Re: SOTW: Peugeot 106 Rallye
Discussion
LewisR said:
I just DO NOT get the slightest little appeal in a tinny front-wheel-drive shopping car. I drive about 420 miles a week and the last thing (OK, one of the last things) I'd want to do it in is a little FWD tin box. OK so it might be fast-ish round a track, whoop! I don't drive round a track to work, I drive along pot-holed A roads. I did own an Elise about 6 years ago. Awful car too. Not even that quick when I was in Germany, as it didn't want to go in a straight line above 110mph. I also had a Mk1 MX5, now THAT was good fun! However, I'd stick with a BMW even though I don't really like them.
Well if you think an elise is a crap car then I suppose you wouldn't begin to appriciate the rallye. Stick to your comfy BMWI pity people who've not driven a nice, basic but well-sorted car which was made pre-2000ish - anyone who's experience of cars largely relates to cars made in the last 10 years is likely to be pretty impoverished when it comes to the fun that a basic, well sorted car can offer.
Modern cars are making me less and less interesting in driving - they are awash with electronic nonsense I don't need - they disguise the feeling of the road through overassisted steering and overtyred wheels and feelingless brakes and insulate me in comfy seats and sound-baffled interiors lavished with toys...
It's all safe and comfy and - so is a sofa but it's hard to have much fun on a country road in a sofa
All this safety and comfort kit has it's place of course (except cup holders which are a
s invention) but there's something fundamentally right about a back-to-basics car like this.
I can't speak for these specifically as I can't get INTO one - but cars of this era with buzzy engines, well-sorted chassis and as little interior plastic as you need to wind a window and hold a speedo Cars which make a Saxo feel high-spec and overweight - theyre' great.
To the guy who was grumbling about not wanting to do 400 miles a week in one - you've mixed-up everything in your life when you confuse your daft commuting and enjoying the drive
Modern cars are making me less and less interesting in driving - they are awash with electronic nonsense I don't need - they disguise the feeling of the road through overassisted steering and overtyred wheels and feelingless brakes and insulate me in comfy seats and sound-baffled interiors lavished with toys...
It's all safe and comfy and - so is a sofa but it's hard to have much fun on a country road in a sofa
All this safety and comfort kit has it's place of course (except cup holders which are a
s invention) but there's something fundamentally right about a back-to-basics car like this. I can't speak for these specifically as I can't get INTO one - but cars of this era with buzzy engines, well-sorted chassis and as little interior plastic as you need to wind a window and hold a speedo
Cars which make a Saxo feel high-spec and overweight - theyre' great.To the guy who was grumbling about not wanting to do 400 miles a week in one - you've mixed-up everything in your life when you confuse your daft commuting and enjoying the drive
johnpeat said:
I pity people who've not driven a nice, basic but well-sorted car which was made pre-2000ish - anyone who's experience of cars largely relates to cars made in the last 10 years is likely to be pretty impoverished when it comes to the fun that a basic, well sorted car can offer.
Modern cars are making me less and less interesting in driving - they are awash with electronic nonsense I don't need - they disguise the feeling of the road through overassisted steering and overtyred wheels and feelingless brakes and insulate me in comfy seats and sound-baffled interiors lavished with toys...
It's all safe and comfy and - so is a sofa but it's hard to have much fun on a country road in a sofa
All this safety and comfort kit has it's place of course (except cup holders which are as invention) but there's something fundamentally right about a back-to-basics car like this.
I can't speak for these specifically as I can't get INTO one - but cars of this era with buzzy engines, well-sorted chassis and as little interior plastic as you need to wind a window and hold a speedo Cars which make a Saxo feel high-spec and overweight - theyre' great.
To the guy who was grumbling about not wanting to do 400 miles a week in one - you've mixed-up everything in your life when you confuse your daft commuting and enjoying the drive
Excellent post and I totally agree with all of it.Modern cars are making me less and less interesting in driving - they are awash with electronic nonsense I don't need - they disguise the feeling of the road through overassisted steering and overtyred wheels and feelingless brakes and insulate me in comfy seats and sound-baffled interiors lavished with toys...
It's all safe and comfy and - so is a sofa but it's hard to have much fun on a country road in a sofa
All this safety and comfort kit has it's place of course (except cup holders which are a
s invention) but there's something fundamentally right about a back-to-basics car like this. I can't speak for these specifically as I can't get INTO one - but cars of this era with buzzy engines, well-sorted chassis and as little interior plastic as you need to wind a window and hold a speedo
Cars which make a Saxo feel high-spec and overweight - theyre' great.To the guy who was grumbling about not wanting to do 400 miles a week in one - you've mixed-up everything in your life when you confuse your daft commuting and enjoying the drive
If a decent one of these was a more reasonable price then I would have one in a heartbeat but the only thing stopping me other than money is the fact I can get a decent early 1.6 mx5 for less AND have rwd and a drop top both of which turn up the fun factor another notch.
johnpeat said:
Modern cars are making me less and less interesting in driving - they are awash with electronic nonsense I don't need - they disguise the feeling of the road through overassisted steering and overtyred wheels and feelingless brakes and insulate me in comfy seats and sound-baffled interiors lavished with toys...
People have been saying this since before the advent of hydraulic brakes.The answer:
or
ps. I find cupholders far more useful than automatic headlights
Edited by MC Bodge on Monday 3rd October 08:54
Whatever its condition it can't be in worse nick than this http://pistonheads.com/sales/3195415.htm and its over twice the price, the pictures really dont do it justice, that is to say the car is an absolute complete dog. If i was offered £20 to drive it to the scrappy i'd have second thoughts.
Well I missed out on the SOTW despite my best efforts, but I just nabbed this one on eBay: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/280747481022?ssPageName=...
Looks equally sheddy with an equally crap ad but I reckon it's a billy bargain! Can't stop grinning.
Looks equally sheddy with an equally crap ad but I reckon it's a billy bargain! Can't stop grinning.
twazzock said:
Well I missed out on the SOTW despite my best efforts, but I just nabbed this one on eBay: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/280747481022?ssPageName=...
Looks equally sheddy with an equally crap ad but I reckon it's a billy bargain! Can't stop grinning.
Good work Looks equally sheddy with an equally crap ad but I reckon it's a billy bargain! Can't stop grinning.
Expect to see the thread for it soon
MC Bodge said:
johnpeat said:
Modern cars are making me less and less interesting in driving - they are awash with electronic nonsense I don't need - they disguise the feeling of the road through overassisted steering and overtyred wheels and feelingless brakes and insulate me in comfy seats and sound-baffled interiors lavished with toys...
People have been saying this since before the advent of hydraulic brakes.Engines deliver more power - and use less fuel - which is great, but the car's they're being put in are ever bigger and ever heavier and marketting people have decided that almost every car needs power this and GPS that and PHAT tyres and BIG wheels - all of which have to be lugged around in a box designed not to harm drunk people who wander out in front of you.
It's all fine when you're talking about a commuter car or kid transporter but weight is the enemy of fun and power only partly makes-up ground in that respect. What we now consider to be small, basic cars are probably bigger and heavier than a Mk2 GTi...
I thought I'd get called-out on my guessed-at stats and so I did some digging...
It appears an 8v Mk2 GTi was roughly 936kgs - a Twingo GT (over 10 inches shorter) is 980kgs - that's all your safety and comfort ste then...
More to the point, the 106 Rallye has 100hp and weighted 810Kgs - the Panda 100HP weighs a scorching 950kgs - that's a LOT of st to be lugging around...
The key thing for making a car fun is making it chuckable and offering a tonne of feel - when weight (or marketting) makes you put heavy/wide wheels and tyres on there - and thus PAS - you've lost something enormous.
