Blasphemy!: Revered driver's cars that you just don't get.

[Gandahar]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gandahar said:

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.

True, on the other hand you get to look at your nice car whilst you pay

On big estate cars range is an important aspect, especially when you just want to get home, range is far better on diesels, well most of them.

[RobM77]

Gandahar said:

I have to confess I "do not get" big petrol super-estates like the Audi RS6 with 550bhp. I can understand they are great engineering and flippin' fast but it seems to me for what they are used for they probably do not need all that power and require a lot more time filling up than a pretty fast diesel estate.

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

I test drove cars like that, and in particular loved the E92 M3, but ended up not getting one on the basis of the additional fuel cost vs the benefits. Most long distance trips are mainly motorway, where you don't use the power or the handling and to be honest can barely tell the difference from a lesser model, and those trips end up costing twice as much, which I just can't justify. My weekly trip to the coast to go windsurfing would be £30 instead of £15 in fuel and our regular trips to Devon several times a year would be a £60 rather than £30, which is enough to buy a bottle of NV champagne to open when we arrive! I stuck with what I've always done, which is the two car approach I've also saved massively in depreciation and insurance.

It's a sliding scale though - you could use the same argument to ask me why I don't drive a Yaris everyday. Everyone's got their point in that spectrum of cost vs enjoyment.

[cerb4.5lee]

RobM77 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Devil2575 said:

theboss said:

Devil2575 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

That really surprises me as you seem to be really into cars, so you would rather have a noisy unrefined diesel engine over a petrol V8 engine with around 560bhp? I appreciate what you are saying about the weight of a M5 as it is a serious barge but it still goes like the clappers for its weight.

A 535d isn't exactly featherweight either.

Do you actually think that a 535d is noisy and unrefined?

I've had and driven many variants of the x35d and think the drivetrain is exceptionally good - but relative to an M5 it is certainly unrefined. I wouldn't say noisy as its quieter.

I've never driven a 535d, but i've owned an E46 330i and driven an E46 330d. Sure one is slighly more noisy on start up and at low revs but I wouldn't describe either as unrefined or noisy. I'd put money on the 535d not being noisy or unrefined either. Relative to a Veyron a 911 Turbo isn't fast in a straight line, that doesn't make it slow.

Yes you make a fair point, i think my view of a diesel engine is maybe a little too critical because its an engine that i just cant love and i just dont like the noise they make.

A petrol just always seems so much smoother and more refined to me and then i find a diesel unrefined in comparison but in reality the diesel is good for what it is.

I never really understood these comments about diesels until I remembered such comments whilst I was driving through our car park at work, which is the only time on my commute I get below 30-40mph for any significant time. At town speeds (i.e. crawling traffic in London suburbs), yes, you would know very much that it's diesel and the noise is annoying. Above 30mph though, and my commute's average speed over the last year is 58mph, you'd be hard pressed to tell if my 320d is diesel or petrol by sound alone; at 70mph on the motorway you certainly couldn't, in fact the 3 and 5 series are amongst the quietest cars in their class at a motorway cruise, certainly a few years ago they were the quietest as tested by Autocar.

I agree Rob at a cruise at 70 mph you are hard pushed to tell what fuel it sips but at low revs with the radio off the 640d is so obviously a diesel from the noise it makes, and that does irritate me a fair bit and takes away from the nice feeling the car has overall and its as if the engine lets the whole nice car package down a fair bit.

[jamieduff1981]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gandahar said:

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.

Really? Really really?

Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?

[ORD]

jamieduff1981 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gandahar said:

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.

Really? Really really?

Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?

I think his point is that it makes them quite a lot less practical and "do everything" than is claimed. It would be a ball ache in a family car. And if they aren't massively practical, why not buy a proper bloody sports car and stop driving a rocket ship of turd|??

I also don't quite get them for this reason - I would prefer to do any fast driving without a car full of kids and gear, so I am quite happy with 200bhp in a family car: fast enough not to be annoying and economical enough to go for ages before I have to fill it up.

[Conscript]

ORD said:

jamieduff1981 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gandahar said:

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.

Really? Really really?

Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?

I think his point is that it makes them quite a lot less practical and "do everything" than is claimed. It would be a ball ache in a family car. And if they aren't massively practical, why not buy a proper bloody sports car and stop driving a rocket ship of turd|??

I also don't quite get them for this reason - I would prefer to do any fast driving without a car full of kids and gear, so I am quite happy with 200bhp in a family car: fast enough not to be annoying and economical enough to go for ages before I have to fill it up.

It's only going to be a problem when you're making very long journeys though, surely.

And I use the word "problem" very loosely, because I doubt an extra 5 minute fuel stop would really be a massive hindrance to someone interested in such cars.

[Gandahar]

Even Chris Harris has complained about range and he loves them.

As mentioned above though for the type of driving they do, motorway, A roads etc you don't actually need all that performance.

I guess I also fall into the category of 1 mundane car and 1 special car rather than 1 mongrel. I'm the sort who admires the Skoda Octavia diesel Estate though .. cough

[braddo]

Gandahar said:

Even Chris Harris has complained about range and he loves them.

He might complain, but it doesn't mean he would prefer to be in the non-RS/M/AMG diesel version.

[jamieduff1981]

Conscript said:

ORD said:

jamieduff1981 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gandahar said:

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.

Really? Really really?

Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?

I think his point is that it makes them quite a lot less practical and "do everything" than is claimed. It would be a ball ache in a family car. And if they aren't massively practical, why not buy a proper bloody sports car and stop driving a rocket ship of turd|??

I also don't quite get them for this reason - I would prefer to do any fast driving without a car full of kids and gear, so I am quite happy with 200bhp in a family car: fast enough not to be annoying and economical enough to go for ages before I have to fill it up.

It's only going to be a problem when you're making very long journeys though, surely.

And I use the word "problem" very loosely, because I doubt an extra 5 minute fuel stop would really be a massive hindrance to someone interested in such cars.

It's bks is what it is.

Ok mine's a saloon. I've already got 6 cars so have not felt I've compromised too much. A 500bhp family car is what it is. It's not full of family all the time.

Even on long trips (which I actually do, with inlaws being 700 miles away) the length of driving between stops is governed by kids' bladders not fuel tank size.

I think this is just PH reverse snobbery from people who are either just a bit dense or simply can't afford the fuel consumption in a car that is a bit unnecessary. Crap gets made up to justify why smaller engined versions are better. It's nonsense.

[mat205125]

Conscript said:

It's only going to be a problem when you're making very long journeys though, surely.

And I use the word "problem" very loosely, because I doubt an extra 5 minute fuel stop would really be a massive hindrance to someone interested in such cars.

Agree completely, however I still use the same argument (in a joking way) to discussing travel time with my mate and his bike. I deliberately measure the time from sofa to destination, and challenge him to factor in his time to:

Unpack his PPE,
Dress in PPE,
Move car off drive,
Open garage,
Wheel out bike,
Close garage,
Return car to drive,
Start bike and warm up,
JOURNEY,
Park somewhere safe,
Chain up,
Change out of PPE,
Dry/De-smell & adjust appearance
Arrive properly at destination.

Has to be a long trip (within the range of the (assumed) full tank, to make it faster on the bike.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Conscript said:

ORD said:

jamieduff1981 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gandahar said:

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.

Really? Really really?

Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?

I think his point is that it makes them quite a lot less practical and "do everything" than is claimed. It would be a ball ache in a family car. And if they aren't massively practical, why not buy a proper bloody sports car and stop driving a rocket ship of turd|??

I also don't quite get them for this reason - I would prefer to do any fast driving without a car full of kids and gear, so I am quite happy with 200bhp in a family car: fast enough not to be annoying and economical enough to go for ages before I have to fill it up.

It's only going to be a problem when you're making very long journeys though, surely.

Regardless of journey length, an RS6 is going to have to refuel far more often than an A6 2.0TDi, assuming they both come with the same sized fuel tank.

[Devil2575]

theboss said:

Both are excellent cars and if I were doing that 100 mile run twice a day, 5 days a week, I'd have the diesel in a flash. What I find disagreeable is the drawing of a comparison between the two cars as if they M5 is just a marginally faster but much more costly version of the same thing. Yes its more expensive but there is a *night and day* difference in performance and driving enjoyment. I think the F10 M5 is a very underrated machine given the apparent disdain for them.

Maybe the problem is that the F10 M5 isn't quite a drivers machine that it's predecessors were? It's almost 1900kg.

I'm also sure that it is staggeringly quick, even compared to a 535d but how much of this is relevant in the real world? I'm sure that a 535d is fast enough for most buyers, it gets much better mpg and will be cheaper to maintain and is still a chaper car to buy. In fact an F10 525d is probably fast enough and a lot less to buy and run.

It's not like with the E39 where the quickest diesel version still took 8 seconds to get to 60, and would still only do low 30s on a run. These days a 525d has more power than the old 530d, is faster and gets better economy, 41 mpg based on honest John real mpg. If you wanted a quick E39 you needed to go for a 540i or an M5. Now you can get a diesel version of the 5 series which is quick but economical.

Given that the majority of cars like the 5 series are bought to chew up and down motorways i'm not supprised that the M5 is falling from favour with many buyers. I also wonder how much company car tax influeneces the buying choices of many 5 series owners.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

jamieduff1981 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Gandahar said:

Trip to the seaside

You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.

Really? Really really?

Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?

Maybe they don't, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's true. So yes, really, really, really. On a 100 mile journey, a refuelling stop is going to put you behind a slower car with no refuelling stop.

[thiscocks]

northwest monkey said:

For me, the F40 is a bit like the "Emperor's New Clothes" - lots of people like the looks of it because they're supposed to & because "it's an F40". I'm sure it's an excellent drivers car, but pretty or beautiful it is not. I also find the F50 that followed it more interesting from a mechanical point of view.

I used to work for a chap that had an F50. It was a car you could sit there looking at & some of the work under "the bonnet" was incredible. I took him to collect the car once & there was an F40 having some work done at the same place. The difference in the quality and general fit/finish between the 2 cars was staggering.

Agree F40 might not be classically beautiful like say an XK120, DB2 or Dino but in the flesh I dont think anyone could deny its pretty spectacular to look at. Not a fan of the F50 looks but agree, driving wise I think I would prefer it over an F40.

[thiscocks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe they don't, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's true. So yes, really, really, really. On a 100 mile journey, a refuelling stop is going to put you behind a slower car with no refuelling stop.

Difference being the driver in the bland rep model is thinking 'why am I alive', and the driver in the sports version is perhaps slightly enjoying themselves. Plus a fuel stop is a good opportunity to look at your sports versions attractive pumped up exterior.

[Conscript]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Regardless of journey length, an RS6 is going to have to refuel far more often than an A6 2.0TDi, assuming they both come with the same sized fuel tank.

My point was, the only time the RS6 owner is going to think "Oh no, I've got to stop and fill up, this will affect my average journey time!" is if they are making a long distance journey and the shorter range means making a stop. They wouldn't probably think that if it just meant having to make an extra visit to the petrol station each week, as it's less likely to cause a break in a journey.

I understand your point if you were doing mega miles daily and needing to make multiple fuel stops, but in such a use case you probably wouldn't be considering the RS6 anyway.

[Gandahar]

jamieduff1981 said:

It's bks is what it is.


Even on long trips (which I actually do, with inlaws being 700 miles away) the length of driving between stops is governed by kids' bladders not fuel tank size.

That actually is an admission you are not driving that fast so don't need the 500bhp, if you think about it.

And at 85-100mph you are going to be making more fuel stops in the petrol than the diesel. I can actually do 700 miles on one stop rather than 2-3

[mwstewart]

Refuelling stops!? Jesus Christ

[toon10]

The Puma is the complete opposite for me. I thought it was girly to look at, cheap and nasty and nothing more than a Fiesta (not necessarily a bad thing) trying to be a sportier car. After borrowing the ex FIL's for a trip to the Lake District I was completely blown away. Yes it wasn't that fast in a straight line and felt a little cheap but to drive, it was epic. The short precise gear change, go-cart handling and chuckability made me grin from ear to ear. The speed I could carry through corners was a real surprise too. It went from a hairdresser’s car to something I'd happily own as a cheap fun car. I'd written off the advert as a step too far from the marketing department but totally get it now.

I didn’t really get the love for the Integra DC2. Sorry, I know I’ve just committed PH suicide but they are ugly and a bit council to coin a phrase from a previous thread. The DC5 looks so much nicer but I’m lead to believe that it wasn’t as good a drive as the DC2. I’ve not driven either so I could easily change my tune.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

thiscocks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe they don't, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's true. So yes, really, really, really. On a 100 mile journey, a refuelling stop is going to put you behind a slower car with no refuelling stop.

Difference being the driver in the bland rep model is thinking 'why am I alive', and the driver in the sports version is perhaps slightly enjoying themselves. Plus a fuel stop is a good opportunity to look at your sports versions attractive pumped up exterior.

I'm sure that's true. They can tell me about it when they eventually turn up.