Boxster Spyder

[Papalazarou]

Finally got to drive a Boxster Spyder this week. After driving an Evora the other week, I was interested to know how they compare.
Now it would probably have been fairer if the Boxster had actually been a Cayman, but it wasn't and I'm no journalist and this isn't Autocar.
Anyway, the car I drove was a PDK model. I've driven a manual Cayman before and although if wasn't a slick as the X, it's still pretty good, especially with the short shift.
The PDK was interesting for a number of reasons, but predominantly because the last auto I drove was about 20 years ago.
The paddle shifters were great. The shifting was super smooth and pretty fast especially on the downshifts. Upshifts weren't as fast as I thought they'd be, but perhaps I was expecting too much.
Full auto was very easy to use and in sport mode you could use the auto shifter like a sequential which was fun
Kickdown seemed a bit like overkill but I'm not an auto expert.
On the road the car was excellent. Great steering and the ride was very good, but not Evora good.
Performance was good. The sports exhaust sounds very Porschelike and I think I'd just leave it on all the time as even with the roof down it wasn't obtrusive.
This particular car had sport and sport plus mode. The latter turns off all your Driver aids. The former allows you to drive like a twat with no consequences if only to make you feel like a driving god. I'm very much into disillusion, so really liked this button.

An example would be, stop at 90 degree junction, turn steering 90degrees. Nail throttle and opposite lock until the car decides it wants you to go straight.

The seats are my bitch. I know I've been here before, but why put fixed back seats in anything not destined specifically for the track. I thought I was the only one who found these seats painful, but it turns out the foetal position doesn't work for some other people either.
Luckily you can have the sports seats. They are comfortable but are alas not carbon and according to the wonderful world that is Pistonheads, youll never resell without the backwreckers.

Roof; I know. I was at a car show the other week chatting to a guy with a Boxster S. We were discussing the the pros and cons of a 1960's style MG roof over a fully electrical one.
Personally I like the idea of going out with a roof that could just be a PITA if it decides to rain. Reminds me of the stuff we drove as kids. A bit impractical, especially on those marginal days.
Performance was similar to a well sorted X or Evora S. But again torque is quite impressive, but then it is lighter and has between 200 and 400 cc more than our cars.
Audibly it's got a lot of character. Totally different than the X. I won't mention the Lotus.

So all in all, I thought it was a great car. It looks fantastic with the Carrera GT style back end and it feels very well screwed together. Let's hope the DI engine has less issues than the previous incarnation.
A much better option than an Evora for me as it sounds and goes great, is built very well and also looks a little different from other Boxster. Ok who am I kidding they all look essentially the same.
I also miss open top cars, so that's a big attraction. Additionally, it's a more substantial car than say an Exige, but still offers much of the thrill.
Still not sure about the PDK, but it's of the future I suppose. I think I'm right in saying that Lamborghini do not offer manual transmissions anymore?!

Anyway, there you go.

Cheers,

James

[havoc]

Interesting write-up, cheers.

Sat in one last weekend at PH SS, and ignoring the seats, my overriding impression was a complete lack of rear visibility to your left, bar a narrow slot for the rear-view mirror. What is it with modern cars that the designers think you don't need to see around you?!? (Evora was easily as bad, and that's a mainstream model not a ltd-edition)

[Papalazarou]

Definitely. I guess it's hard to achieve function over aesthetics. NSX aside.
I still find it hard to understand how manufacturers who design cars from the ground up can make pretty unacceptable mistakes even now. Not only visibility but also engines, gearbox linkages, Gearboxes etc etc....

Cheers,

James.

[Geraint]

Interesting write-up :)

Are you going to buy one then?

[Papalazarou]

Interesting write-up :)

Are you going to buy one then?


Tempting, but not sure. It frustrates me that nothing really fires my interest. Well nothing that I can afford to own and run. Certainly a convertible appeals. I definitely miss my old targa. But not sure whether I could own another NSX.
There are a lot of nice cars out there, but I'm hard pushed to think of a two seater soft top I'd actually want to own.
If only Honda has made a serious revision to the S2000!

So I guess the answer is I haven't a clue. But still enjoy the car I have. In spite of an acute lack of regional meets;-0

Cheers,

James.

[Geraint]

But still enjoy the car I have.
If it ain't broke...

I like Boxsters, but for me the problem with the Spyder would be the vfm (and depreciation) comparison with a £10k example. It just doesn't make any sense, in my opinion.

You seem to be looking for the perfect car, and (with the possible exception of a NSX-T :) ) it probably doesn't exist. The alternative is to go multi-car, but then I suppose you'll just have a multi-dimensional version of the same problem... :laughing:

[Nick Graves]

It's when a supposed "performance car" is too damned wide & you cannot see out that I reach for my gun.

It's all the silly FREDs & posey wheel & other options that make me go off the otherwise excellent Boxster.

Good report though, James.

[havoc]

It frustrates me that nothing really fires my interest. Well nothing that I can afford to own and run.

Funny you should say that - was at Grand Designs yesterday and Nissan had a (dull grey) GTR on the stand (Nissan were showing off the Leaf, given the eco-credentials of the show, but unsurprisingly (given the 'net worth' of many punters) want to push their halo car too).

So, having not had a proper sit- and poke-around in one before, I did. And got chatting to the salesman (Becs, top girl, dropped the letters "NSX" into conversation twice, but they went straight over his head), who despite trying his best to avoid awkward questions let these nuggets slide:-
- £500 a tyre! So about 4x the cost of NSX rubber.
- £500 option from new is the "servicing pack" which "Saves you £2k over 3 years". So £2,500 for the first 3 years servicing then?!? :ouch:
- Nissan "like to see the car every 3,000 miles to make sure everything's OK...but of course it's a Nissan so that should just be routine"
- The clutch will only withstand about 5 "launch control" launches...so why FIT the damn thing then...oh, I forgot, you've got statistics to hit to claim your car is as good as a 911 Turbo!

Oh, corker of the day though has to be his attempt to evade questioning about the (very stiff) suspension - "Yes it's stiff, but then it's designed to go on-track as well as on-road. But it rides better than an R8." Really, how? "I was in an R8 around a track and it made me queasy" Ah, too much body roll in the R8 then? "Yes, that's right" So the Nissan rides better because it's stiffer???


I was genuinely surprised at the running costs...I know I shouldn't have been, but come on!!! Assuming nothing goes wrong on either car, the GTR will cost easily 3-4x as much to service as the NSX, will return maybe 2/3 of the fuel economy, and will depreciate like a white elephant. Granted it's substantially quicker than our old girl, but is it that much 'better'?!?



Geraint "multi-dimensional view of the same problem" - very true. I'm sort of with James in that I wish Honda had evolved the S2000...but my primary wish is that the DC2 had been RWD not FWD - I can't pick another real fault with that car*. Combine the best bits of both cars and I genuinely think Honda would have had the perfect 'affordable sports car'...

* Well, nothing a C30 (C25?) shoehorned into it wouldn't have cured! :D

[Nick Graves]

Funny you should say that - was at Grand Designs yesterday and Nissan had a (dull grey) GTR on the stand (Nissan were showing off the Leaf, given the eco-credentials of the show, but unsurprisingly (given the 'net worth' of many punters) want to push their halo car too).

So, having not had a proper sit- and poke-around in one before, I did. And got chatting to the salesman (Becs, top girl, dropped the letters "NSX" into conversation twice, but they went straight over his head), who despite trying his best to avoid awkward questions let these nuggets slide:-
- £500 a tyre! So about 4x the cost of NSX rubber.
- £500 option from new is the "servicing pack" which "Saves you £2k over 3 years". So £2,500 for the first 3 years servicing then?!? :ouch:
- Nissan "like to see the car every 3,000 miles to make sure everything's OK...but of course it's a Nissan so that should just be routine"
- The clutch will only withstand about 5 "launch control" launches...so why FIT the damn thing then...oh, I forgot, you've got statistics to hit to claim your car is as good as a 911 Turbo!

Oh, corker of the day though has to be his attempt to evade questioning about the (very stiff) suspension - "Yes it's stiff, but then it's designed to go on-track as well as on-road. But it rides better than an R8." Really, how? "I was in an R8 around a track and it made me queasy" Ah, too much body roll in the R8 then? "Yes, that's right" So the Nissan rides better because it's stiffer???


I was genuinely surprised at the running costs...I know I shouldn't have been, but come on!!! Assuming nothing goes wrong on either car, the GTR will cost easily 3-4x as much to service as the NSX, will return maybe 2/3 of the fuel economy, and will depreciate like a white elephant. Granted it's substantially quicker than our old girl, but is it that much 'better'?!?



Geraint "multi-dimensional view of the same problem" - very true. I'm sort of with James in that I wish Honda had evolved the S2000...but my primary wish is that the DC2 had been RWD not FWD - I can't pick another real fault with that car*. Combine the best bits of both cars and I genuinely think Honda would have had the perfect 'affordable sports car'...

* Well, nothing a C30 (C25?) shoehorned into it wouldn't have cured! :D

The GT-R's anti Darwin bonnet costs 11 large to replace.

The ATF is made from virgins' tears & is horrendous.

Just because it's a cheap old Datsun, people expect its running costs to be sensible - they're not.

And like you say, the fashion victim wheels and 'Ring-fixated set up do not help the ride one bit.

Actually, I agree that the useability balance with Honda is probably hard to beat; buy an S2000 & shove a Rotrex on it!

Even a CR-Z with an HKS snail putting out around 200BHP would be worth it just for the shock factor!

[Papalazarou]

The GTR can certainly be expensive to run against certain other cars.
However, you can run one on a tighter budget if you use a specialist. The tyre costs were originally £2,400 for a set of Dunlops but you can have Bridgestones for just over half that. Brakes are expensive to replace though and if you go over the 120 degree transmission temperature you've got to have the fluid replaced.
I still think that if you were careful with your purchase you could run one for a year or so without be bankrupted.
Compared to a 997 turbo it's still great value with regard to initial outlay and capabilities.

Reference the S2000, I really liked mine but thought the rear suspension was unresolved on bumpy roads. Could have been seized bushes I guess. Love to try one with the Rotrex though.

Geraint, I thought you were spot in with your comment about 'a multiple dimensional problem' but it doesn't get a SW meet organized;-0 seriously, that's what I found when I had the S2000.

Cheers,

James.

[Nick Graves]

The early cars (like mine) were set up like an old British roadster - something like 320 lb ft rear springs, IIRC. They have a tendency to bounce round corners; not good.

A rear chassis brace & the Mugen GPs made mine quite tolerable, but there are better solutions from Nitron. Or the final 08/09 cars, which are said to be the best-resolved - once they've sorted the explodey engines.

The Rotrex is fantastic on the S2000; it fills out the supposedly weak off-cam response nicely & it goes like an NSX. You need to lower the VTEC changeover though, or it is a tad violent.

Ultimately, it is frustrating that Honda never threw any money at the S2000 or the NSX for quiet, continuous development; I'd still have their descendents in production today & not have all the enthusiasts leaving in droves.

[havoc]

Compared to a 997 turbo it's still great value with regard to initial outlay and capabilities.

Reference the S2000, I really liked mine but thought the rear suspension was unresolved on bumpy roads. Could have been seized bushes I guess. Love to try one with the Rotrex though.

1) Possibly. Be interested to see what e.g. 3-year running costs overall are like - I'd imagine the 997 being marginally cheaper to fuel, insure, shod and maintain, and to have better residuals (albeit from a higher starting point, so higher interest costs to factor in too). Plus there's the osteopath fees to consider if you drive a GTR! ;)

2) I agree with Nick - my '03 was like that (and it didn't have any seized bushes), but fitment of a rear cross-brace and softer-sidewalled tyres did "damp" the problem down somewhat, but certainly didn't get rid of it. I think as Nick alludes to it was a slight mismatch between spring and damper rates which only manifested itself under heavy corner loading with sharp transients (i.e. blatting down a bumpy road).
If I get another one ('04-05, most likely - cable throttle and cheaper RFL) I'll probably go down the Nitrons route...and possibly a rotrex if budget and brave-pills permit!

[jaytip]

The GT-R's anti Darwin bonnet costs 11 large to replace.


And you think an NSX will be cheaper to fix in the event of a front impact ???

[jaytip]

The GT-R's anti Darwin bonnet costs 11 large to replace.


And you think an NSX will be cheaper to fix in the event of a front impact ???

[Nick Graves]

And you think an NSX will be cheaper to fix in the event of a front impact ???

Yeah, I think we worked out the front closing panels only came to £25,000 all-in. Mind you, it doesn't have anything so anti-Darwinian and being completely of ally, is more pro-evolution.

The point still stands; the NSX's service costs are actually quite good compared to any of its rivals. The GT-R's are up there with the costliest, belying its cheap purchase price. And some of its silliest fashion gewgaws (such as launch control as described by Havoc) are positively destructive if you are fool (or rich) enough to use them.

That's not to say I dislike the big Insane GT-R at all; far from it - IF I needed such a car, I suppose I would.

[Nick Graves]

1) Possibly. Be interested to see what e.g. 3-year running costs overall are like - I'd imagine the 997 being marginally cheaper to fuel, insure, shod and maintain, and to have better residuals (albeit from a higher starting point, so higher interest costs to factor in too). Plus there's the osteopath fees to consider if you drive a GTR! ;)

2) I agree with Nick - my '03 was like that (and it didn't have any seized bushes), but fitment of a rear cross-brace and softer-sidewalled tyres did "damp" the problem down somewhat, but certainly didn't get rid of it. I think as Nick alludes to it was a slight mismatch between spring and damper rates which only manifested itself under heavy corner loading with sharp transients (i.e. blatting down a bumpy road).
If I get another one ('04-05, most likely - cable throttle and cheaper RFL) I'll probably go down the Nitrons route...and possibly a rotrex if budget and brave-pills permit!

Indeed; they fiddled around quite a lot; the '02s returned to a more 'normal' setup with the rears around 250 & the fronts upped to 300 ish. They then buggered about every couple of years 'til they ended up (IIRC!) with roughly 300 all round. Despite the remote reservoirs, all years suffer from rear damper fade. If you're a maniac...

I also agree with the 'no one car is ever enough' theory, so I have the NSX instead of a Rotrex. I'm a NA whore at heart...

[Geraint]

And you think an NSX will be cheaper to fix in the event of a front impact ???
My understanding is that the Datsun has a load of electronically-controlled explosives that are specifically designed to cause it to self-destruct and generate revenue *cough* I mean protect pedestrians in the event of an impact, which can be activated at speeds well below that at which a NSX starts to need aluminium.

I don't particularly like the R35 anyway, but even if I did, this sort of 'technological progress' would have it struck straight off the list.

[Nick Graves]

Well, in one case it was set off by the guy cracking its bumper on the car in front whilst lapsing concentration in a traffic jam.

[Ewan]

The GTR story - in the end, it wasn't quite as scary as it started off being... http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/127250-accident-dont-do-what-i-did.html

[Nick Graves]

Sorry, I cannot read the GTROC forum for reasons of sanity - although the R35 guys are probably largely OK; I know Crispy through S2Ki.

What WAS the final outcome? Only NSX money in the end?

[Geraint]

Wise man, Nick :laugh:

I tried to read it from the end backwards, and lost interest, so I may have missed something, but AFIACS it was still £8k+

Much bandwidth was consumed in 'debate' between those who think the parts prices should be lower, and those arguing that it is what it is - and if you can't afford it then don't buy the car.

[Nick Graves]

That's about as far as I dared read.

I think it's probably the same as the Range Rover Sport owners' club; they cannot have club meets because a brawl will inevitably break out.

[Ewan]

Sorry, I cannot read the GTROC forum for reasons of sanity - although the R35 guys are probably largely OK; I know Crispy through S2Ki.

What WAS the final outcome? Only NSX money in the end?

I read it once to some depth, though can't recall the exact outcome and am not going to go there again...

I think the gist was that initially the dealer was saying it'd all be £11k and take ages to fix, but in the end Nissan stepped in and made it happen quicker, at a lower cost and contributed to by them, and I believe they also said the same would happen should the same circumstances occur. Of course, actually crashing into a pedestrian and setting off the bonnet release might be deemed intended usage, and you'd be on your own...

[Nick Graves]

Thanks, Ewan. You're a brave man.

[havoc]

I wonder if Ewan offers other translation services...do you think he'd survive Scoobynet?!?

[Papalazarou]

I wonder if Ewan offers other translation services...do you think he'd survive Scoobynet?!?

Anything but Scoobynet. That's worse than Detroit! (anyone get the quote?)

Cheers,

James.

[Nick Graves]

Anything but Scoobynet. That's worse than Detroit! (anyone get the quote?)

Cheers,

James.

:D

I had to gooogle it as I'd forgotten that line.

Guess I picked a bad day to give up lines....

[havoc]

Guess I picked a bad day to give up lines....

You are McCroskey AICMFP!

[Papalazarou]

:D

I had to gooogle it as I'd forgotten that line.

Guess I picked a bad day to give up lines....

It's a bit wrong, but quite funny. Where would we gave been without the Zuckers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g09GtnWdBjc

[havoc]

It's a bit wrong, but quite funny. Where would we gave been without the Zuckers?


Over Mucho Grande?

[Papalazarou]

Over Mucho Grande?

No. I don't think I'll ever get over Macho Grande.

[Geraint]

How about a Ginetta G60, James?

Gets a great write-up in Autocar, beat the Evora S in a group test.

MR with transverse 3.7 na v6, 310bhp, 6sp manual box, 1080kg, double wishbones all round, no electronic driver aids, £68k.

Might just be the latter day NSX...

[Ewan]

I like the idea of the Ginetta G60, and I think it looks great too. The thing that would concern me would be that they'll be in low enough volume that the car will be a continual improvement process - so early owners will be beta testing stuff to improve it in a couple of years, not just to make it a better car but to make the car better (ie manufacturing process improvements etc).

A bit like Lotus, but without the resources and the dealer network or owners community :)

[Papalazarou]

Went on a PH drive with a few cars yesterday. The route leader was in an M12. Damn that thing is quick. The 997 GT3 was pretty awesome too. For part of the drive I followed a Supra and that was a very similar pace to the NSX. I'd say the X may have been a little faster through the top end of the rev range, but tough to tell.
The old NSX however was not embarrassed in such company. In fact the softer ride and less power helped a lot when driving fast on roads I'd never been on. In fact the car never got unsettled once despite the changeable road conditions.

I'd agree with the comments about the Ginetta. Looks interesting, but I'd want a more polished 'complete' product for that money. Which incidentally I do not have;-).

Cheers,

James.

[Silver Surfer]

10649
10650
10651

Pics are always good.... ;)

SS

[DamianW]

Just having a read of this thread, I can never resist commenting when a car I own is talked about for some reason ;) I now own a GT-R, having had an NSX a couple of cars ago. I'm firmly of the belief that you'll never understand a car from a test drive. The NSX I bought despite my initial test drive not quite living up to how I'd imagined it, then over time I grew to completely love it, and I still miss some of its abilities (and that engine). However the GT-R astonished me on the test drive like nothing else I've ever driven. It made the 997 I test drove feel totally ordinary. Over time you do notice a few things, such as the very hard ride already commented on, and that made me question whether I'd done the right thing. Then I realised: this is a pantomime car. I love it because it's absolutely ridiculous. Preposterous. It's the most insane thing I've ever owned, whilst at the same time retaining enough practicality that my kid can ride in the back. Trust me, they're brilliant.

[TheSebringOne]

James, would you not consider a Noble M12 GTO 3R or the Exige 260 Sport? I suggest these since you want a track
orientated car.

[Nick Graves]

Just having a read of this thread, I can never resist commenting when a car I own is talked about for some reason ;) I now own a GT-R, having had an NSX a couple of cars ago. I'm firmly of the belief that you'll never understand a car from a test drive. The NSX I bought despite my initial test drive not quite living up to how I'd imagined it, then over time I grew to completely love it, and I still miss some of its abilities (and that engine). However the GT-R astonished me on the test drive like nothing else I've ever driven. It made the 997 I test drove feel totally ordinary. Over time you do notice a few things, such as the very hard ride already commented on, and that made me question whether I'd done the right thing. Then I realised: this is a pantomime car. I love it because it's absolutely ridiculous. Preposterous. It's the most insane thing I've ever owned, whilst at the same time retaining enough practicality that my kid can ride in the back. Trust me, they're brilliant.

Great post! I sort of admire the Insane GT-R for that; it sort of makes sense in a nonsensical way.

[Papalazarou]

Thanks for getting the pictures Kare. Since the forum has changed I don't know how to post them.


James, would you not consider a Noble M12 GTO 3R or the Exige 260 Sport? I suggest these since you want a track
orientated car.

I think the Spyder's looking more and more attractive because it's more of an all-rounder compared to the Noble and the Exige which are really quite extreme. After an NSX (no offence to lovers of other marques) but it's tough to take a backward step with build quality. I know Porsche isn't quite up to the Honda, but it's not far off.

Damian, I wondered how you were doing 'post NSX.' Didn't you have an M5 for a while? If so, how does that compare to the GTR? Is the GTR really that insane? I've not driven one yet, but in my mind it's a spaceship! Is the auto box any good? Do you miss the interaction?

Cheers,

James.

[DamianW]

Damian, I wondered how you were doing 'post NSX.' Didn't you have an M5 for a while? If so, how does that compare to the GTR? Is the GTR really that insane? I've not driven one yet, but in my mind it's a spaceship! Is the auto box any good? Do you miss the interaction?


Hi James -

Yes I had an E39 M5 (old V8 model). That and the GT-R are chalk and cheese, but both are great cars. The M5 was a very comfortable muscle car. It sounded brilliant, it went like stink and it could transport 5 people plus a boot full with ease. But it never did corners that well. You always felt the weight, there wasn't much steering feel, and the gearbox was a travesty considering the lever basically goes straight into the box. After the NSX I missed the connection with the car (despite the NSX itself being a little aloof at times). I also missed the garage door trick. If you open the garage door and look at the car within you should immediately want to drive it. I never had that with the M5, but I did with the NSX.

So there was a bunch of things I wanted to fix. I needed a car that was practical enough for 3 of us plus luggage, I wanted something that excited me both to drive and to look at. I short listed a 997, Evora and GT-R. I also considered a DB9 but never tested one.

Briefly, the 997 I tested was a C4S. It didn't set my pants on fire and I disliked the 4wd system. Nicely built, engine sounded quite nice too, and I very nearly talked myself into it (again, I always figure you can learn to love a car, sometimes you have to take that risk).

The Evora was typical Lotus. The steering, the chassis feel, it was just sublime. But the interior was cheap in places, it didn't feel a quality item, and the rear seat bench was unusable for my daughter (the deciding factor, that). Shame though, as it was probably the closest thing to the NSX.

The GT-R from the off was something different. It's huge, it's far more practical than any of the above, its the first dual clutch box I've used. It's also absolutely ballistically fast. New ones are even faster, I've no idea why you'd want that though as this one has enough go to tear your face off. It's a good drive though, it's definitely a step up from the M5 in terms of steering/pedal/seat-of-the-pants feel. Steering wise its actually better than a PAS NSX too, although lets keep that quiet. I miss the lovely 'box of the NSX a little, but the dual clutch auto on the GT-R is actually a wonderful thing to use, and as I get older I appreciate being able to knock it into full auto and pootle around.

Negatives are probably as already posted. Pre MY11 cars are 6 months/6000 miles servicing (post MY11 its 12 months/9000 which is much better, although still not Porsche levels). Tyres are pricey, but really what do you expect, they're specialised runflats for 20 inch rims.

Otherwise the news isn't bad I don't think, I've had 25mpg on a run, to date (touch wood) I've had no issues with it, it feels well screwed together, general public seem to like it (not like Porsche/Ferrari in that respect!). It's different to the NSX, sure, but it has that same single-minded Japanese feel to it.

Hmm, waffled a bit there!

[Papalazarou]

Thanks for the write-up Damian. I must tap the local GTR dealer for a test drive. I read somewhere that owners of earlier cars were trying to lobby Nissan to extend service times in line with later models. I guess that didn't happen?!
There is a great attraction to ultimate speed! Certainly when I was slowly going backwards following an M12 last week, it crossed my mind. However, revving out to 8K in each gear never gets old.
Another aspect is the X's driving position and totally clean, functional wraparound "timeless dated interior!" another is the exclusivity. However, I can't afford to own two fun cars, so if I want to try something different it's got to go.

If you ever bring the spaceship down to the SW let me know.

Cheers,

James.

[Senninha]

At the recent PH meet I joined in the Oxford area, there was a guy there in a GTR. He had previously owned an late M3. After the run we chatted over breakfast and he relayed the following when I asked him why the GTR ....

The M3 had become dull. Most people never use it properly and by this I mean you need to ring its neck all the way to 8k all the time otherwise it does become quite dull.
I need 4 seats so was limited on choice. I decided to give the GTR a test drive. The sales guy said to me, we'll take it easy out of town until we hit the dual carraigeway. Here you'll be able to open it up. If its clear we should hit the crest around a ton. Once over the crest I want you to bury the brake pedal.
It was clear and I did, and as the car came safely and quickly down to an almost dead stop the sales guy looked at me and said .... shall I get the order form out now?
I bought the car that day and have not regretted it. Specialist servicing is sensibly priced compared to main dealer and keeps the warranty intact. It does have a hard ride that can be frustrating at times, but it goes like nothing else this side of £50k and will do it on any surface, in any condition.

Sounds to me like you need a test drive James .....

[DamianW]

Thanks for the write-up Damian. I must tap the local GTR dealer for a test drive. I read somewhere that owners of earlier cars were trying to lobby Nissan to extend service times in line with later models. I guess that didn't happen?!
There is a great attraction to ultimate speed! Certainly when I was slowly going backwards following an M12 last week, it crossed my mind. However, revving out to 8K in each gear never gets old.
Another aspect is the X's driving position and totally clean, functional wraparound "timeless dated interior!" another is the exclusivity. However, I can't afford to own two fun cars, so if I want to try something different it's got to go.


No worries, I like waffling about motors :)

Agree with the NSX. To my mind it still has the near perfect amount of power, its still a car you can rev the knackers off without feeling like you should go straight to jail. The ride/handling compromise is also sublime - the GTR is a little too hard for UK B roads, although I hear the MY11 has been softened.

There were some noises made about getting Nissan to extend the servicing for older cars, but it hasn't gone anywhere. MY11 has revised gearbox cooling, from what I read somewhere, and this is one of the reasons the later cars get away with longer intervals. Sounds like bull to me though!

If you only need a two seater I'd probably keep the NSX. I regret selling mine in some respects, although the reasons for selling (never used it once daughter came along) are still valid. I know you've sold and re-bought, so why both going through it again ;) Get a cheap Integra or something!



If you ever bring the spaceship down to the SW let me know.



Will do!

[Geraint]

I know you've sold and re-bought, so why both going through it again ;) Get a cheap Integra or something!
This man speaks sense :)

[Papalazarou]

This man speaks sense :)

I know, it's probably just an end of season thing. I do this every year.

Cheers,

James.

[Nick Graves]

Funnily enough, it's usually late-winter when I've had two PoS gathering dust in the garage for months, I wonder why on earth I bother.

Time to get them out & do some driving again (time permitting) and my faith is restored!

[havoc]

This man speaks sense :)

At some point I need to do a back-to-back write-up of my two...very different but equally rewarding.

To be fair, the 'teg naturally doesn't feel as special (or sound it - good for a 4-pot, but still a 4-pot) a place to be, and the NVH is miles off.

BUT the driving position is almost as good as the NSX, the throttle-response and gearchange are actually even better while the steering, although corrupted by fwd, has good weighting and better 'nuggety' feedback than the EPS NSX, the brakes are as good...and on a twisty B-road the chassis is also about as good, albeit in a different way - you get the front hooked up and leave the back to sort itself out (and sort any understeer out...with the current rear toe mine feels very like it's about to step into roll-oversteer, but never does...beautiful sensation, and completely vice-less!)

If I found myself in a position where I needed to choose between the two, it would depend on my location:-
- if I had access to 'big' roads (Alps, French countryside, Scotland), I'd keep the NSX no question.
- ...but if (as currently is the case) I was surrounded by 'typical nadgety English B-roads', the 'teg makes a very good case for itself as well. It's narrower and more exploitable, it's limits are almost sensible, and it feels 'up on its toes' at legal speeds. Plus the fwd-with-good-diff makes it a lot more forgiving.


Sounds like I prefer the teg?!? Dunno...the NSX is so rewarding, so balanced, so alive and instinctive when you find a fast twisty road and the sound/sensation is one of those life-affirming things that, as said, you really can never tire of. Plus the NSX attracts attention and admiration nearly everywhere (try to say that about a 911 or GTR!). At some point in the future I will have to choose...and I've still no idea which way I'll go!

[DamianW]

Plus the NSX attracts attention and admiration nearly everywhere (try to say that about a 911 or GTR!).

Actually the GTR gets quite a lot of admiration, people seem to love it. The strange thing is that non-petrolhead types all love it, and think its wonderful, whereas people who think they know a bit about cars almost seem to have an irrational hatred of it. I still don't quite understand that.

[havoc]

Actually the GTR gets quite a lot of admiration, people seem to love it. The strange thing is that non-petrolhead types all love it, and think its wonderful, whereas people who think they know a bit about cars almost seem to have an irrational hatred of it. I still don't quite understand that.

I think part of that is the "brute force over finesse" approach that Nissan seem to have taken with it:-
- High-boost turbos giving very big power - 'purists' like n/asp for the response and sound
- VERY stiff suspension* to give it the grip it has - massively compromising the day-to-day ride and giving a very heavy/practical car more of a 'track-focus'.
- chasing the stats - N'ring lap times probably driving the stiff suspension, launch control that f'ks the gearbox up (not just the clutch) if over-used, but required to get close to the quoted 0-60 time.

As a machine for hitting targets and tracks, and for demolishing point-to-point times, it's an impressive achievement - VERY impressive. As a daily driver, it's compromised unless you're married to a chiropractor.



* I'd say that a lot of the fault for this lies with motoring journos, inc. a certain magazine, who keep praising 'body control' over-and-above ride quality, especially where it facilitates more controllable oversteer (who the hell oversteers on the public road regularly???), and with the increasing use of the N'ring as a yardstick.

[DamianW]

There you go, exactly the kind of poorly informed opinion you get from supposed car lovers.

[havoc]

In what way is that poorly-informed?

I've not been fortunate enough to drive one, but I've spoken to a couple of owners and read a few different reviews, and uniformly the ride has come in for a LOT of criticism. It's also well-documented in GTR circles that the launch control isn't fully-warranted by Nissan AND puts a shed-load of strain on the clutch and gearbox. It's also well-documented that the (apparently special) gearbox oil needs to be changed if the temp goes above a certain level...which it can do with 'enthusiastic' driving!

And finally, it HAS got fairly potent turbos...with all the positives and negatives that they bring.


...so, with respect, I'm not sure why you're calling me ill-informed. Please correct any of that if it's wrong...

[DamianW]

I'm sure I probably covered it already.

The ride is hard yes. However the seats are comfortable and I've yet to get out "needing a chiropractor". It is a long way off being as hard as a track special car, and indeed the MY11 car has been softened.

No car manufacturer warrants launch controls. Once you start doing that on a regular basis, don't expect anyone to start replacing gearboxes for you. Any launch control on any vehicle will put huge stresses on the drivetrain. That said, the talk of it lunching itself is bollocks. Even the earliest UK spec cars had had their launch system cobbled so that it couldn't do that - it was JDM cars that could eat themselves. Progressively they have got better.

Turbos are big, I'm sure. But throttle response is extremely good, and I rarely feel I'm driving a turbo.

Perhaps ill informed was strong, but its just this kind of wanton slinging around of opinion that drives me nuts; lets dismiss a car before we drive/own one.

[havoc]

OK, didn't realise you had one - can understand your defensiveness.

"No mfr warrants launch control"...however both Porsche and certain other mfrs (and independent journos) have proven their systems will take a LOT more punishment than the GTRs. As for "only the JDM cars" - that makes it OK, does it??? Set some phenomenal stats with a set-up that needs repair work it's so on-the-limit, then wind it back for the punters? I've got a problem with any "launch control" system and the stats it purports to show anyway - it's false advertising: "Our car can do 0-60 in 3.x seconds, but if you try and do that we won't warranty the parts concerned and you could face a multi-thousand bill"

Ride - could you do a full-day through British roads to Scotland in it and still get out feeling fresh? Or through Belgian roads to/from the N'ring? In cars like the NSX and the various Porsche Turbos you most certainly can...so I would suggest that such a ride DOES compromise the everyday usability. Nissan are asking the owners to make a sacrifice in habitability to access an extra 10% (or whatever) of performance that they will only ever be able to access on-track AND if they're superbly talented. And IMHO that's once again for statistic-chasing - "our car laps the Nurburgring quicker than a Porsche Turbo".


Throttle-response...well, we'll all end up driving turbos soon, the way emissions regs are forcing manufacturers to go. When I heard the new 3-series wasn't going to have any n/asp engines at launch and the 328i would have a petrol engine with peak torque at 1,500-4,500rpm, I nearly wept. I don't care what power an engine develops, if it doesn't "drive well" (throttle-response and progressive output up to a peak, so you feel reward for stretching its legs), then it's not an enjoyable engine - instant gratification is rather boring, don't you think???

[DamianW]

This is exactly what I was referring to - I've no idea why you need to be getting aggressive about other people's choice of car, or the ethos behind the GTR. If you don't like it, that's fine, but no reason to come across as a total arsehole.

[jaytip]

OK, didn't realise you had one - can understand your defensiveness.

"No mfr warrants launch control"...however both Porsche and certain other mfrs (and independent journos) have proven their systems will take a LOT more punishment than the GTRs. As for "only the JDM cars" - that makes it OK, does it??? Set some phenomenal stats with a set-up that needs repair work it's so on-the-limit, then wind it back for the punters? I've got a problem with any "launch control" system and the stats it purports to show anyway - it's false advertising: "Our car can do 0-60 in 3.x seconds, but if you try and do that we won't warranty the parts concerned and you could face a multi-thousand bill"

Ride - could you do a full-day through British roads to Scotland in it and still get out feeling fresh? Or through Belgian roads to/from the N'ring? In cars like the NSX and the various Porsche Turbos you most certainly can...so I would suggest that such a ride DOES compromise the everyday usability. Nissan are asking the owners to make a sacrifice in habitability to access an extra 10% (or whatever) of performance that they will only ever be able to access on-track AND if they're superbly talented. And IMHO that's once again for statistic-chasing - "our car laps the Nurburgring quicker than a Porsche Turbo".


