Which Car to get advice

No quite the opposite, I wanted you to point out that they're stupidly expensive to run.

You forgot "rust" and "problems" from your comment! :)

Exactly how much would a car cost to buy and run for similar performance, though?

In those terms they're a bargain.

The original point still holds true - the CityRover is such an abomination that even my East German 2-stroke would be a preferable option.

You still live in the early 80s.

HTH.

It's not comparable other than sheer performance. If I had to go from York to Edinburgh with Charlie and luggage, I'd take the car. Especially given how frequently it rains.

So why do they sell supercars then?

But it would not be for all people under all circumstances.

And you'd get wet when it rains. And break a leg when somebody spills diesel.

I take the bike more often than the car if I'm visiting the frozen North.

The disadvantages are by far outweighed by the fact that you can cover the ground significantly faster.

But Ford's *never* had character.

Alfa's have character, and also the problems. The difference being the problems are not here anymore, but the character still is.

I read somewhere a few months back that last year in a European reliabiilty index thing, Merc's came below Alfa. Both might have been quite low in the 'league', but wtf does that say to people who buy Merc's thinking they're l33t and those who comment about Alfa's being shit when they've never lived with one.

(I'm not saying you said they were shit, btw).

Bollocks. Utter bollocks.

Let me think now.

Sierra Cosworth, Escort Mexico, RS 1600,1800,2000 (RWD), Sierra 4x4, Focus RS, Capri 2.8i, 3.0S, RS3100, RS2600.

The normal, everyday Focus has more character than a Golf or 3 series.

Um, Selespeed has more problems than any other gearbox in history- and I

I've lived with both, and I'd rate Ford, Alfa and Mercedes considerably better than BMW or VW.

Older Mercedes are still some of the best built cars of all time, unlike my current Range Rover...

You might, but I wouldn't.

Bikes are great but the biggest machine I've ridden was a 600cc - and that was far too quick to be able to get close to full performance on the road for more than extremely brief moments. I don't really see the point of such overkill. That and far too many people turn themselves into long red smears thanks to bikes.

I fail to see how even the wussiest rider could cover ground slower than a Ka.

Even my GP100 learner bike could manage that.

It doesn't matter what the performance of the vehicle is, I follow the speed limits.

That's got absolutely nothing to do with it.

All it needs is one car doing 40mph in a 60 and the bike has gone.

So you manage to achieve an average speed of 58 by sticking to 60 in the 60 limits, then?

Oh, I see your other point - overtaking. Hmm. No I don't think I'd be overtaking many more vehicles, regardless of the performance, heh. Some will be overtaken sooner but the time saved won't be significant.

...and be worth more than 2p tomorrow.

Don't you believe it.

Bikes can pull out very large leads on cars when you throw traffic into the equation.

The message from snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) contains these words:

Even bicycles can. I used to get from Amen Corner, Tooting to Warren Street in 40 minutes on a Sturmey-Archer geared sit-up-and-beg bike. I defy anyone to do that in a car without sirens and flashing lights.

You don't have to. I don't have a hairy enough (insert suitable body part) to have a bike, heh, we'll never know...