What nonsense...

Oh, the pikey one.

Who'd have thought it? ;-)

Indeed I have - and the above paragraph is still relevant.

Oh well that's ok then. We can all relax in the knowledge that if we ever have to swerve off the road to avoid an overtaking nutter on the wrong side of the road, we'll have absolutely nothing to worry about and will be able to drive home without the need even for a break-down truck...

I wouldn't be prepared to put with *anything* that should be working, not working on a car of mine.

Well clearly you are not a professional car reviewer who tests many many cars for a living and can therefore do regular comparisons.

Bearing in mind I've only had it three weeks, and the weather has been atrocious for much of that time, only a few times. And?

I'd be very impressed. The Golf I

It's your heavy right foot that does it... I averaged 32 mpg in my Rover 75 diesel automatic over the 6.5 years I owned it. I filled the tank on my Golf the day I picked it up (24th November) and there is still almost half a tank-full left. I zeroed the average fuel consumption reading when I filled up and I checked it whilst en route back to the dealer's on Monday. It was showing 41 mpg which was very surprising bearing in mind the weather and the mainly short journeys I have been doing - but I wont trust that until I've worked it out myself over a few tank fulls.

Which? do their own fuel consumption tests which they reckon are far more relevant to real-life driving than the gov't/manufacturers figures. For the Golf they say:

"We?ve tested three Golfs. In our economy lab tests, the 1.4 TSI (160bhp) returned 41.5mpg (Volkswagen claims 44.8mpg); the 2.0 TDI (110bhp) returned

58.9mpg - better than Volkswagen's claim of 57.6mpg - and the 140bhp 2.0 TDI returned 47.1mpg (somewhat lower than the official 52.3mpg)."

So how you managed to get only 33 mpg is anyone's guess...

When I referred to you arrogance, I was referring to your over-riding faith that your driving ability is so superior to everyone else's, that no matter what happens on the road, you will be able to avoid a collision...

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

If you had, you'd know that it wasn't.

Why would I regard somebody else's view as more influential to my own preference than my own experience?

Exactly.

Or, p'raps, it's the roads I commute on?

And I averaged about 28mpg from my XM petrol turbo auto over a similar period.

It's not exactly a route that's all steady-speed-cruise.

You're right, Kev. That would be arrogant. But since you've been paying such close attention to the thread, you'll know that I've made no such claims.

Gordon H pretended :

I am on the road at all times of day and night, with generally not much choice of when I will need to be on them, nor where I will need to get to and often in a hurry to be there.

No - my 1.4 TSi has the single, turbo charged 122 bhp engine - not the twin charged 160 bhp - which is even faster.

True - but it is old technology. It is heavier, much thirstier, and has very much poorer occupant protection.

Fine - so long as you want to drive an old thirsty car that requires regular attention to keep it running, and which is, by present day standards, unsafe for occupants in a crash.

Right, so it still has the reliability concerns, but doesn't have all that much power. Which means the 'performance' is all down to stupid gearing.

Older technology is a good thing - you don't need to take it to a dealer to find out why it's flashing up a cryptic error code. And it's unlikely to throw its toys out of the pram and refuse to start at Monmouth Services on a bitterly cold Bank Holiday, because the ECU had got confused and temporarily forgotten your key. (Glares at his old Passat....)

Anyway - you're showing a remarkable ignorance, given that you seem to think the Golf is some kind of svelte lightweight in comparison with a C900....

Well, some of us aren't motivated by being able to show a 'new' reg. plate to the neighbours, and have older cars which require *less* maintenance than a modern car - my old Alfa 75 required very little other than oil changes when it was a daily driver, as it was simple, robust, old-school engineering.

You have permission to shoot me if I ever worry about NCAP ratings when looking for a car, though. It's just not something that even registers on my list of desireable features.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com (SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Full diagnostics? A wire with a switch in. One end in the multiplug, the other to earth, then read the fault codes on the engine management light.

Job's a good 'un.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian saying something like:

Christ, even Mk1 Escorts had them, in all their cardboard glory. Most rotted away and fell off even before the bodywork did.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)" saying something like:

Original 11ACs had them iirc. I've certainly robbed one out of a Jap car to put on the back of an ACR with duff regulator and it worked well. For about two months - bit of a mismatch.

Stupid gearing? It actually has 7 forward gears which means that it can have low gears for maximum 'get up and go' - and high gears for economical cruising. Not so stupid really.

Horses for courses...

Most museum pieces do...

So long as you recognise that your particular preference has no relevance as to whether a particular car is a good car or not.

What is astonishing about the numerous reviews that are available on the Golf is just how few criticisms the reviewers have of the car. Look at reviews for the new Astra, or the Renault Megane or the Citroen C4 (even the yet-to-be-launched new C4) etc. and you will find that although certain aspects of the cars are praised - there are always 'buts'. The car has a fine engine - but the ride is unforgiving. A nice comfortable car but too much road and wind noise at speed, etc. Too many poor quality hard plastics. etc It is very noticeable that in relation to the new Golf the only criticisms are things such as the rear seats that don't fold flat. In relation to build quality, materials, refinement, comfort, economy, costs, driveability, ride and handling, etc. it is nothing but positives - and there are not many cars today that are awarded such praise from so many different reviewers.

So, whether you personally like it or not - it is undoubtedly a great car.

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

160NM from 1250rpm, 200NM from 1500 to 3500rpm. Not too shabby. It _shouldn't_ have such poor torque as to need seven gears, so it's a mystery why they're needed, other than that's what the DSG that happened to be kicking about has.

Mind you, that's a bit down on the 220NM of the 308HDi we had in Corsica the other month - and that really did need to be rowed along with the six- speed box to get any kind of respectable progress.

Still, I'm quite happy with "only" 5 gears and 270NM. Trickle through the m'way roadworks at about 45/50 in fifth, get to the NSL, roll the throttle in - and just watch that needle swing north with zero effort towards a nice comfy 90+ cruise.

The 9000 Aero - same basic engine, albeit 2.3 and the same 220bhp as is easily achievable from a c900 - was officially quicker 50-75 than a Testarossa or Carrera 4.

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Define "good".

What's good for your requirements is not necessarily good for mine - and vice versa. So my particular preference is not only relevant to identify what's "good" for me, but the ONLY relevant preference.

You seem to be trying to claim that yours are the only valid preferences, because they're shared by "What Washing Machine On Wheels Monthly?". I'm very happy for you that your preference is shared by your preferred information sources. Of course it is, because you got it from them.

But - please - your "preferences" would bore me to tears in minutes flat.

"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Oh, and we clearly have very different opinions as to what makes a "great car".

I'm in no doubt that it's a perfectly competent car, above average amongst the direct market competitors at a certain point in time.

But is that the same thing?

Horses for courses but I wouldn't give either the time of day.

1989-1993/4 1.8L 16 valve turbo 170bhp. 0-60 7sec 1/4 15.6sec 141mph 29mpg average over last 7K miles. Right wheel drive. CdA at 0.55m² is still way better than most other production cars that typically have CdA of 0.6m², even though they all lay great claims to improvements in Aerodynamics. You can always bolt more power on/in but can't fix bad aero. The only car that Parkers guide have ever used word "Dangerous" in the review. It makes "Exciting" seem safe and tame.

Although Mk3, 4, 5, and 6 didn't...

Nor Mk 1 and 1.5 Focuses.

Chris

WTF has this got to do with car maintenance?

Well, I certainly accept that what may be deemed a 'good' car for one driver, will not necessarily be considered 'good' by another driver. The Hyundai i30, for example, is getting very good reviews for build quality and reliability etc - but I wouldn't buy one because a) I found the ride quality poor and b) they only do a conventional automatic - and a pathetic 4-speed auto at that. When there are DSG type autos now being produced by several different manufacturers, it makes total sense for auto lovers to go for one of those.

Having said all that, it is perfectly normal to accept that a car is a 'good' car - even though it is not one you would want to buy yourself. The Mercedes 'C' class is undoubtedly a 'good' car - but I didn't like the one I had on hire for various reasons - notably seat comfort and ride quality, and hence would not buy one myself.

Yes I accept that - but, like my comments about the 'C' class above - the fact that a car is not suitable for your particular requirements is not an indication that it is not a 'good' car.