Throttle-response...well, we'll all end up driving turbos soon, the way emissions regs are forcing manufacturers to go. When I heard the new 3-series wasn't going to have any n/asp engines at launch and the 328i would have a petrol engine with peak torque at 1,500-4,500rpm, I nearly wept. I don't care what power an engine develops, if it doesn't "drive well" (throttle-response and progressive output up to a peak, so you feel reward for stretching its legs), then it's not an enjoyable engine - instant gratification is rather boring, don't you think???
Havoc,no offence mate but have you sat back for a minute and thought about what you are doing.You are slating a car YOU HAVE NEVER DRIVEN and arguing with someone who has first hand experiance as an owner.
I subscribe to Evo every month and while i read it from front to back (and in so doing,read a lot, about a lot of cars) i would never presume to tell someone how compromised their car is if i had never driven one.
The Type-R is critisized for having too hard a suspension set up for UK roads,but it doesn't stop NSX enthusiasts (me included) dribbling about the thought of owning one.

[NoelWatson]

When I heard the new 3-series wasn't going to have any n/asp engines at launch and the 328i would have a petrol engine with peak torque at 1,500-4,500rpm, I nearly wept. I don't care what power an engine develops, if it doesn't "drive well" (throttle-response and progressive output up to a peak, so you feel reward for stretching its legs), then it's not an enjoyable engine - instant gratification is rather boring, don't you think???

I wouldn't touch a current BMW petrol with a bargepole.

[havoc]

Jay - fair point. But have I said anything that's untrue? Owners are often blinkered (us NSX people as much as anyone, e.g. Damian's comment about NSX PAS was spot-on the money but how many here say much about that), and everyone is defensive about their car. My perspective on forums is that I try to instil a little perspective. In this instance it's probably gone a little too far.


Damian - you're the one that started this by calling my comments ill-informed. I'm glad you like it - I've already said I think it's an extremely capable car. But I'm not blind to the apparent flaws, and nor were the two owners I spoke to...and neither are you, from earlier posts. I think we've descended into an argument by default, and I'll apologise if I got a little over-zealous.


(BTW - had a good poke around the MY11 GTR they had at Grand Designs (next to a Leaf!!!). (Awful) visibility aside, it felt like a very nice place to work, but the clincher for me was the running costs that the salesman came out with...couldn't believe it...for the exceptional performance they're probably not unreasonable, but I'll wager they're higher than any other £50-60k car. And way out of my league at the moment!)

[markc]

I wouldn't touch a current BMW petrol with a bargepole.

I'd have the M3 in a heartbeat, make mine a Silverstone II (Light Blue) saloon, but you can keep all the rest.

Cheers

Mark

[NoelWatson]

I'd have the M3 in a heartbeat, make mine a Silverstone II (Light Blue) saloon, but you can keep all the rest.

Cheers

Mark

Should say direct injected. Agreed on M3. Our 330i is in for the 8th time - back to SRR to check whether it has been fixed.....

[havoc]

Oh christ, that's ridiculous. Am guessing you've got one of the later engines, not the carry-over 3.0 from the E46?


(BTW - has a drive in the boss' 318d SE Touring, and was pleasantly surprised. OK, it's a diesel and not an especially quick one, but the steering was just as good as the 'higher' models, the ride was pleasantly resolved but still felt well balanced and turn-in was good, and pedal-offset aside the driving position was pretty good too. It DID feel a little tight inside - the wife's Golf feels more spacious - but not too bad)

[NoelWatson]

Oh christ, that's ridiculous. Am guessing you've got one of the later engines, not the carry-over 3.0 from the E46?


(BTW - has a drive in the boss' 318d SE Touring, and was pleasantly surprised. OK, it's a diesel and not an especially quick one, but the steering was just as good as the 'higher' models, the ride was pleasantly resolved but still felt well balanced and turn-in was good, and pedal-offset aside the driving position was pretty good too. It DID feel a little tight inside - the wife's Golf feels more spacious - but not too bad)

It is indeed a recent one, N53. Coinincidentally, we also have a 318d as a courtesy car. Unfortunately an auto, but some satisfaction can be gained from changing up manually as early as possible and riding the torque.
If I were to get another 3 series, the 320 Efficient Dynamics could be tempting - no run flats, and decent economy, but I'm just not sure I could trust the tech.

[NSX 2000]

It is indeed a recent one, N53. Coinincidentally, we also have a 318d as a courtesy car. Unfortunately an auto, but some satisfaction can be gained from changing up manually as early as possible and riding the torque.
If I were to get another 3 series, the 320 Efficient Dynamics could be tempting - no run flats, and decent economy, but I'm just not sure I could trust the tech.

Hi Noel

We are running a 320d Efficient Dynamics at work and we have now had it 1 year, and pleased to report no problems. In fact I was in it last week and the ride is very nice.

Paul

[Papalazarou]

When did this thread become a ******* running report for sodding three series BMs? Paul, maybe you can put this thread out of its misery before someone starts discussing golf strategy.
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Nick Graves]

Cavalier or Sierra? Discuss...

[Papalazarou]

Cavalier or Sierra? Discuss...

Thanks Nick,

You are the voice of reason.

Cheers,

James.

[m666 edd]

Taking this back on track a bit I was cycling out of Exeter a few weeks ago and a carrera gt er I mean boxster went passed me (no idea how, I was cycling sooo fast) and it does look really good. They certainly don't look like the poor mans porsche anymore. It was in white.

[NoelWatson]

Cavalier or Sierra? Discuss...

Depends on model. For 1.6, Cavalier.

[NSXGB]

Depends on model. For 1.6, Cavalier.

I can't let that go, the Sierra 1.6 was the old Kent X-Flow lump, great tunable little engine. Surely better than anything Vauxhall ever produced....

[NSX 2000]

When did this thread become a ******* running report for sodding three series BMs? Paul, maybe you can put this thread out of its misery before someone starts discussing golf strategy.
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

That's funny, you didn't make a comment when people started swearing at each other but as soon as people talk about BMW's you want to lock this post, I :dunno:

Any way this is in the Off Topic section so it's only right that we go off topic at least thrice :bigsmile:

So to get back on topic why a coxster :P over priced german schnitzel. Get the new Tobaru looks good at £22k.

[Nick Graves]

It'll be a LOT more than 22 large when it gets here, but your point still stands.

A proper fun car & one of the only moderns I'm quite looking forward to trying.

[WhyOne?]

Another vote for the Sierra. At least Ford tried to be different. Vauxhall were / are lazy, lazy, lazy.

[NoelWatson]

I can't let that go, the Sierra 1.6 was the old Kent X-Flow lump, great tunable little engine. Surely better than anything Vauxhall ever produced....

Unfortunately the Sierra, at 75bhp, had 15 less then the Cavalier. These things mattered to a 9 year old.

[NSXGB]

I now see the roots of your BHP obsession Noel. :)

[havoc]

An old old colleague had a 3rd-hand Cavalier GSi, which was a fairly rapid piece of kit. Shame she was a dumb and dull blonde, so on that basis alone it's got to be the Sierra... ;)

[markc]

Cavaliers had better engines but all models were ruined by ridiculous gearing. I had a 1.6GL which had exactly the same top speed in 3rd, 4th and 5th. The Sierra was better to drive but, whisper it, the Austin Montego was much better to drive than either! Shame they were made form egg cartons and tin foil :)

Cheers

Mark

[Papalazarou]

That's funny, you didn't make a comment when people started swearing at each other but as soon as people talk about BMW's you want to lock this post, I :dunno:

Any way this is in the Off Topic section so it's only right that we go off topic at least thrice :bigsmile:

So to get back on topic why a coxster :P over priced german schnitzel. Get the new Tobaru looks good at £22k.

Well if you closed a thread every time Havoc got into a disagreement, there wouldn't be much to read. On any forum;-) (don't think I don't read your posts elsewhere).
Second, I guess it's priorities; off topic or not, no-one should have to discuss the merits of practical but dull Bmws.
And finally, what the **** is a tubaru?
Thanks for listening.


Cheers,

James.

P.s, I thought the Sierra used the pinto? Also, it's a bit more complicated than that because both the Vauxhall and the Ford used various engine sizes and types in these cars.
One could argue that the Cosworth motor was quite impressive. But contrary you could make an argument for the red top motor found in the SRI 16v. The V6 in the XR4X4 wasn't bad either.

[NSXGB]

Well if you closed a thread every time Havoc got into a disagreement, there wouldn't be much to read. On any forum;-) (don't think I don't read your posts elsewhere).
Second, I guess it's priorities; off topic or not, no-one should have to discuss the merits of practical but dull Bmws.
And finally, what the **** is a tubaru?
Thanks for listening.


Cheers,

James.

P.s, I thought the Sierra used the pinto? Also, it's a bit more complicated than that because both the Vauxhall and the Ford used various engine sizes and types in these cars.
One could argue that the Cosworth motor was quite impressive. But contrary you could make an argument for the red top motor found in the SRI 16v. The V6 in the XR4X4 wasn't bad either.

James, the Pinto was the 2 litre, the XR4X4 & XR4i used the Cologne 2.8 V6 and there was a 1.8 Sierra which had a 16v CVH engine. Please don't go off topic, we were talking about the 1.6 engines....:)

The 2.8 Cologne was not the greatest design, due to the 'Siamese' exhaust ported cylinder heads. The 2.9 Cologne engine had proper cylinder heads.

[Senninha]

I'll breeze over your earlier comment but address the latter ... its the new car designed by Toyota and Subaru hence the various new names flying around on various forums. IIRC Toyota's version is to be called FT86 as this follows their model numbering as last used on the RWD Corrollas ....

http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_editorial.jsp?navRoot=toyota_1024_root&fullwidth=true&noLeftMenu=true&forceText=%3Cnone%3E&edname=CC-FT86II-landing&id=CC-FT86II-landing&zone=Zone+Cars&sr=Mall&gclid=COmVvbSUrqwCFZJc4QodRxM0Hg

regards, Paul


..........
And finally, what the **** is a tubaru?........

Thanks for listening.


Cheers,

James.

P.s, I thought the Sierra used the pinto? Also, it's a bit more complicated than that because both the Vauxhall and the Ford used various engine sizes and types in these cars.
One could argue that the Cosworth motor was quite impressive. But contrary you could make an argument for the red top motor found in the SRI 16v. The V6 in the XR4X4 wasn't bad either.

[havoc]

Well if you closed a thread every time Havoc got into a disagreement, there wouldn't be much to read. On any forum;-) (don't think I don't read your posts elsewhere).

Can I help it if so many people in this country are permanently wrong?!? ;)

[Papalazarou]

James, the Pinto was the 2 litre, the XR4X4 & XR4i used the Cologne 2.8 V6 and there was a 1.8 Sierra which had a 16v CVH engine. Please don't go off topic, we were talking about the 1.6 engines....:)

The 2.8 Cologne was not the greatest design, due to the 'Siamese' exhaust ported cylinder heads. The 2.9 Cologne engine had proper cylinder heads.

Ok, I may have digressed. However, at least I remember correctly which engine was in the 1.6! T'was the pinto. Stolen I imagine from the MK II Escort Mexico, but down on power.

1.3 OHC (1294 cc; 60 PS (44 kW; 59 hp) Pinto engine, available in standard or economy tune;
1.6 OHC (1593 cc; 75 PS (55 kW; 74 hp) Pinto engine, available in standard or economy tune;
2.0 OHC (1998 cc; 105 PS (77 kW; 104 hp) Pinto engine;
1.8 OHC 90 PS (66 kW; 89 hp) Pinto engine (from 1984);
2.0 OHC 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp) Pinto engine with fuel injection (from 1985);
1.8 OHC 90 bhp (67 kW; 91 PS) CVH Engine (from 1989)
1.8 TD 75 PS (55 kW; 74 hp) Endura-D engine (from 1989);
2.0 DOHC (1998 cc; 125 PS (92 kW; 123 hp) DOHC engine (from 1989);
2.3 V6 (2294 cc; 114 PS (84 kW; 112 hp) Cologne V6 engine;
2.3 D (2304 cc, 67 PS (49 kW; 66 hp) Peugeot Diesel engine;
2.8i (2792 cc; 150 PS (110 kW; 148 hp) Cologne V6 engine (XR4i, from 1983)
2.9i (2935 cc; 145 PS (107 kW; 143 hp) Cologne V6 engine (XR4x4, from 1987)
RS Cosworth (1993 cc; 204 PS (150 kW; 201 hp) YB Turbo) (from 1986)

Martin, I know what you mean;-)


Cheers,


Jamers.

[WhyOne?]

That's funny, you didn't make a comment when people started swearing at each other but as soon as people talk about BMW's you want to lock this post, I :dunno:


I think the fundamental difference was that people swearing at each other was interesting and entertaining.................;)

[Geraint]

Well if you closed a thread every time Havoc got into a disagreement, there wouldn't be much to read.
:laugh:

The same could be said of threads that go off topic on here...

[Papalazarou]

I think the fundamental difference was that people swearing at each other was interesting and entertaining.................;)

You're right, a bit of conflict goes a long way. Especially if you put a smilie at the end;-) It's taken me six years not to get offended at stuff posted on this site. When I look back, some of the proper arguments I've had seem so ridiculous.
Anyway, keep up the good work and lets see some proper inventive abuse over the Christmas period.


Cheers,


James.

[Geraint]

Actually I think this whole "I'm thinking of changing my car" story is just an excuse to start an argument... :)

[Papalazarou]

Actually I think this whole "I'm thinking of changing my car" story is just an excuse to start an argument... :)

Calm down love. You're not in the valley now.

[NSXGB]

Jamers :)

Technically, you may be correct, but in general the Pinto is generally referred to as the 2.0 OHC lump and the crossflow are the 1.6 & 1.3 lumps.
Not sure where you got that info from but AFAIK the 1.3 & 1.6 were OHV engines.... I am tapping into knowledge from 20 years ago though so I stand to be corrected...



