RE: Service History: In an ordinary world
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You forgot to mention the problems with K-series cylinder head damage, cylinder liner failures etc. Sounds as though the Chinese have been kept busy sorting out the mess,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_K-series_engin...
I'm not so sure about this. There were good cars and bad cars in the 1990s. I can't remember the last time that I drove a bad new car, some of them are just a bit "meh". With the exception of the mk1 Mondeo, Sierra/Escort Cosworth and mk4 Astra though, 1990s Ford and Vauxhalls really weren't that great to drive. Renaults were pretty horrid too and the mk3/4 Golfs weren't great compared to the mk5-. I agree that amongst ordinary cars though, Peugeot probably set the benchmark for ride and handling, whereas today they're nothing special. Overall, I would argue that cars of the mid-2000s were better to drive.
My first car was a 1995 mk3.5 Astra and it was pretty poor, although better than a mk5 Escort. Passive safety and emissions control (catalytic convertors) had arrived in a big way, so cars had got heavier, cats had sapped power and yet a lot of manufacturers were still using the engines from their lighter, previous generation cars. My 60bhp (Hi-Torq) 1.4 Astra was pretty sluggish, had stupidly tall gearing (max speed in 4th rather than 5th) and not even nice to work hard either and the terminal understeer was pretty comical. Likewise the Corsa B 1.2 that I learnt to drive in was just awful. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "handles like a dream", the mk4 Astra was a massive improvement on the mk3 and although not as good as the mk1 Focus with its IRS, I would say that it was up there with the cooking 306/ZX (I haven't driven a GTi-6/Rallye though to be fair). Did Lotus also not have a hand in tuning the chassis?
To be fair, the Peugeot 306 (and the other x06 Peugeots) was great compared to its successor, the 307, which was a turd in comparison (but at least they kept the comfy ride). Was the 306 not basically an updated and rebodied 309 though? I also loved my 2nd and 3rd cars, a Fiat Cinquecento Sporting and a 205 GTi 1.6. Very feelsome, unassisted steering, sharp throttle response and snicky gearchanges in both cases. The steering and ride of my wife's Fiat 500 were pretty poor in comparison to the Cinq and although modern hot hatches may lack the immediacy and rawness of the 205, the best are still pretty good and although not perhaps as exciting or quite as sharp as the 205, my R56 Cooper is still a fun car to drive, relatively simple and a whole lot more refined and easy to live with overall. I also liked the mk3 Polos of the 1990s era more to drive than the newer mk4/5 versions that I have driven.
However, there are still modern, ordinary cars out there that ride, handle and perform as well as the best family cars of the 1990s, yet combine this with more safety and better interior space. As for weight, many new cars being launched are lighter than their immediate predecessors. Perhaps not as light as some of the pre-passive safety cars from the 1990s but at least going in the right direction? If you're nostalgic for ordinary cars that ride and handle well then I would urge you to try a new Ford, Mazda or Kia, as in my experience they tend to do this well (Hyundai/Kia even have an ex-BMW M engineer in charge of such things). In my opinion, the "cooking" mk3 Focus (haven't driven a mk4 yet), Mazda 3/6, mk7 Golf and new Civic all drive brilliantly, although I can do without most of the active safey crap that some of the higher spec models have fitted as standard.
My first car was a 1995 mk3.5 Astra and it was pretty poor, although better than a mk5 Escort. Passive safety and emissions control (catalytic convertors) had arrived in a big way, so cars had got heavier, cats had sapped power and yet a lot of manufacturers were still using the engines from their lighter, previous generation cars. My 60bhp (Hi-Torq) 1.4 Astra was pretty sluggish, had stupidly tall gearing (max speed in 4th rather than 5th) and not even nice to work hard either and the terminal understeer was pretty comical. Likewise the Corsa B 1.2 that I learnt to drive in was just awful. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "handles like a dream", the mk4 Astra was a massive improvement on the mk3 and although not as good as the mk1 Focus with its IRS, I would say that it was up there with the cooking 306/ZX (I haven't driven a GTi-6/Rallye though to be fair). Did Lotus also not have a hand in tuning the chassis?
To be fair, the Peugeot 306 (and the other x06 Peugeots) was great compared to its successor, the 307, which was a turd in comparison (but at least they kept the comfy ride). Was the 306 not basically an updated and rebodied 309 though? I also loved my 2nd and 3rd cars, a Fiat Cinquecento Sporting and a 205 GTi 1.6. Very feelsome, unassisted steering, sharp throttle response and snicky gearchanges in both cases. The steering and ride of my wife's Fiat 500 were pretty poor in comparison to the Cinq and although modern hot hatches may lack the immediacy and rawness of the 205, the best are still pretty good and although not perhaps as exciting or quite as sharp as the 205, my R56 Cooper is still a fun car to drive, relatively simple and a whole lot more refined and easy to live with overall. I also liked the mk3 Polos of the 1990s era more to drive than the newer mk4/5 versions that I have driven.
However, there are still modern, ordinary cars out there that ride, handle and perform as well as the best family cars of the 1990s, yet combine this with more safety and better interior space. As for weight, many new cars being launched are lighter than their immediate predecessors. Perhaps not as light as some of the pre-passive safety cars from the 1990s but at least going in the right direction? If you're nostalgic for ordinary cars that ride and handle well then I would urge you to try a new Ford, Mazda or Kia, as in my experience they tend to do this well (Hyundai/Kia even have an ex-BMW M engineer in charge of such things). In my opinion, the "cooking" mk3 Focus (haven't driven a mk4 yet), Mazda 3/6, mk7 Golf and new Civic all drive brilliantly, although I can do without most of the active safey crap that some of the higher spec models have fitted as standard.
white_goodman said:
However, there are still modern, ordinary cars out there that ride, handle and perform as well as the best family cars of the 1990s, yet combine this with more safety and better interior space. As for weight, many new cars being launched are lighter than their immediate predecessors. Perhaps not as light as some of the pre-passive safety cars from the 1990s but at least going in the right direction? If you're nostalgic for ordinary cars that ride and handle well then I would urge you to try a new Ford, Mazda or Kia, as in my experience they tend to do this well (Hyundai/Kia even have an ex-BMW M engineer in charge of such things). In my opinion, the "cooking" mk3 Focus (haven't driven a mk4 yet), Mazda 3/6, mk7 Golf and new Civic all drive brilliantly, although I can do without most of the active safey crap that some of the higher spec models have fitted as standard.
mmmm. i endorse havoc's response above.
i haven't driven everything out there, but i'm always frustrated after a new car drive about what could have been. given that today's engineering is clearly better, it's so clear when the design priorities lie: legislation, safety, comfort, toys.
mk7 Golf is a good case in point.
Many won't an issue with that.
CABC said:
mmmm.
i endorse havoc's response above.
i haven't driven everything out there, but i'm always frustrated after a new car drive about what could have been. given that today's engineering is clearly better, it's so clear when the design priorities lie: legislation, safety, comfort, toys.
mk7 Golf is a good case in point.
Many won't an issue with that.
Fair enough. The main point that I was trying to make was that there were good and bad cars back then. Some cars have got significantly better to drive since the 90s (Fords, Vauxhalls, Hyundais, Kias for example) and some perhaps aren't as good to drive or at least no longer class-leading (Peugeot)? It would probably be fair to say that we have less "bad" cars if any these days but some manufacturers have prioritised other factors over driving pleasure.i endorse havoc's response above.
i haven't driven everything out there, but i'm always frustrated after a new car drive about what could have been. given that today's engineering is clearly better, it's so clear when the design priorities lie: legislation, safety, comfort, toys.
mk7 Golf is a good case in point.
Many won't an issue with that.
What's your point on the mk7 Golf? I owned a mk4 GTi and have driven quite a few mk3s and they really weren't that great to drive. mk5 chassis was a revelation in comparison and as I used to sell them, I drove most variants of the mk5. My only quibble was that the petrol engines, other than the GTI and R32 were a little weak. Not driven a mk6 but I had a mk7 as a rental for 3 weeks and around 2000 miles a few years ago and it was great. Just a fairly basic 1.2 TSI S model but it steered and rode well, was comfortable, quiet, pretty punchy little engine, 45+ mpg, big boot, what's not to like? My only criticism was that one of the doors was a little out of alignment and the ventilation controls felt a little cheap compared to the older models.
Edited by white_goodman on Thursday 2nd August 18:25
white_goodman said:
Fair enough. The main point that I was trying to make was that there were good and bad cars back then. Some cars have got significantly better to drive since the 90s (Fords, Vauxhalls, Hyundais, Kias for example) and some perhaps aren't as good to drive or at least no longer class-leading (Peugeot)? It would probably be fair to say that we have less "bad" cars if any these days but some manufacturers have prioritised other factors over driving pleasure.
that's fair too.there was a lot of crap in the 90's, maybe some of it was (partly) interesting to drive because it was lighter.
i certainly don't think the suspension engineering was superior back then, just that light feels better to drive. what frustrates me about many modern cars is the needlessly harsh damping, to make them feel sporty, whilst not actually achieving anything. I like a firm sporty car, when it's been properly engineered to grip and handle well.
CABC said:
that's fair too.
there was a lot of crap in the 90's, maybe some of it was (partly) interesting to drive because it was lighter.
i certainly don't think the suspension engineering was superior back then, just that light feels better to drive. what frustrates me about many modern cars is the needlessly harsh damping, to make them feel sporty, whilst not actually achieving anything. I like a firm sporty car, when it's been properly engineered to grip and handle well.
I absolutely agree. There's nothing more annoying than a non-high performance car with a crashy ride because sporty. I hated my friend's old Altea FR. Bone-shaking ride in a family MPV FFS! The ride is probably my biggest bugbear with the MINI and that's on 16 inch rims with 55s (I hate to think what it's like on 17s). Although, my 205, even though it had more bodyroll and high profile tyres didn't ride fantastically, as the face usually used to fly off the stereo when I went over cattle grids! there was a lot of crap in the 90's, maybe some of it was (partly) interesting to drive because it was lighter.
i certainly don't think the suspension engineering was superior back then, just that light feels better to drive. what frustrates me about many modern cars is the needlessly harsh damping, to make them feel sporty, whilst not actually achieving anything. I like a firm sporty car, when it's been properly engineered to grip and handle well.
But yes, we did have some great performance cars in the 1990s that rode well on sensible tyres and still offered up decent grip and handling. CABC said:
what frustrates me about many modern cars is the needlessly harsh damping, to make them feel sporty, whilst not actually achieving anything. I like a firm sporty car, when it's been properly engineered to grip and handle well.
A family car with a harsh ride isn't even necessarily quicker if it can't keep its (invariably too shallow) tyres tracking the ground and certainly isn't quicker when driven briskly whilst keeping the wife/family happy at the same time.The fact that very few people drive anywhere near briskly, other than briefly in a straight line, upto about 90mph, and seldom overtake anything other than a bike or horse (dangerously) seems not to bother people.
200+bhp and a harsh ride in a family car are desirable.
Needs and wants are far apart.
Edited by MC Bodge on Thursday 2nd August 19:05
rastapasta said:
I worked on XUD's back in the day and never heard of this. They were good for black smoke north of 100k but very easy to work on and parts were dirt cheap. you could buy them in supermarkets in france.
It happened to two different people that I know personally - engine scrap at relatively low mileage due to a rod sticking out of the side of the block. Having just read about it, it seems that there was a faulty batch or two of XUDs, with the turbocharged engines having been built with conrods intended for the NA version around 1996/97ish. This would fit with the ages of the ones that I know of that died.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff