No love for quick Vectras?
Discussion
Been doing a little digging around the options for a new family motor recently and noticed just how cheap some of the faster Vectras have become.
250 bhp in the 2.8T engined models and 208bhp from the V6.
Admittedly Vectras aren't the last word in cool or handling but they do seem very quick cars for the money and the Elite spec have leather, cruise, aircon etc as well as an enormous boot.
Quick search and they hardly seem to feature at all on PH? There must be a few PHers who've had one in the past?
250 bhp in the 2.8T engined models and 208bhp from the V6.
Admittedly Vectras aren't the last word in cool or handling but they do seem very quick cars for the money and the Elite spec have leather, cruise, aircon etc as well as an enormous boot.
Quick search and they hardly seem to feature at all on PH? There must be a few PHers who've had one in the past?
I'm sure they go well in a straight line and are probably a nice place to site on a long drive, other than that i don't think they have anything going for them but if those two things are what somebody wants from a car (and there's no reason they shouldn't) then it may be a good choice
Excellent cars.
The 3.2 gsi was a bit slow, considering the size of the lump and how much power it gave (or didnt) give off.
The 2.8 vxr is rapid. The handling stuff is total top gear b
ks, and it handles just was well as any other powerful FWD car.
Inside is lovely and overall, a nice car.
The only thing i cant 'unsee' is the distance between the top of the front tyres and the arches. Sounds daft but it makes the proportions look well out of place.
The 3.2 gsi was a bit slow, considering the size of the lump and how much power it gave (or didnt) give off.
The 2.8 vxr is rapid. The handling stuff is total top gear b
ks, and it handles just was well as any other powerful FWD car.Inside is lovely and overall, a nice car.
The only thing i cant 'unsee' is the distance between the top of the front tyres and the arches. Sounds daft but it makes the proportions look well out of place.
Edited by fjord on Friday 17th May 12:04
fjord said:
Excellent cars.
The 2.8 vxr is rapid. The handling stuff is total top gear bks, and it handles just was well as any other powerful FWD car.
Indeed, EVO rated it 4 out of 5 and when it took part in a group test with a BMW, EVO and Impreza it gave a good account of itself. Certainly not the car some would have you believe.The 2.8 vxr is rapid. The handling stuff is total top gear b
ks, and it handles just was well as any other powerful FWD car.http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/6518...
The whole Vectra things strikes me as a decent car with an image problem, largely created by the likes of Clarkson. I drove a Vectra years back and it felt as a good as the contemporary Mondeo.
JohnoVR6 said:
I've always quite liked the older Super Touring edition:
But only because I always wanted to drive about pretending to be Cleland...
I have no idea about that model Vectra at all though, it could be horrific for all I know
Those V6 Vectras certainly make a good noise, though that's probably the best thing about them.But only because I always wanted to drive about pretending to be Cleland...
I have no idea about that model Vectra at all though, it could be horrific for all I know
I had a test drive in a 3.2 GSI, not impressed, felt slow, boring and like driving a boat, although I had just got out of a Clio 182 at the time.
That said a guy near me has a 2.6 V6 (I assume, its that shape) and he floors it every time past my flat, and it sounds really bloody nice! Imagine my disappointment when I first heard it, and looked out of the window to see the aging repmobile flying past the window
That said a guy near me has a 2.6 V6 (I assume, its that shape) and he floors it every time past my flat, and it sounds really bloody nice! Imagine my disappointment when I first heard it, and looked out of the window to see the aging repmobile flying past the window
We had a 1.9 CDTi 155bhp which I know you are all laughing at but hear me out.
It was quicker then it ought to have been for a 1.9 diesel, it really was, and the fuel consumption was in the early 50's as the long term average. These all seem good points.
The problem was it was epically (is that a word?) unreliable. My OH bought it as an ex demonstrator at 6 months old and it broke down about 6 times in 5 years, with some serious bills, for the warranty company until written off by a inattentive TP.
It was quicker then it ought to have been for a 1.9 diesel, it really was, and the fuel consumption was in the early 50's as the long term average. These all seem good points.
The problem was it was epically (is that a word?) unreliable. My OH bought it as an ex demonstrator at 6 months old and it broke down about 6 times in 5 years, with some serious bills, for the warranty company until written off by a inattentive TP.
Kateg28 said:
We had a 1.9 CDTi 155bhp which I know you are all laughing at but hear me out.
It was quicker then it ought to have been for a 1.9 diesel, it really was, and the fuel consumption was in the early 50's as the long term average. These all seem good points.
The problem was it was epically (is that a word?) unreliable. My OH bought it as an ex demonstrator at 6 months old and it broke down about 6 times in 5 years, with some serious bills, for the warranty company until written off by a inattentive TP.
I've heard good things about the 1.9, in terms of performance and MPG. Iirc it's not a GM engine, maybe a fiat one?It was quicker then it ought to have been for a 1.9 diesel, it really was, and the fuel consumption was in the early 50's as the long term average. These all seem good points.
The problem was it was epically (is that a word?) unreliable. My OH bought it as an ex demonstrator at 6 months old and it broke down about 6 times in 5 years, with some serious bills, for the warranty company until written off by a inattentive TP.
I had the 3.0 v6 Diesel. The only car i seriously regret selling. It was as specced up as you could get and the equivalant 3-series would probably cost about £35k.
I got it for 16k with 12,000 miles on the clock.
I miss you so much
Anyone out there got an Sri XP2 Nav in grey, KY08***? JohnoVR6 said:
I've always quite liked the older Super Touring edition:
But only because I always wanted to drive about pretending to be Cleland...
I have no idea about that model Vectra at all though, it could be horrific for all I know
That particular one is an ST200 of which only 38 were sold 192 bhp, Koni adjustable suspension and AP four pot brakes and 17 inch alloys. The other Super Tourings of which there were 500 were just SRis with either a 2.0 or the 2.5. But only because I always wanted to drive about pretending to be Cleland...
I have no idea about that model Vectra at all though, it could be horrific for all I know
fjord said:
I've heard good things about the 1.9, in terms of performance and MPG. Iirc it's not a GM engine, maybe a fiat one?
I had the 1.9 in my old Astra, it was quick enough for a diesel and with a remap gave decent performance. It's used in Fiats, SAABs, Alfas and Vauxhalls AFAIK. Not sure where it originated from but I think you might be right with Fiat. My brother in law has just picked up a Grande Punto with the 1.9 in it and it is giving better MPG (worked out properly) than mine ever did.
Anyway, back to the fast Vectras.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff