Conference terri::cars_uk

    LANCIA DELTA INTEGRALE 16V TURBO.
    
    MN

        
�                                                            At present I
�    have three vehicles (for myself and my wife, plus 4-year-old daughter).

    So which one does your 4-year-old daughter drive?

    :-)

    How about a Honda Civic ? ;^)
    
    
    Shaun.

>>                            -< Is 200 hp enough??? >-
    
    No !
    
    I had an 8-valve with a chip change, about 230bhp...  That's better.
    
    Of course, a 16v can be chipped up for even more power, plus the
    latest incarnation puts out 210bhp anyway, with better low-end pull.
    
    
    I am considering another Lancia, but that puts me outside of my
    intended budget - but I'm very tempted.
    
    Another alternative is to get two old 8v integrales, plus a cheap
    off-roader.  That really would fit the bill !!!   :-)
    
    (note CAR magazine has a write-up on buying these Lancias second hand)
    
    
    Other possibilities could include :-
    
    	Vauxhall Cavalier Cabriolet (original fwd model)
    
    	Lada Niva
    
    	Cut-down (shortened) Range Rover
    
    	All sorts of Kit Cars could be of interest, but are mostly 2-seaters
    
    	Porsche 911 of some sort - it has rear seats of a sort, but is
    				   not a car I've ever aspired to.
    
    
    Cars we aren't likely to get :-
    
    	Any Citroen other than perhaps an XM
    
    	A Ford model of almost any description, mainly due to a bias
    	against this manufacturer.  Also because I feel that most of
    	the competition is either better or cheaper, or both.
    
    	A Land Rover (common !) unless seriously mucked about with
    
    	A Porsche 924 (Audi coupe), or 944 (poseurs model)
    
    	Honda Civic !!!   ;-)	No character, common, boring, but reliable
    
    
    J.R.
    
    PS - My daughter likes to drive the Lancia !
    
    	 on the Scalextric track, that is...

    Why would you want more than 200bhp ? Where would you use it that sort
    of power ?
    
    -Tony 

    easy one that Tone - 
    
    200 BHP does not necessarily mean use at top speed.  I prefer big power
    engines for overtaking.  After all we don't have much in the way of
    dual carridgeways / motorways in my part of the world.  What we do have
    is lots 'A' class roads with little or no overtaking opportunity
    normally, but with those extra horses, passing is easy!
    
    Bob

    
    >> 200 BHP does not necessarily mean use at top speed.  I prefer big power
    
    Duh!   8^)
    
    I realise that. But its an expensive (and I would imagine rather
    *tempting*) overtaking mechanism.
    
    -TOny

>>    Why would you want more than 200bhp ? 
    
    Greed ?
    
    Why does the Lotus Carlton exist ?
    
    
>>    Where would you use it that sort of power ?
    
    Believe it or not, on the road.
    
    Personally, I don't go much for a high top speed.  Anything that can
    beat 120mph is all that I would require.  What I do like though, is
    to have a large amount of power available when trundling along at a
    quite mundane speed (say 50mph).  Pressing the throttle and getting
    that serious shove in the back is certainly addictive.
    
    Knowing that this rush of power (and adrenalin ?) can go on for a
    decent amount of time, rather than a short spurt, is great.
    Using it is even greater, but then you get into the realms of what
    is legal or not, and what is safe or not.  I don't feel like an
    argument on this particular subject, other than to say that having
    a powerful engine, in a car that can handle it, is not in itself
    unsafe.  Another point is that there is no law on acceleration
    figures, only on the speeds attained, and the manner of driving
    up to and at those speeds.
    
    J.R.

>>>               <<< Note 1657.8 by PERKY::RUTTER "Rut The Nut" >>>
>>>       -< Besides being a sure winner at traffic light grand prixs... >-
>>>
>>    Why would you want more than 200bhp ? 
>>>    
>>>    Greed ?
    
    I think your personal name, your note title and your first comment just
    about sum it up.

    
    Power to weight could easily make 200 hp nothing to write home about.
    
    Some Jaguars, Mercedes and BMWs have power of this order and yet are
    lethargic when compared to turbo hot hatches possessing around 130 bhp.
    
    You can't simply say that 200 bhp is 'too much', it may be what's
    needed for respectable pace.
    
    Mark

    
    I was curious as to the reasons why more than 200bhp was needed when the
    maximum you can drive (without breaking the law) is 70mph (and thats
    only on a motorway). The point with regards to overtaking is very valid,
    however, a less powerfull 'hot-hatch' type performance wouild be equally 
    effective.
    
    Its only my curiosity, each to their own, and no flames �t al. 

    
    As you say, each to their own, if you think 200 bhp is pointless what
    about the 300+ machines on the road?!?!? Cars are a very personal thing
    (like music or art, say). What appeals greatly to one person will seem
    pointless and unattractive to the next.
    
    A lot of people wouldn't touch a hot-hatch with a barge pole (believing
    they are 'safer' driving a Volvo or another big, sluggish car) while
    others believe the nimbleness and swiftness of the hot hatch not only
    makes it more fun, but safer. Of course, many people don't even
    consider whether a car is fun or not when they choose it. To them it
    merely serves a purpose.
    
    Mark

    Re my first comment in earlier reply (traffic lights...)
    
    To be honest, I don't make a big thing about 'racing' other cars,
    believe me or not, although it would be a reason for some people
    to have a fast car.
    
    Knowing that I can go faster than the XR/GTi/etc brigade is
    usually better than actually going out and doing so.  Also, when
    at the traffic light junctions which start with three lanes and
    rapidly go down to a single lane, having a car which can easily
    get to the single lane in advance of just about all others is a
    very useful advantage.  In this case, I do use the performance.
    
    
    Re my personal name
    
    I may be called a 'nutter' for a number of reasons, by people who know me.
    I will agree that with comments I enter in some of the notes, this will
    certainly lead people to come up with a different view of my nature,
    but that is something I am aware of, and it doesn't worry me.
    
    I originally got this title for my behaviour regards drink and women !
    My off-road exploits have also had a bearing on this, especially since
    I am now married and do drink [a bit] less...
    
    
    Hope I haven't come over as being completely irresponsible in Notes,
    but everyone is entitled to their own opinion of me - as I feel
    entitled to hold my opinion of any other person I may meet or hear of.
    
    
>>    maximum you can drive (without breaking the law) is 70mph (and thats
>>    only on a motorway). The point with regards to overtaking is very valid,
    
    Minor point here, it is legal to drive at 70mph on dual carriageways too.
    
    
    J.R.

    
    J.R.
     Why do you need more than 4 cylinders ???
    
    I would have thought that if you wanted real performance then....
    
     A Yamaha FZR1000, Suzuki GSXR1100 or Kawasaki ZZR1100 would have been
       the vehicle to go for (serious GTV6 spankers).
    
     B BMW Paris/Dakar, Honda CR500 or the Super Tenere 750 would be the
       ultimate choise for off road.
    
     C Mini 1275GT or Mini clubmam for the lady.
    
    ....and all for less than �12000.
    
      Alan
     

    re -1
    
    I suppose they satisfy the convertible requirement ;^)
    
    
    Shaun.

    SAAB 900 SPG
    
    MN

    			Love it, MN!

>>                          -< are you a 'cylinderist' >-
    
    I guess so !  Since more cylinders often gives more torque.
    
    Of course, with a motorbike, torque isn't such a necessity.
    
    
>>    I would have thought that if you wanted real performance then....
    
>>     A Yamaha FZR1000, Suzuki GSXR1100 or Kawasaki ZZR1100 would have been
>>       the vehicle to go for (serious GTV6 spankers).
>>    
>>     B BMW Paris/Dakar, Honda CR500 or the Super Tenere 750 would be the
>>       ultimate choice for off road.
>>    
>>     C Mini 1275GT or Mini clubmam for the lady.
    
    
    OK, the bike certainly would give me the performance
    (faster than an integrale too, but not four-up).
    
    Unfortunately, your selection fails on a few other counts :-
    
    	At least two of the vehicles cannot seat three (no sidecars !)
    
    	Comfort is questionable on a motorbike (especially when you
    	consider the weather, plus inconvenience of bike clothing etc)
    
    	The off-road capability wouldn't be good enough for me,
    	since it is seriously impaired by carrying passengers,
    	and cannot tow out other stricken vehicles.
    
    	Mini's are another vehicle that neither me nor my wife would want.
    	(I don't fit in them, she had one and doesn't like them).
    
    	
    One further point, I think my wife would worry too much if I had a
    motorbike for everyday use...
    
    J.R.

    re-1
    
    Sounds like you need a Overfinch Range Rover ;-)
    
    Grant

    
    ...& a taller wife...

>>    Sounds like you need a Overfinch Range Rover ;-)
    
    These are also very impressive beasts.
    
    Problem with one of these (besides cost) is that the vehicle usually
    has suspension modified for 'fast road' use.  If that's what you are
    doing with an R.R., then fine.  To my mind, they are intended for
    use off of the road, at least some of the time.
    
    I do like the idea of getting a Rangie, but wouldn't have one of these
    in standard setup.  One job would be to chop off the rear, with the
    tailgate moved up to just behind the rear wheels.  This does mean the
    loss of carrying capacity (petrol tank fits behind the rear seat this
    way), but would be no worse than that of my Heep.  Other mods would be
    to fit decent off-road tyres and a diff lock or two...
    
    The resulting vehicle would then be very capable off roader, with
    more than acceptable on-road manners.  It would also be none too
    common (having a cut-down body) - except at AWDC events - and could
    be used by me or my wife as a daily driver.
    
    Having a vehicle of this description may mean that we would only
    need one other car, unless it is expected to break from time to time !
    
    
    Anyone care to provide a list of 'affordable' convertibles which
    are better than two-seaters, ie 2+2 or full four seaters ?
    
    J.R.

    re-1
    
    A Overfinch Range Rover w/o the suspension mods and with a Convertable
    roof ;-)
    
    Grant

    
    Four seater convertibles are fairly rare - there are a few more
    cabrios... on the convertible front the following spring to mind
    as having four seats...
    
    BMW 3 series now (+ poss 5 series)
    Renault 19 soon
    Mercedes (new convertible for the 200 series this year)
    Audi coup�
    Yugo 55
    Morris Minor
    Triumph Herald
    Saab 900
    
    Richard.

    
    
    LAND ROVER DISCOVERY
    ====================
    
    3.5 litter OHV V8 Petrol  		150hp/4750rpm   26.3mkg/3000rpm
    2.5 litter OHV Inline 4 Diesel	110hp/4000rpm   27.0mkg/1800rpm
    
    3 Door Body				5 Seats
    5 Door Body				5 Seats   +   2 Occasional Seats
    
       MN

    MASERATI SPYDER ZAGATO 2.8

>>                             -< OFF ROAD ABILITY >-
>>    LAND ROVER DISCOVERY
>>    ====================
    
    A very capable vehicle.  Overpriced, to my mind.
    
    Also, I have yet to see one with even a touch of mud on it !
    A number of them appear at AWDC events, but none of them ever
    seem to get used beyond the car park area...
    
    
>>                     -< ITALIAN 6-CYL 4-SEAT CONVERTIBLE >-
>>    MASERATI SPYDER ZAGATO 2.8
    
    Sounds 'interesting'.	What about the price of these ?
    
    Is it a fairly recent model, similar to the bi-turbo etc, or is
    it an older 'classic' design ?
    
    
    
    Re. list of four seaters under 'cabrio' heading
    
    I hadn't heard of an Audi Coupe, nor a Yugo 55, roof-less model
    (although I recall seeing a Quattro [Spyder ?] with no roof at a show,
    was it a Treser conversion ?).
    
    J.R.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

	    Audi convertible is based on the Audi 100, isn't it?

    There are new line of BI-TURBO's.
    
    	222SE		2-door coupe, 2+2
    	228		2-door sedan, 4 seat
    	430		4-door sedan, 4 seat
    	SPYDER		convertible,  2+2
    
    I believe they all have same engin. (2.8 litter, twin turbo, 225 hp)
    
    KARIF is another 2-door coupe with same engine but more power and 2+2
    body with no leg space at all.
    
    MN

    re-1
    
    That should be 250BHP and the Karif has around 280BHP.
    
    Grant

    
    Yup - my mistake. It is based on the 100, not the coup�.
    
    (...but they all look the same anyway ;-))