I think this is quite nice too.

Your net is pretty damn wide.

Notice how it's all the old fart barges he's going for as well? 225BHP doesn't get you out of that fact mate.

A black 9000 Aero, Rxxx XBV, is *remarkably* familiar registration plate.

Hmm.

Has it spent any time in Norwich?

Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate DervMan, managed to produce the following words of wisdom

XBV is a Preston reg.

We picked 'em up from all over. One of the perks of the jobs was taking a train from Norwich to anywhere in the country, picking up something newish and expensive, then driving it back.

Day out of the offices.

It's probably not the one I'm thinking of though. It can't be.

Heh, old fart barges? Didn't you just spend your own money on a Diesel Mondeo? (c;

I'm of the opinion that Carl's commute is the place for something grandadesque, but it isn't really the place for 225bhp. Not if he wants cheap to run.

It is near the end of production and looks tidy enough but if Elder is swapping cars to save money, that car isn't were savings are to be made over the ambassadorial limousine.

I keep on telling myself the same. Charlie wants a 1.0 base specification Yaris. I want a BMW 530d. The compromise is, maybe, the Saab.

I thought you wanted something more economical than the Celsior? I struggled to get 23mpg out of a manual 900T with a smaller engine. Now don't give me some guff that you'll drive gently in a 225BHP car.. :-p

Mike P

Performance moderate. Maximum power 225 bhp (168 KW) @ 5500 RPM Maximum torque 258 lbft (350Nm) @1900 RPM Acceleration 0-60 mph

Consumption figures seem fair too for a turbo petrol.

Fuel consumption mpg: Urban 19.8. Extra Urban 38.2. Combined 28.2.

A 9000 Aero, or a 2.3 FPT Anniversary should be much more economical than a 900T16.

I used to get 27-30 out of both my T16s not driving like my gran. For longer runs it gave much better, 30-33.

That's pretty s**te for the performance though. Mine does 30 on a run and I have more power/weight/torque/capacity and the aerodynamics of a Clio that's as wide as it is long...

Yeah, but you couldn't fit a double wardrobe in the back and still have room for an engine.

Dan's car couldn't fit a pair of wellies in the boot, but I think part of his point is that his car is about as aerodynamic as my house.

Ummm, that's true, but it still weighs less, and has less engine/power/torque and still is less economical was the point I was making heh. Perhaps aim for something with a more modern engine?

If it aint broke why fix it. The more modern version has a problem with sludging and broken oil pumps due to fleet style service intervals, "long life" oils and a finer strainer in the sump.

Oil stays in longer, builds up more black s**te, clogs the strainer pump ends up running dry and the top end gets oil starvation and topend dies.

Don't you the more modern engine.

What are the frontal areas and Cds for the Clio V6 anyway?

It's hardly a fair comparison though. The Saab won't be much slower four up. You'd need two Clios and consumption would be twice that of the Saab.

So have you managed tanks of >30 mpg, or just from what the trip computer reports, then knocked down by "proper driving" eh?

"Big" and "Poor" respectively I think. (c:

First question: answer = width x height, no need to discount the frontal surface between wheels, road and underside of the car.

Second question : bricklike (no offence to the brick) and with a lot (a heap) of drag.

Not that it matters: he has the ponies to misbehave at any speed and at low speed (< 80 MPH) aerodynamics are not that important so with a silk foot tires and fuelbills stay acceptable.

The Clio V6 is the semi-sensible and modern version of the R5 Turbo, a bit more comfy too. It has a nice heritage, carries it proudly although sometimes -like the R5 Turbo- backwards through a hedge.

Me like :-)

Tom De Moor