Lexus LS400? Luxury everyday or money pit waiting to happen?

It's a compromise solution. Doesn't save a significant amount in running costs over a quattro style 4wd system whilst not really punting enough power to the tail when you mash the loud pedal to the floor. It's 4wd for people who only know FWD.

Gotcha. I'm fortunate in that the maximum theoretical limit is 70. Traffic usually sits at ~55 because somewhere a few miles in front, one truck is overtaking another...

In years past I've had this discussion with an Audi dealer, who was unable to substantiate the claim that the Haldex system saves fuel with a figure.

That's odd. It may depend on the machine in question but as I understand it the electronics may transfer all power to the back, if needed.

It has some advantages, though. It doesn't give that nasty drivetrain shunt you can get from some permanent all wheel drive systems. It result in both reduced friction and improved grip. Mercedes used a similar (ish) system,

As I understand it, the max. split is 40/60 front / rear.

It's the first time in this thread.

My data suggests adding a second to the above time. Even allowing for some Saxo Optimism in your data, both Peugeot 206s to wear the "GTi" badge are quicker. The Clio 172 is also quicker. I see more 206 and Clio hot hatches than anythiing else.

Shoot even the 106 GTi is faster.

Better than Fiat do.

Cinquecento. Sporting.

(c) Predictable Comments 2006. All Rights Reserved.

But only in your opinion, which flies in the face of the concensus of opinion.

Hahahahahahaah!

It isn't the best diesel engine, that's arguably the GM / Fiat JTD or the BMW 2.0.

And it's not the quietest or smoothest installation either.

But my point is that you simply haven't driven enough to know a decent diesel.

Why get a faster understeery Passat?!

You live in Wales.

I'd have a reasonable level of confidence in saying it wouldn't in real life do it in less than 9 seconds. Granted, I've never been in a Passat 1.8T but the Golf 1.8T certainly is NOT a fast car - in anyway - and isn't even quicker than my 206 till over about 65mph. And Parkers seems to agree with me - 8.7 seconds sounds much closer real life, half a second quicker than mine would tally with my experiences of the Golf.

The official figures are for 7.9 secs. I remember, 'cos it was the same as the official figure for an Alfa 33 16v.

Now, despite what you say, the MkIV Golf 1.8T is actually quite rapid, but it's not a MkII GTI style GTI - it's much more refined and smoother

- you end up going quite quickly in anything with a 1.8T without realising it.

Something like that, it may be 35/65, but yes.

Nah definately middle grounder. It's like a 2.2 SRi Astra - but doesn't handle as well. Smooth, refined, quicker than you'd expect, but still when all said and done - a bit average speed wise. They're not slow mind, and they are faster than the figures would suggest, but its more refined all through grunt than out and out speed.

True, but would you rather be "enjoying" it in a Chesterfield or a=20 deckchair with a badly placed lumbar support.

--=20 Carl Robson Audio stream:

Some came with power hoods, some didn't.

As for it not being a turbo... I'd counter that for the sort of money you had for a car at that time, a petrol turbo probably wasn't the best choice (not least going by the loss you made on it).

That, and I personally get enough fun out of revvy hot hatches which to their due, tend to not be complete money pits in old age, unlike most sporty petrol turbos which once they're below a certain price range tend to end up at some stage in the hands of some Kev whose spunked so much money buying it and on fuel, he can't afford (or be arsed), to maintain it properly / let the turbo cool down before switching it off etc.

Not to my knowledge - see below.

You appear to be confusing the 216 Cabriolet with a Metro / Mk2 Astra / XR3i Cabriolet.

They might not be your cup of tea, and yes, a decent condition Saab 900 Convertible is a nice place to be... but one in old age that, IIRC, shed =A3700 in less than a year?

Your loss, as they say...

--=20 JackH

The brakes need constant cleaning / unseizing (back calipers, anyway), but the R8 200 series is actually pretty resistant to tin worm.

If they're going to go anywhere, they'll scab up at the bottom of the front wings, and where the sills meet the rear arches.

Quite surprising given how easily the outer panels of their Maestro / Montego siblings which continued to be produced along the R8 up until around 95, scabbed up.

--=20 JackH

If I knew that the Chesterfield used a *lot* of petrol and that I'd be unable to afford parts for it when it broke and it was my only means of transport to and from my place of earning a living then sorry - I'd be commuting in a deck chair. Oh wait - I do.

Metro Cabriolet? Is that an Elise?

I think you'll find the late ones with the vent in the offside front wing, did.

Especially if it was a late E300TD with the 24v diesel lump.

HTH. ;-)

Heh... either you're trying to be 'humorous', or you're unaware they actually did make a Metro Cabriolet - it was probably badged up as a

Still the same shit reheated, though.

My intention is to get a W211 early next year - and there's plenty of good condition W210 around they sold enough of them to be fussy about which you buy, I'd have a 210 myself but the petrols are too thirsty (and I can only see fuel prices going up) and the 300TD isn't much quicker than the new

roflmao