I think one of the reasons the Caterham 7 remains so popular is that modern cars are retreating from what it does at a stellar rate. As it gets older, it's benefits are magnified instead of diminished
It appears an 8v Mk2 GTi was roughly 936kgs - a Twingo GT (over 10 inches shorter) is 980kgs - that's all your safety and comfort s
te then...More to the point, the 106 Rallye has 100hp and weighted 810Kgs - the Panda 100HP weighs a scorching 950kgs - that's a LOT of s
t to be lugging around...The key thing for making a car fun is making it chuckable and offering a tonne of feel - when weight (or marketting) makes you put heavy/wide wheels and tyres on there - and thus PAS - you've lost something enormous.
I think one of the reasons the Caterham 7 remains so popular is that modern cars are retreating from what it does at a stellar rate. As it gets older, it's benefits are magnified instead of diminished
johnpeat said:
I'm pretty sure if you were to draw a graph which somehow represented chassis refinement and power-to-weight ratios - it would peak sometime in the mid-90s and would now be in retreat.
Engines deliver more power - and use less fuel - which is great, but the car's they're being put in are ever bigger and ever heavier and marketting people have decided that almost every car needs power this and GPS that and PHAT tyres and BIG wheels - all of which have to be lugged around in a box designed not to harm drunk people who wander out in front of you.
It's all fine when you're talking about a commuter car or kid transporter but weight is the enemy of fun and power only partly makes-up ground in that respect. What we now consider to be small, basic cars are probably bigger and heavier than a Mk2 GTi...
Couldn't agree more, the kids are safely driven around in the A6 Avant with air bags coming out of every orifice...but daddy drives to work in his MK1 MX-5 for some late breaking, round-about eating...yum, yum...Engines deliver more power - and use less fuel - which is great, but the car's they're being put in are ever bigger and ever heavier and marketting people have decided that almost every car needs power this and GPS that and PHAT tyres and BIG wheels - all of which have to be lugged around in a box designed not to harm drunk people who wander out in front of you.
It's all fine when you're talking about a commuter car or kid transporter but weight is the enemy of fun and power only partly makes-up ground in that respect. What we now consider to be small, basic cars are probably bigger and heavier than a Mk2 GTi...
According to this http://www.fastestlaps.com/cars/renault_twingo_rs_... the Twingo RS (Cup) has
133bhp and a whopping lardy 1120kgs for 119hp/tonne.
According to this (2007 http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2098... ) the earlier GT has
99bhp and 980kgs for 101hp/tonne
According to this http://www.rallyeregister.co.uk/specs.htm the Mk1 Rally has
100bhp and 825kgs for 121hp/tonne and the Mk2 is slightly behind with
103bhp and 865kgs for 119hp/tonne
So the little Pug wins on paper - and I can assure that those 100+kgs will make all the difference in handling too (no amount of power will make a car feel lighter).
133bhp and a whopping lardy 1120kgs for 119hp/tonne.
According to this (2007 http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2098... ) the earlier GT has
99bhp and 980kgs for 101hp/tonne
According to this http://www.rallyeregister.co.uk/specs.htm the Mk1 Rally has
100bhp and 825kgs for 121hp/tonne and the Mk2 is slightly behind with
103bhp and 865kgs for 119hp/tonne
So the little Pug wins on paper - and I can assure that those 100+kgs will make all the difference in handling too (no amount of power will make a car feel lighter).
Certainly is - according to this http://www.fastestlaps.com/cars/fiat_panda_100hp.h... the Panda 100hp has
99hp (lol) and 950kgs for 104hp/tonne
The Twingo is a fair bit more expensive tho AND, once again, it's extra weight will punish the fun-ish regardless of the power...
99hp (lol) and 950kgs for 104hp/tonne
The Twingo is a fair bit more expensive tho AND, once again, it's extra weight will punish the fun-ish regardless of the power...
I'm not sure we'll see decent power to weight again in small (205ish sized) cars unless the regulations change. Look at the new Ka compared to the old one. Pretty crazy that a Twingo weighs about the same as my Puma.
I was behind a C1 today and thinking it's a shame there isn't a breathed on version of it
I was behind a C1 today and thinking it's a shame there isn't a breathed on version of it
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff