mind a complex, rare and high spec 10 year old one.
over_the_hill said:
How the bloody hell can a cam belt change cost four figures. Do they have to literally rebuild the entire engine.
Seem to recall a timing chain on a SAAB 99 costing me close to 4 figures - in 1980!!!!! But then, the engine was the wrong way round, so it was an engine out job!!!Right, before anybody flames me for being pedantic about grammar, please remember that I'm aiming my criticism at a professional writer who does this for a living and really should know better.
When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
Having owned a Renault of this generation, and having not long recovered from the damage it did to my savings account, no thank you.
Quite a cool looking car in French barge way, but the thought of the hideously complex electronics, and the mechanicals designed with no consideration for maintenance or longevity.....with 10 years of damp, vibration, wear and tear thrown into the mix (my Scenic wasn't even 4 years old when I gave up on it)...... brings me out in hives.
Quite a cool looking car in French barge way, but the thought of the hideously complex electronics, and the mechanicals designed with no consideration for maintenance or longevity.....with 10 years of damp, vibration, wear and tear thrown into the mix (my Scenic wasn't even 4 years old when I gave up on it)...... brings me out in hives.
Edited by Limpet on Friday 15th March 10:08
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
Right, before anybody flames me for being pedantic about grammar, please remember that I'm aiming my criticism at a professional writer who does this for a living and really should know better.
When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
Top grammar nazism, I never knew that but am less ignorant now..or am I fewer ignorant When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
Either way, it was bound to cause a fewerore.I 'ave ad one of zeez in 3.0dV6 Initiale form for nearly 5 years as a general family barge. I like it because it's practical, comfortable and different.
The reason that there are more survivors than might be expected is that, apart from a galvanised steel frame, they are made of composite and aluminium.
All parts are still available to order from Renault dealers.
Owners will complain mostly about the seemingly endless number of rear suspension clonks that they are tracking down through a process of elimination. Renault developed a new rear suspension system for this car (called Trigonal) which may have worked when new but does not wear well. It's also not understood properly over here.
The reason that there are more survivors than might be expected is that, apart from a galvanised steel frame, they are made of composite and aluminium.
All parts are still available to order from Renault dealers.
Owners will complain mostly about the seemingly endless number of rear suspension clonks that they are tracking down through a process of elimination. Renault developed a new rear suspension system for this car (called Trigonal) which may have worked when new but does not wear well. It's also not understood properly over here.
I actually quite like this!
Very quirky and fantastically French.
Something very different and left-field. Really surprised that they have become this cheap.
For those hating the car, maybe you should try something different rather than always going with the norm.
I'm a German and Jag car nut, but happy to experience different cars. I even had an Alfa 166 at one point, and you know what, I was pleasantly surprised! I will definitely like to experience something like this, or a big old Citroen barge...
Very quirky and fantastically French.
Something very different and left-field. Really surprised that they have become this cheap.
For those hating the car, maybe you should try something different rather than always going with the norm.
I'm a German and Jag car nut, but happy to experience different cars. I even had an Alfa 166 at one point, and you know what, I was pleasantly surprised! I will definitely like to experience something like this, or a big old Citroen barge...
ewenm said:
MysteryLemon said:
I don't get the ph obsession with these. In obviously missing something. To me it looks like an ugly, unreliable pile of s
t. It's not cool or exciting.
Why on earth would anyone on a website like this even consider the thought of owning one or think it a good idea to suggest someone own one?
You do know that SOTW is just a bit of fun, yes? If it featured high-mileage 3/5-series every week it would be very very boring. The pick of eclectic, objectively rubbish cars makes the article better.t. It's not cool or exciting.Why on earth would anyone on a website like this even consider the thought of owning one or think it a good idea to suggest someone own one?
LuS1fer said:
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
Right, before anybody flames me for being pedantic about grammar, please remember that I'm aiming my criticism at a professional writer who does this for a living and really should know better.
When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
Top grammar nazism, I never knew that but am less ignorant now..or am I fewer ignorant When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
Either way, it was bound to cause a fewerore.This is for people who like cars,not for someone to read responses and check the grammar, you nob
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
Right, before anybody flames me for being pedantic about grammar, please remember that I'm aiming my criticism at a professional writer who does this for a living and really should know better.
When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
LuS1fer said:
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
Right, before anybody flames me for being pedantic about grammar, please remember that I'm aiming my criticism at a professional writer who does this for a living and really should know better.
When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
Top grammar nazism, I never knew that but am less ignorant now..or am I fewer ignorant When you're talking about things that you can count - separate, discrete entities - the word is "fewer", not "less".
This article is riddled with this error, over and over again, and to anyone who cares about the quality of writing it really grates. The Avantime was not "put out of its misery in 2003 with less than 9000 units made"; it was put out of its misery with fewer than 9000 units made.
You only use the word "less" when you're talking about a quantity of a continuous substance that is not normally counted as discrete items: water and sand, for example. You can have "less water", but you can't have "less cars".
[/rant]
Either way, it was bound to cause a fewerore.
So, is the ride any good or not ?
Shed Said,
"The VS’s relative success on the Continent was buoyed up by a fanbase of French taxi drivers who liked the monstrous amount of space it offered in both the back and the boot, and who didn’t give deux hootes about the spinal wellbeing of their passengers. It rode like a Roman chariot, its new-age suspension having cleverly substituted jarring choppiness for the old-gen Renaults’ silky compliance. Unsurprisingly, this undermined its intended role as an executive soothe-mobile."
So the Taxi drivers didnt care the ride was bad.
It rode like a Roman Chariot, so that suggests it was bad.
"Silky Compliance" suggests it was good
"Unsurprisingly, this undermined its intended role as an executive soothe-mobile", so back to bad again
So, on the whole, 3 out of four sentences suggest the ride was bad, was it.
Immaterial whether it was or wasnt, it is a fairly ugly, obscure french executive car of which there are only 900 left, I can see the left field appeal of an Avantime, a bit Avant Garde, yes I get it but this looks like the Renault 14 had been left to evolve in isolation for 35 years, not for me but I appreciate Shed bringing us weird stuff.
Shed Said,
"The VS’s relative success on the Continent was buoyed up by a fanbase of French taxi drivers who liked the monstrous amount of space it offered in both the back and the boot, and who didn’t give deux hootes about the spinal wellbeing of their passengers. It rode like a Roman chariot, its new-age suspension having cleverly substituted jarring choppiness for the old-gen Renaults’ silky compliance. Unsurprisingly, this undermined its intended role as an executive soothe-mobile."
So the Taxi drivers didnt care the ride was bad.
It rode like a Roman Chariot, so that suggests it was bad.
"Silky Compliance" suggests it was good
"Unsurprisingly, this undermined its intended role as an executive soothe-mobile", so back to bad again
So, on the whole, 3 out of four sentences suggest the ride was bad, was it.
Immaterial whether it was or wasnt, it is a fairly ugly, obscure french executive car of which there are only 900 left, I can see the left field appeal of an Avantime, a bit Avant Garde, yes I get it but this looks like the Renault 14 had been left to evolve in isolation for 35 years, not for me but I appreciate Shed bringing us weird stuff.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff