Classics left to die/rotting pics - Vol 2
Discussion
)Turbobanana said:
The Don of Croy said:
NorthernSky said:
Looks like the run out 'Lux' version I lusted after in 1992 when I was in (yet another) new sales role.My company car manager wouldn't stretch to a meagre 116i for me and I had to settle for a fleet favourite 405 1.9td GLX (but with aircon as standard!!!).
Didn't stop me drooling over one like this (but with the correct cross spoke 15inch alloys?) at Ashdown BMW. A few years later I had to stump up my own cash for a car having left the repping world, and scratched the E30 itch with a 325Ti. Great fun, but proof (if ever it was needed) that running someone else's car with someone else's money is much cheaper for you. And that's before you add insurance costs (after piloting company cars for ten years with no 'evidence').
An E30 (especially a high specification version) even with the 1.6 engine was a highly desirable car.
In 1994, I was running a 7 year old black E30 320i SE and it was so much better than the 405’s, Sierras, Cavaliers, Montego’s (the worst of the bunch) and Laguna’s that I would drive as Pool / Hire Cars.
Rob 131 Sport said:
Most Definitely Not. BMW together with Mercedes and Audi were in quality and prestige terms so far ahead of the mainstream competition in 1994.
An E30 (especially a high specification version) even with the 1.6 engine was a highly desirable car.
In 1994, I was running a 7 year old black E30 320i SE and it was so much better than the 405 s, Sierras, Cavaliers, Montego s (the worst of the bunch) and Laguna s that I would drive as Pool / Hire Cars.
Rob, you're letting your own BMW bias get in the way of any comparison. An E30 (especially a high specification version) even with the 1.6 engine was a highly desirable car.
In 1994, I was running a 7 year old black E30 320i SE and it was so much better than the 405 s, Sierras, Cavaliers, Montego s (the worst of the bunch) and Laguna s that I would drive as Pool / Hire Cars.
Only those charmed by the badge would consider a poverty-spec 316 a better car than a 405 GLX TD. I have driven both, before you ask, and the others in your list too. The BMW would be near the bottom of the pile, although if the reason for buying it was to make the right impression then yes, BMW it is.
Turbobanana said:
Rob 131 Sport said:
Most Definitely Not. BMW together with Mercedes and Audi were in quality and prestige terms so far ahead of the mainstream competition in 1994.
An E30 (especially a high specification version) even with the 1.6 engine was a highly desirable car.
In 1994, I was running a 7 year old black E30 320i SE and it was so much better than the 405 s, Sierras, Cavaliers, Montego s (the worst of the bunch) and Laguna s that I would drive as Pool / Hire Cars.
Rob, you're letting your own BMW bias get in the way of any comparison. An E30 (especially a high specification version) even with the 1.6 engine was a highly desirable car.
In 1994, I was running a 7 year old black E30 320i SE and it was so much better than the 405 s, Sierras, Cavaliers, Montego s (the worst of the bunch) and Laguna s that I would drive as Pool / Hire Cars.
Only those charmed by the badge would consider a poverty-spec 316 a better car than a 405 GLX TD. I have driven both, before you ask, and the others in your list too. The BMW would be near the bottom of the pile, although if the reason for buying it was to make the right impression then yes, BMW it is.
However, a BMW 316i would outrun it, out handle it and be overall a much nicer drive and ownership experience.
soxboy said:
Skyedriver said:
No, the side lights were standard on Volvos in the mid-late 70s until they facelifted with wraparound tail lights (I think for the 1979 model year).
But this brochure from '78 did have them, so maybe it was a model year specific thing?
Dapster said:
Did a bit of digging on the net - seems most markets did not have the rear side markers
No, it was a UK market thing. From the ‘77 model year until the ‘79 model year mild facelift for the saloon and the ‘81 model year deep facelift for the estate, side markers were fitted to all UK market 200 series cars
But this brochure from '78 did have them, so maybe it was a model year specific thing?
No, it was a UK market thing. From the ‘77 model year until the ‘79 model year mild facelift for the saloon and the ‘81 model year deep facelift for the estate, side markers were fitted to all UK market 200 series cars
But this brochure from '78 did have them, so maybe it was a model year specific thing?
ClaphamGT3 said:
No, it was a UK market thing. From the 77 model year until the 79 model year mild facelift for the saloon and the 81 model year deep facelift for the estate, side markers were fitted to all UK market 200 series cars
Ah that makes sense - the early cars didn't have them but post 77 did. Good beardage 
uk66fastback said:
It is on the database?Vehiclescore has it as well https://vehiclescore.co.uk/score?registration=NGV4...
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff