OT: WOOHOO

Nearly is the word, here. There are arguably better compromises between a drivers' car and an everyday car, but none of these are a superior drivers' car compared to the 205 with a certain set of criteria.

Better cars, perhaps, quicker maybe, better built, far more comfortable - but less involving.

Some people don't want anything else to interfere with their drive.

Yes, and you know what? It's quick, yes, but it's clinical. Oh and air conditioning is an option.

I truly think this too. We've people in the Ka Klub who go on about how it saps power and sucks petrol, to which I simply say, "it has an on / off switch." Then they tell me about the excess weight, to which I usually only have to point and wave at the 80 kg of speaker and amp set up in their boot... :)

See below.

Ew, no! And the 205 also had a leather interior (well, half leather seats, but nice all the same).

Your last couple of lines here are the critical ones. The 406 V6 is heavier, but that's okay since it has more power and better brakes...? No.

Yep, that's exactly what I said. You weigh up MUCH more than simply "involvement" when buying a car - otherwise you wouldn't drive a Ka, I wouldn't drive a TI, and Carl wouldn't drive a Volvo 340 ! All cars are a compromise. Modern cars compromise much less than their older equivalents.

*anything* ? They want a good drive above *everything* else ?

Yep. Personally, I don't rate the Civic Type-R at all - but it's a fine example of a modern hot-hatch. It's got plenty of competition too - some like the Clio 172 is equally fine (Cup is better, but it's got no aircon).

Yep. The benefits of it FAR, FAR outweigh the added weight and consumption !

Think TI. It would be absolute s**te with 130bhp (ie, a stock Rover 600) - but it's good cos it's got plenty of power. Now think of a stock 130bhp Rover 600, but make it weigh about 800Kg - it would then almost be a match for the TI (better handling, but less top-end).

Eh ? You'd rather have a rattly, old, thirsty, unreliable 205 GTi, than an almost-new, higher spec, better built, more reliable, cheaper to insure (probably) 106 GTi ? Performance, Ride, Handling, are very comparable between the two -

If it was as good or better than the 405, then yes, it would be okay. But it doesn't really bring anything to the party - the Mi16 already has aircon, leather, excellent ride and handling (handling is prolly better than the 406), performance, comfort, electric everything, etc. etc.

To put it another way, I'd rather have a 405 with the 210bhp V6 lump and the four-pot Brembos, than the 405 as a stock Mi16. Extra weight is fine, as long as you have the power to make it invisible.

Oh I should bitchslap you from here to Usakapunki.

The 106 GTi is not better than the 205 GTi. Build quality is equally poor (in fact, some materials are worse), the arch intrusion into the footwell is more severe, the space in the back is smaller, the boot is smaller, the handling isn't quite as precise, and the economy in real terms is likely to be far worse, as the 1.9GTi generally had no cat and weighs nothing, whereas the 106GTi has a bunch 'o' crap on it like emissions regulation equipment. Witness the Mk II Golf GTi again - yes, the potential to use more fuel is there, but in the same conditions, the car without the strangled breathing, overfuelling, additional weight is going to return the better economy.

As for insurance, whilst the 205 GTi might be a high group, it's older. Older cars cost less to insure generally. Also, nearly all the 205 GTis on the road qualify for classic insurance, so if it's not your only car, you can reasonably expect to insure it for £200 or so, even if you don't have no claims to spare.

Richard

comfortable -

Indeed... I was trying to back you up, heh.

/am at home with a heavy cold so perception isn't at its finest today/

Yup. In the 1970s, most of today's cars were science fiction in what they can do.

Aye, there are some. Those people who buy a Lotus Elise as their only car, perhaps? :)

And no ABS, either, so although the Clio Cup is "pure" (and designed for track days) it seems a little bit irresponsible, in some respects.

Mind you, going back a few years, ABS was also science fiction! :)

Modern hot hatches make too many compromises for many "old school" people, although this said I'm sure that the typical performance driver thought the same about the mark one Golf GTI...

Indeed. I'd struggle to get something without. Even if you're not going to use it (!), getting something Focus-sized without it is simply going to give you a big depreciation hit when you come to sell it on in a few years.

Hmmmm. No, I can disagree here, since if it retained the handling, it would be a lot of fun to drive.

Yes, I know that power and acceleration is truly addictive :) but there are times when you can't apply it. :(

Aye, almost certainly!

Yes, I would - simply because I wouldn't consider a Peugeot GTI unless I wanted that certain driving experience. Equipment wouldn't make much difference to me, nor would interior space although driver comfort is important. This is a 205 plus - it's more comfortable for me, personally, to drive primarily because the 106's pedals are quite close together, and there centre console intrudes on my knee space.

This said, the 205 GTI isn't especially rattly or thirsty compared with the

106 GTi, if anything the 205 sounds rather more purposeful whereas the 106 has that rather... erm... featureless noise-insulated whiny petrol engine noise that 90% of modern petrol cars have. The 205 is a bit of a pill when driving slowly in stop / go traffic (step forward everybody who's modified their 205 GTI to resolve this issue), but the fuel consumption figures between the 205 1.9 and 106 1.6i-16 are surprisingly close (from memory, the 106 manages 34 new style whereas the 205 manages 33 old style, except in the real world there's little in it thanks to the 106's emission control features).

Neither have air conditioning, either. :)

I did have the chance to snap up a lovely metallic green 1.9 205 GTI when I was selling on my Cinquecento, but I decided to wear my sensible hat and went for the "turbodiesel fleet car" option instead, primarily because of the economics of keeping the GTI. There's a little part of me that regrets not getting the 205, well until I consider that I'd have probably had to sell it after marrying Charlie (imagine trying to get a quote for a new driver on a provisional licence, American, for a 1.9 GTI, heh!).

I've not driven the 106 and 205 GTIs back to back, but of the two, the 106 was a typical modern hot hatch. Goes well, handles well, some quirkiness (for the better). Whereas the 205 would accuse you of being a pussy if you didn't give it 100% on a roundabout...

So, 205 it would be for me.

The 406 V6 is quite nose heavy, though - through adding 50 PS of power they've added quite a bit of weight over and above the standard 406, and all of it over the front wheels.

It's a lovely engine if you don't pay the fuel bills - it sounds great, it performs very well, and it's very smooth. But it's heavy, and the ordinary

406 feels nose-led. The Coupe I drove with the 3.0 was an automatic, with a really weird power steering set up that I didn't like...

Now what I like the sound of is a small capacity six, like Mazda's 1.8 and

2.0 versions and BMW's older 2.0 six, although these are still quite thirsty compared to four bangers.

I'd like to point out that a suspension design introduces certain characteristics. Vices, in most cases.

The term "handling" is abused by marketeers and punters alike, and has come to mean a sort of generic term to refer to the grip a car achieves in the dry, wet, on gravel, snow, the throttle response, the steering feel. People talk about a car having "good" or "bad" handling when, in any case, they haven't really defined what handling is to be able to measure it.

That's not a very useful approach because in the real world, handling and grip are usually a compromise - you get more of one, at the expense of the other.

The Jaguar E type may be a good example. There you have a car with lots of grunt from a V12 mounted way forward in a long bonnet, combined with rear wheel drive and 1950's suspension. Maybe it sounds odd, but the E type handles extremely well. That's not to say it doesn't slide about - it most certainly does slide about and you can't expect anything else from a front engine, rear drive like that. Particularly in the wet.

But it has excellent handling, because when the E type goes sideways, a driver who is familiar with rear drive can tidy up the back end and keep the long nose pointing where they want to go, relatively easily and reliably. Makes the car excellent fun, pretty safe (as you don't worry about whether it will skid, you know it will.)

Doesn't make the E type competitive on a track, though. A formula one car is almost the exact opposite. Grip is paramount and almost all the handling has been sacrificed to find extra grip. Once you lose the back end of an F1 car, you are entering the scenery backwards. Even people who have managed to become F1 drivers, have trouble controlling the car in a skid.

A car with front double wishbone suspension may have good handling, I'd certainly expect quite a lot of grip, but there is no "best" design and there is a lot more to it than simply choice of type.

snip LOADS ;-)

As someone who drives a big, heavy car, I hate disagreeing here, but I'm going to ;-)

The extra weight makes a BIG difference to the handling, whether "offset" by more power (i.e. an identical power-to-weight ratio) or not. By definition, a higher-mass car has to work harder to go round the same corners at the same speeds as a lighter car.

A Mini with little more than 100 bhp would likely make mincemeat of the T-5 on most B-roads, or tracks, whilst the Volvo has a much higher vmax, and is much more stable (and comfortable!) at high, straight-line, speeds.

It all depends on what you're looking for in a car - if it's just a fast method of getting from A-to-B on mostly A-roads, dual carriageways and motorways, then I'd agree with you. However, if your idea of fun is twistier than that, then the weight factor WILL f*ck it up, to some degree at least.

In fact, I'm still unsure what the next step is going to be with the T-5. Haven't fully stripped it out yet, and I'm considering putting it all back together as intended (i.e. a FAST, luxo-barge) and buying a second, (much) lighter, cheap car as a trackday/backroads toy.

To a point I'd agree, except sometimes a chassis or design vice can be used for your entertainment or, maybe, benefit.

The generic use of "handling" is differentiated from grip, though. A car can have lots of grip but poor handling.

It's also important to consider that one person's "good handling" is another's "poor handling," it's partly down to personal taste and - more significantly - experience. If somebody who's always, always driven front wheel drive cars (I suppose a great many drivers under thirty) suddenly buys a BMW, they may well consider the handling "dangerous" or "unsafe" the first time they take it out in the snow. Modern ones are rather more docile, it seems because of electronic aids, but people still stuff them at the first frost (at least, around York they do, heh).

The chap who's owned BMWs for thirty years man and boy may well find almost all front wheel drive cars have poor handling.

The vast majority of the cars I've driven have been front wheel drive :( simply because this is what's available in the market. The few that have been rear wheel or all wheel drive (one with a rear wheel bias, heh gotta love the AWD Sierras) have pretty much felt the same until I've provoked them. :) I suspect that most people don't even know what end of their car is driven...

My own preference has to take into account the fact that my wife, Charlie, has only driven in snow and ice in the UK, and then once or perhaps twice. She was used to a small car, 5.0 V8, rear wheel drive, docile machine (well, docile if you lifted off the power, heh). So whatever we bought in the UK had to be docile too... at the expense of grip...

So i don't HAVE to have it when i get mine when i finish uni?

Wicked :)

But no one who wants a little hot hatch like a 106 or 205 gives a rat ass about space in the back or any of that mundane old people crap :) The handling abilities and performance of the 2 are VERY similar. I'd have the

106 on the basis of it's newer, looks better (IMHO) and will not require as much maintence :)

Not at mine and Carl's respective ages :)

Lord, some of you people are OLD :)

`-'\_)Morticia

Like??

Not everyone on this group just goes for BHP per £. I'm not completely disputing your comment, but I don't think its SO many cars.

"I" for one, care about how my car looks as well as the rest. Now ,I haven't deeply looked into the 406 coupe and its pro's and con's. But it certainly is a sexy looking car, and a 210bhp V6 can't be bad (even if the car is a bit of a bloater). I know nothing about its ride or handling but its reasonably priced.

So, lets get a list of circa 7sec 0-60 cars that are 97 or newer, have lots of gadgets, handle well "and" (and thats a big "and") look nice, and not just ok, for around the same budget.

P.s. I'm interested as well, cos thats the type of car im looking to get next.

I'm one of them, remember. BHP/£ means nothing to me really, and if it meant that much, we'd all be driving TVRs or something equally silly.

However, having a car that I've financed for a long time that is already at that point where things start to go wrong, and is made by Italians to French specification, is something I'd like to avoid, and I think that anyone who has any experience of such things would be remiss in advising others of the same.

Richard

Why the sad smiley ?

Just like you, I've driven very few RWD cars. I've never owned a RWD car.

But so what ?

FWD is just fine. I have no desire whatsoever to move to RWD - my next car could be either, and I'm not bothered in the slightest which.

I suspect that most people simply don't care which end is driven. I certainly don't.

Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at.

No.

If you want PROPER insurance, then the 205 WILL cost more.

definition,

I agree with all you say.

BUT, modern cars have MUCH better handling than their older counterparts - so the extra weight is ofset by this. For example, a 106 GTi prolly weighs a pap-load more than a 205 GTi - but it doesn't corner any slower. The new M3 weighs a pap-load more than the old M3 - but it doesn't corner any slower etc. etc.

As long as you increase the "handling ability" when you increase the weight, then all is well :)

No ! Don't do it !

You're "much lighter" car will be a noisy rattly tinbox thing, and you'll hate it !

Because FWD is naff in comparison.

My first car was RWD and I learnt to drive in the snow :)

Opening a sunroof rather than having AirCon is 'just fine' to some people :)

I do. There just isn't anything RWD and modern available for a decent price without going to barn sizes (e.g. Omega).

I suspect that BMW will steal a trick here with their new 1 & 2 Series.

Well, it's the same argument that most of the time, for most people, FWD is better. Just that sometimes I find myself wanting to be in that other sector! :)

Yes, if a car were FWD or RWD it would be very low down on what would differentiate the two if the car were just for me.

Actually, that said, given Charlie's method of handling her 5.0 V8 back on wet roads (steering with her feet, heh) I suspect it would be academic, really.

Indeed, which makes a mockery of BMW's "because the rear wheels are driven it handles better" advertising, and Audi's "front wheel drive, which pulls you out of trouble rather than pushes you in" a bit lame...