Re: Audi TT engines?

Please explain.....

Oh, I see now.

Of course, the Alfa with it's race-inspired RWD chassis and perfect

50:50 weight distribution is obviously on a different level to a tarted up FWD Honda Accord......
Reply to
SteveH
Loading thread data ...

Something that the racing versions were particularly good at.

Not as good as the 155, granted, but the 155 was something special - wiping the floor with all-comers for a time in the mid-90s.

Which just goes to show how far ahead of the competition it was....

That's pretty damed close. Add a full tank of petrol and you're on the dot with 50:50.....

Yes, the V6 was heavier, which is why the 2.0TS is regarded as the best balanced of the lot.

Just like the Rover 600, then. But without the heretige or style.

Reply to
SteveH

S60, 2.0T S (bottom of range - cheaper tyres, cheaper insurance, still a nice car but a bit heavy for 180PS). Measures 154 bhp at wheels (so far). Used to have an S40 1.8T but it got hit side on by a speeding 7.5 tonner.

what are you trying to say??

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

That he'd prefer to die instantly in the crash, instead of surviving only to endure some kind of intensive-care living hell for the rest of his life.

Steve.

Reply to
Steve Hardwood

and I wasn't driving, and it was french, and diesel. Would have been about four or five mins quicker in mine.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Some cars are old bangers right from the start......

The 600 is just another mid-sized saloon, and will be largely forgotten in 10 years time. Whereas the 75 is a recognised classic.

It doesn't matter how much a 600 is tarted up with leather, aircon and turbo engine, it's only ever going to be a mediocre badge-engineered Jap saloon.

Reply to
SteveH

So what, lots of old cars are "classics", but they're still old and crap. Being a "classic" generally doesn't make a car good in any way other than some people go a bit gooey eyed when they think about how cars used to be. If I wanted to drive a real classic, a 20 year old Alfa that was built using old parts (and that was because they couldn't

*afford* to do anything else, not because the old parts were so spectacular) wouldn't even be on the list.

Does to me. In fact it's fair to say things like that are *all* that matter to me. I don't care what anyone else thinks of the car, or how well it will be remembered in 10 years time. With modern cars no one gives a shit about that kind of thing. In 10 years time I'll be driving something bigger, better and quicker, and the Rover will just be a collection of photographs to remind me how much enjoyment I had from driving when I was younger and 'cars weren't as crap and restrictive as they are now in 2013' :)

Like I said, if that's the worst that can be said about a car, then there can't be that much wrong with it.

After all, it could have been far, far worse, it could have been a mediocre badge engineered Fiat, like modern forgettable FWD sell out Alfa Romeos.

Reply to
Lordy

ROFL. Had Charlie pestering me to "slow down, the signal keeps on dropping" whilst chatting away to her folks in a strange language known as "Central Valley California." About the only two words I picked up were "like" and "and." Heh.

Reply to
DervMan

K, if you say so :)

It's my idea of an *enjoyable* ride. 99% of the pleasure from driving it is because it's so anonymous and people underestimate what it can do.

Then that's where we differ, I'd rather be going extremely fast in comfort.

Soul ? They had no soul whatsoever, they were poor handling tat through and through. If that's your idea of 'character' then I guess I have got a lot to learn :)

Modern Rovers share very little with Honda.

Reply to
Lordy

Unless you discount the 45, which is just an old-shape Civic saloon with stick on tat, and the 25 isn't much better - more a sawn-off Civic..... and the 75 is more BMW than anything.

Reply to
SteveH

Get to bed man ! :)

There's no BMW whatsoever in the 75 (not that that would be a bad thing), it's a complete myth.

I was actually referring more to the fact that Modern Rovers have more to do with Tata nowadays. Not sure that's a good thing tho, heh.

Reply to
Lordy

My old Triumph Acclaim was nothing but character. Rusty, rattly, ugly, and as for the handling, well it didn't really have any....although it did hit

60 in 10 seconds, which for an A reg 1.3 was reasonable :) Wasted my mates 1.2 Nova more than once :)

But it had character by the bucketload, character is nothing to do with how 'good' a car is....

Reply to
Dan405

I think you'd be surprised, then. The chassis is, ISTR, based on the E39

5-series, but adapted for FWD use.

Heh.

Reply to
SteveH

Never tried to deny that! But let it age 18 years and it became very characterful :)

It was very nippy, twin carbs Honda engine, made about 70bhp iirc, but it had WELL short gear ratios, would pull quickly to 90, where it was nearly flat out.......once saw 97-98 sort of speed, but i was using both lanes of the dual carriageway it was so floaty........

Reply to
Dan405

I thought it was more closely related to the 45 than that.

Reply to
SteveH

3 series seat shells, BMW wheel nuts, BMW diesel motor, BMW instruments, radio, sat-nav, even the daft location of the hazard warning switch. I'm sure there's more commonality deep down.
Reply to
Tim S Kemp

AFAIK no.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

220 Coupe Turbo, Civic Type-R etc. are all much lighter, with similar power. No way the 406 V6 could keep up with them, especially not without any traction stuff !
210bhp for the 2000 onwards cars. They aren't particularly quick at the 0-60 dash, but I imagine they're ok in-gear.
Reply to
Nom

Exactly :)

Reply to
Nom

Exactly. Compare the 600 to other cars, same class and same era, and it comes off VERY favourably.

Reply to
Nom

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.