Ok, I may have digressed. However, at least I remember correctly which engine was in the 1.6! T'was the pinto. Stolen I imagine from the MK II Escort Mexico, but down on power.

1.3 OHC (1294 cc; 60 PS (44 kW; 59 hp) Pinto engine, available in standard or economy tune;
1.6 OHC (1593 cc; 75 PS (55 kW; 74 hp) Pinto engine, available in standard or economy tune;
2.0 OHC (1998 cc; 105 PS (77 kW; 104 hp) Pinto engine;
1.8 OHC 90 PS (66 kW; 89 hp) Pinto engine (from 1984);
2.0 OHC 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp) Pinto engine with fuel injection (from 1985);
1.8 OHC 90 bhp (67 kW; 91 PS) CVH Engine (from 1989)
1.8 TD 75 PS (55 kW; 74 hp) Endura-D engine (from 1989);
2.0 DOHC (1998 cc; 125 PS (92 kW; 123 hp) DOHC engine (from 1989);
2.3 V6 (2294 cc; 114 PS (84 kW; 112 hp) Cologne V6 engine;
2.3 D (2304 cc, 67 PS (49 kW; 66 hp) Peugeot Diesel engine;
2.8i (2792 cc; 150 PS (110 kW; 148 hp) Cologne V6 engine (XR4i, from 1983)
2.9i (2935 cc; 145 PS (107 kW; 143 hp) Cologne V6 engine (XR4x4, from 1987)
RS Cosworth (1993 cc; 204 PS (150 kW; 201 hp) YB Turbo) (from 1986)

Martin, I know what you mean;-)


Cheers,


Jamers.

[Hagasan]

1.3 engine was definitely OHV.

I bought my first car maintenance book from a Westo shop called Trago Mills. Got home to do my first ever home service on my MkII Escort and got carried away taking the head off to regrind the valve seats!! Didn't really understand all I was doing at the time so when I put it together again I cacked myself watching the coolant temperature rise & rise.....Luckily it was just an few air locks....no terminal damage...

Back then I knew more about drink & women than cars !! Happy days.....


Jamers :)

Technically, you may be correct, but in general the Pinto is generally referred to as the 2.0 OHC lump and the crossflow are the 1.6 & 1.3 lumps.
Not sure where you got that info from but AFAIK the 1.3 & 1.6 were OHV engines.... I am tapping into knowledge from 20 years ago though so I stand to be corrected...

[Papalazarou]

Here we go......

http://www.burtonpower.com/tuning-guides/tuning-guide-pages/ford-sohc-pinto-tuning-guide.html

[NSXGB]

Thanks for the link, that bought back some memories.

Can't believe a company like Burton could get it so wrong though. :rolleyes:

[Papalazarou]

Thanks for the link, that bought back some memories.

Can't believe a company like Burton could get it so wrong though. :rolleyes:

Denial denial denial.

[havoc]

Can we give this thread some sort of award for the most random O/T diversion ever?

[Ewan]

To go back to the Toyobaru (to give it its correct, er, monicker) story - both the Scooby BRZ and the Toyota FT-86 (code named FT-86 but unlikely to be released under that name) are variants on the same base car, 2L boxer 4cyl N/A front engine/RWD.

The Toyota version is previewed in Autocar this week, where they say very nice things about its handling and fun factor, with a quote from the engineers saying they deliberately didn't want to build a car "for the numbers" (bhp, top speed, N'ring time etc) and instead wanted to concentrate on something that was just great fun to drive.

Sounds like it could be intriguing - a backlash against all the technology and power... I hope it's a roaring success in both guises. Might even convince Honda to get off its arse, stop fannying about with hybrids and build something basic and fun again.

[NSX 2000]

I had one of these some 20 years ago in 2.0ltr petrol with single carb. http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3296363.htm

However my boss had a Cavalier 1.6 GL (Same as Mark) and I did prefer that :(

But even worse I loved this car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_480 my Mum had the Turbo and I was always taking it :redface:

[Nick Graves]

Honda who?

Oh, them. About half a decade earlier, maybe, but they chose to bet the house on the Green Religion.

There's a far greater likelihood we might buy a B & not a C. RZ, that is..

[havoc]

Honda who?

Oh, them. About half a decade earlier, maybe, but they chose to bet the house on the Green Religion.


The trouble is, I think commercially they've backed the right horse. All of the world's growing car markets see cars as a tool, or possibly a status symbol, but certainly not a toy - that's a Western attitude (which only really the Japanese have embraced, out of the Asian nations). So "performance cars" of all breeds only have value in the declining Western markets OR if they also combine badge kudos. And with fuel prices only going one way, the vast majority of buyers of all cars (shy of full-fat supercars) are going to put fuel economy higher and higher up the list.

Those of us with an addiction to Super Unleaded delivered in a n/asp 'hit' are a dying breed...and what commercial company in their right mind is going to develop a whole new car just for us???

[NoelWatson]

Hi Noel

We are running a 320d Efficient Dynamics at work and we have now had it 1 year, and pleased to report no problems. In fact I was in it last week and the ride is very nice.

Paul

The thing is Paul, do I trust BMW to fix it if it does go wrong?

I was trying to sell the idea to the Mrs of getting a boring Merc E200 that just happened to come with a "bodykit" of four exhausts and an E63 badge, but I don't think she has fallen for the plan - despite it being very practical.

10717

Alternative could be a Jaaag, but am I middle aged enough yet (and I think the XFR engine is direct injection)?

http://www.sytner.co.uk/guy-salmon-jaguar/search/jaguar-xf-saloon-guy-salmon-jaguar-ascot-256929-974865.aspx?st=Vehicle&vhl=-256929

[NoelWatson]

I now see the roots of your BHP obsession Noel. :)

And also wheelspins, something that the lower engined Sierras weren't that good at doing, in contrast to my Uncle's SRI.

[NoelWatson]

Cavaliers had better engines but all models were ruined by ridiculous gearing. I had a 1.6GL which had exactly the same top speed in 3rd, 4th and 5th. The Sierra was better to drive but, whisper it, the Austin Montego was much better to drive than either! Shame they were made form egg cartons and tin foil :)

Cheers

Mark

The early Sierras were quite stiffly set up, especially at the back. We had a Y reg and subsequent hire cars were much softer riding.

[jaytip]

a boring Merc E200 that just happened to come with a "bodykit" of four exhausts and an[/U]E63 badge[/U]
Noooo,i cringe when i see things like that.

[NoelWatson]

Noooo,i cringe when i see things like that.

You don't approve of the 500bhp, 6.2 litre beast?

[jaytip]

You don't approve of the 500bhp, 6.2 litre beast?
Thats fine,but an E200 with an E63 badge isn't.

[jaytip]

You don't approve of the 500bhp, 6.2 litre beast?
Thats fine,but an E200 with an E63 badge isn't.

[NoelWatson]

Thats fine,but an E200 with an E63 badge isn't.

The "E200" would also come with the V8!

[jaytip]

The "E200" would also come with the V8!
Aha,ok i see where you are coming from now :)