Sinclair *owns*.
Sinclair *owns*.
If the basic architecture had had anywhere near what the PC has had thrown at it in terms of time and development, it actually would be, tbh.
;-)
Well, yes, but that's where Macs come in.
Yes, but it's also one that as I pointed out elsewhere, is quite unique in hot hatch sibling terms.
True, true. Personally, i'd have the 1.9 - cos its faster :) And with a Turbo added is even better ;)
And rear drums look crap.
So does your mum, but me and your dog still rate her as a better hot hatch.
Douglas
-h +sn
HTH.
You can't see them when the car is on OEM alloys.
hatcsn?
You're weird.
Douglas
Clearly any self respecting owner would have added the 15" wheels from a 1.9 (don't think the 1.6 came with these?), which have big enough holes in for you to see them :)
I rate your dad even higher.
Why would you do that?
That era of hot hatches was designed around 14" wheels with 185/60 tyres.
There really isn't that much between the standard 1.6 and 1.9, performance wise... you just have to drive them slightly differently. :-)
A properly done MI-16 conversion, is the way forward, my child.
He also says you are s*it.
Douglas
Well yea....
But the 1.9 came with 15" wheels with 195's, and as that was the far superior version, they're obviously better :)
You need to look beyond the engine size and see the purity of the 1.6 as a hot hatch.
Nah, Atari ST beats the socks of 'em all, followed by the Amstrad PCW.
Peter
I'll see your PCW and raise you a Dragon 32.
I happen to have ten original games sitting here for one of those.
Ahem, anyway:
10 Print "WHSmiths is crap" 20 Goto 10Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required