I like how the electric mirrors are tied into the seat memory setting.
or is that just Lexus.
I like how the electric mirrors are tied into the seat memory setting.
or is that just Lexus.
Peugeots do that too.
Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Elder, managed to produce the following words of wisdom
Probably just Lexus.
On my Scorp the heated washers are tied into the front screen heater, the mirrors heat with the rear window heater.
The seats heat when they're told to.
Yebbut, it's still a Renault...
But that's no worse a badge than Ford is it so that doesn't really matter in this comparison.
Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Iridium, managed to produce the following words of wisdom
And the Scorp :-)
Allegedly neither of them are "Prestige" so to some it wouldn't matter if they were 2000 bhp, did 5000 mpg, had leather lined and heated cupholders, and cost £1.25. They'd still not be any good as a repmobile
I seem to recall the previous generation M5 did it too.
Hey I seem to recall it had nice cup holders as well.
Depends. I'd rather have the Fiesta than the Clio, even if the Clio is dripping with equipment, is faster, has more and better cup holders.
You are missing the point - or don't you remember RS Turbos, XR2is and suchlike. Ford changed their strategy back in ~1994 with the release of the lukewarm Fiesta Si and Escort Si models, using 1.4 / 1.6 / 1.8 donks.
Ford's marketing strategy is along a different line. Ka when they're in their teens, Fiesta until the second kiddie arrives, then the Focus, then the Mondeo.
I specifically never mentioned cup holders. The cup holder post has backfired on me spectaculary in that the jokes have now become irritating :D
Back to the point - well yea cos you're a Ford fan, I'd rather have the Clio for the same reasons heh. But to average Joe who just wants to have a hot hatch, offered those 2 same packages wouldn't be put off by the Renault badge I wouldn't have though. Fair enough if it was a choice between a Beemer and a Renault, then average Joe would prefer to have the beemer badge heh.
But if they didn't care about making fast ones, why do we get the Focus ST, the soon Focus RS, the previous Focus R etc etc and why have they offered these mods for the Fiesta?
Hmm. Yes; except if you want a Ford hot hatch you'd have the Focus and wouldn't be dick dancing around with the Fiesta. That's how Ford market their cars too. The Focus is of course far more expensive but that's what Ford want: more sensible hot hatch drivers.
I like the Clio 172 and 182 and I suspect I'd also like the 192 for the same reasons. As a long term ownership proposition I'm not so sure. As the Cup model I'm not so sure either. I also like the 206 GTi 180 and for the same reasons.
Hmm; I never did back to back test the normal 206 GTi with the 180 model. The 180 looks the part whereas the GTi looks like half of the 206s out there.
But a nagging part of me really does believe that with this much power, front wheel drive will be too frustrating too often.
Because as we get older, our preference is supposedly for larger cars, where they can charge more. So they are happy to sell an expensive Focus but not so happy with the Focus. They're happy to let Peugeot, Renault, Citroen chase the yoof yoofing market.
Ford have tried to distance themselves from the Saxo VTS market and for the most part, have managed it. The Sportka - superb handling, needs another 60 bhp - appears to be designed to appeal to the more sensible of us, rather than the typical C2 GT driver.
197 - duh ;)
Yea, but with all these cars, the grip in the dry is plentiful, although they can get a bit wheel spinny in the wet - but again only if you're hamfisted seen as most of the torque is quite high up.
"Same difference." As you can see I've not really taken any interest in any of the petrol Clios apart from the 1.2 turbo and diesels.
"A bit?" More like, "lots and lots." It's cold and wet for half of the year and the sorts of tyres these machines have struggle in the cold, struggle in the wet, so disappoint when you apply both. I don't fancy being caught between the gears for six months of the year of buying something and only being able to use two thirds of its abilities for half of the time.
May as well buy something low powered and use 100% of its abilities 100% of the time.
Of course: weany petrol engines.
No, there isn't: fuel rate is normal and into specifications. The 2.0 needs about 10l/100 km, impossible to lower that in town. On long distance trips (highway) and 120 kph it needs around 7/8 l/100 km.
Keep in mind that ours are intervention vehicles: no rear seats and the back is filled with tools and stuff (weighing 250 to 300 kg, rear suspension is reinforced by an extra spring). That and city driving equates to the fuel rate.
The 3.0 fuel consumption hoovers between 18 and 20 l/100 km but when it gets a stretch of highway and at the steady pace of 160 kph (100 mph) it needs around 12 l/100km.
If I thrash the car or better : when I am agitated or in a hurry, the pedal to the metal-all the time-attitude, the 2.0's tank runs dry after
350 km. Guess how I know ;-)One thing I can't miss anymore is the 4wd-system: it generates a peace of mind and you know the car will never bite you no matter how stupid or tired you drive it.
My range is 450 km , Peter's 3.0 needs refueling after 300km. It 's not the fuel comsumption that is a pain in the ass, it is the tanc that always runs dry when you do need to move :-)
The 2.0 has the extra reduction on the gearbox and an electro-magnitic brake which prevent rolling back when at standstill on an uphill, the
3.0 has neither of those toys and that's a pity.Tom De Moor
woss one of them then?
You take a normal estate (the bigger the better), toss out the rear seats and fit a permanent uninterrupted floor. That transforms the car (according to Belgian Law) from a vehicle for transport of persons to a truck (which has huge fiscal implications).
In there goes tools, a collapsable ladder, cordless power tools and everything one needs to repair mechanicly and electronicly automated overhead doors, automatic gliding doors and the like.
Rough estimate in extra weight = 300 kg without spare parts, the rear suspension needs stiffening. Rough estimate of a fitted out car (price car excluded) all equipement on board : 20000 UKP.
We intervene for clients who subscribed a contrat, 24Hrs a day for the Brussels area where there is no crime, where nothing happens unless the access to a parking lot stays open for the night. ;-)
Estates have proven to be far more practical than vans, the technicians like them more too (compared to vans) If need be we have a propose built trailer which allows transport of anything up to 6m long, 4 m high (less than 1500 kg). The 4wd Subaru's are really good for the application, just a shame that they run on petrol. When they are at the end of their life (like mine is) they will be replaced by Volvo V70's
Tom De Moor
I'm guessing your use of the word intervene is slightly different to mine - intervention normally means getting between something, whereas you seem to be using it as a synonym for "maintenance callout", but I'lll put that down to English not being your first language :-)
So, it's a posh van :-)
cheers, clive
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.