Exclusively modified car for sale! Bargain! Much cheapness!

Ride was vomit inducing - they bucked front-rear, apart from the MGs. Handling, again, only good on the MG models. Engines were ok, apart from the

Take it anyway, it's unlikely to lose much money and you'll have something ready for when the settlement is sorted.

You don't mean to tell me you paid more than £100 for it, oh dear, oh dear.

I drive an Astra 2.2 Sri (albeit the old shape) and I think it would beat a

Hmmmm, you may want to reconsider.

The 2.2SRi is heavy and underpowered with less than decent handling.

Mine didn't! (1.6L, I think it was)

Mine was OK. Admittedly, I wasn't chucking it around like Colin McRae, but at the same time I never thought "oh shittttttt"...

Engines were ok, apart from the

The cam belt gave way on mine, but miraculously didn't bend anything!

And it was ugly from birth.

Beauty is in the eye, etc. Certainly no uglier than an Escort or an Astra.

And unreliable.

Mine wasn't! Gearbox linkage fell apart at one point but a five quid part from an ARG dealer and a couple of hours of swearing fixed that.

And they rusted.

Mine didn't...

You don't mean to tell me you didn't know what you were talking about above, so you're just going to carry on trolling regardless... oh dear, oh dear.

I'm quite happy to put money on it beating it round a track over say 10 laps.

For one thing, the Rover won't be crossing the line on the back of a recovery truck.

-- JackH

Strange... all the ones I've had, and there have been a few over the years, must have all been tweaked in the suspension department then - they have better ride and handling than the Astra / Escort of the time.

No, not apart from the MGs.

I've must have had in excess of 10 Maestro / Montegos over the years, in all the varieties they did, and none acted in the way you've said.

If there's ever a meet down this way, feel free to try this one out if you're still that sceptical.

Again, you're wrong - don't forget they first appeared in 1983 as well, before saying 'x (which came out in 1990 whatever), was comprehensively better'. For their time, they were very good... my current one is very comfortable ride wise, and also handles, even with the weight of that boat anchor over the front wheels.

The 1.3s... tended to burn oil, and all bar the van and some City X models, were saddled with what was a quite clever when it worked properly, but ultimately unreliable (due to the Lucas ECU giving trouble), electronically controlled carb.

The 1.6s were also afflicted with Lucas ECUs which went wrong in much the same way.

The 2.0 was relatively trouble free in this respect, and of course the Perkins diesel ones are well known for their tendency to chuff the odd bit of smoke, but the engine will still be up for doing this, long after the bodywork has shifted off this mortal coil.

Volvo D series...

Untrue - and when they do go wrong, at least you tend to be able to sort it out yourself.

I can't dispute this one!

However... bar the rear arches, the actual shells are pretty good in this respect - it's mainly the doors and tailgate that let the side down, and they're only bolt on.

There is a chap now who specialises in the restoration of these - from what I've read, he really knows his stuff, and welds and seals the arches etc. up in a way that the factory should have done in the first place.

-- JackH

Ok... I might hang onto it for a while anyway :-)

-- JackH

Just as well, the recovery truck ride would cost significantly more than the car is worth ;-)

lol

Oh so true!

-- JackH

Hmmm, given that a VX 2.2 has f*ck all power coupled to a gearbox using some of the worst gearbox ratios available and handles like s*it round the twisties I wouldn't put money on one beating anything "quite soundly", particulary a Rover 200 GTi.

A quick check on Google reveals that the 216 GTi had better power-to- weight and a faster 0-60 time (for what that is worth).

Sounds like the one you were in was fooked.

Rubbish. They were all better than Escorts and Astras of the time.

What was wrong with the 1.3?

It aged rather quickly.

You're right there.

I weep for you.

Acksherley. The 2.2 Astra SRi shape before the new one is a very competent motor, faster than paper suggests. It would, without a shadow of a doubt, mince a 216 in corners, on straight, backwards, and sideways :)

Hehehhehehehehehehe that would comedy :-) You'd lose as well.

yebbut, doesn't the 2.2 lump produce something like 140BHp? The 216gti used the DOHC non-vtec honda lump, which was really very good and produced 130BHp. Given the fairly big weight difference (1270 vs

I have no idea about the relative cornering grip of the two.

The 2.2's power is actually 147BHP (standard) and the performance figures are nearly identical to a more powerful Focus ST170, it's never going to touch a Type R, new Golf Gti etc etc. Mine has been slightly modded & I'm 'guessing' about 165 BHP, does 0 to 60 in about 7.5 seconnds. It's a 2003 03 Plate with 19500 on the clock.

Would it beat a battered old Rover over 10 laps?....I certainly think so!

That would be the more powerful Focus ST170 which is widely regarded as being about as slow and unsporty as a Focus could get this side of a

You mean you've put an exhaust and filter on ? You've probably knock four or five BHP *off* your total then.

To add almost an extra 20, you'd need to have done more than "slightly modded" it.

Only in your wettest most sordid dreams.

I think they'd be pretty evenly matched and would probably come down to the driver more than anything else.

But for the record, my money would still be on the Astra - and i don't think it would break down, those chain driven 2.2s are pretty tough aren't they?