Rover 600s

And this being the reason why it's been revised.

Otherwise, the Williams-Renault F1 car won't be much cop, given that the Espace was never a good starting point. :)

For me, it would be a fine decision - but the 2.0 156 is not competition for the 620ti, and the Sportwagon isn't, either.

There's nothing to "get". You're statements read as a paragraph of utter bias made through guesswork. If I were a cynical chap, I'd suggest your overuse and obvious fondness for the word "wop" suggests what kind of prejudiced individual you were. Fortunately I'm not.

I don't have a hatchback, and certainly not a bland rubbery one.

But you're wrong here, on a few accounts. First off, forgettable? Evidently not, though, given by the amount of coverage the 600 gets in here...

Second, I don't think the Rover 600 is dull nor rubbery or bland. When it was released, it cut a certain dash - it managed to combine some of the aggressive-grill feature of BMWs but without going over the top. Sure, it could always be considered an old mans' car, or "comes with a Rover grill so it has heritage," but this is true of _all_ cars.

It's more pleasing to the eye than many others, and it's less offensive to the core market.

Alfa, however, all credit to them for forgetting about the front number plate, and for making hatchbacks that look great for bread delivery. Or for making four doors look like short-doored coupes?

Touching! ;)

This is true of all cars, of course, but the "it's special and it needs care and attention" doesn't cut the mustard any more. If the public want something special that requires special attention, they'll get a Ferrari (or a similar Italian peer, I guess). But for Alfa Romeo to be chasing BMW, it needs to match BMW's "leave it alone between services" abilities. It doesn't do that.

The cars are fun, they have class, they have their quirks, but they're not bullet proof enough to be "mainstream" and they're not unique enough to be "specialist."

Perhaps this is one reason why Fiat are struggling? They've gotten their niche markets wrong?

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed all of the Alfa Romeos that I've driven and borrowed. The favourite probably the 2.0 146; but the point is that I wouldn't have bought any of them with my own money for the reasons outlined above.

You know, now I come to think of it, every review I've read concerning an Alfa in the past 3 years from my usual mags (Autocar and Evo) has slated them for their handling, with it being the thing that lets them down the most.

So I think I'm going to have to change my views on this, I /was/ willing to accept that Alfas may be up there with the best on that front, but the evidence seems to suggest that they are not.

Erm. Are you being deliberately stupid? - Since when was the 600ti a composite shell with the engine / gearbox bolted to the back of the carbon-fibre tub?

Well, no. Given the vast disparity in pricing.

You want to try a 155 V6 'Widebody' - that's more than capable of holding it's own against a 620ti on anything other than a straight road.

Hmmm. Wouldn't trust anything either of those 2 mags had to say.

They're a lot closer to the top than that wanky Accord in drag you drive.

I also want a big comfortable car, that doesn't look quick, with plenty of toys. The TI fits these criteria very well - bonus points cos it's so cheap to buy and run (both maintenance and insurance).

In what way ? I've had mine 18 months now, and I think it was an excellent bargain.

Probably more often than BMW yes. But then an equivalently sized and aged

More often than an average Alfa ? HAHAHAHAHAHA !

But seeing as we all know the 'boxes are a bit pants, we're obviously not gonna buy a TI with a dodgy one !

Hmmm. TI's flat torque curve makes the full 240Nm at 2100rpm, and keeps it all the way to 6000rpm. You'd struggle to find a "V or straight 6 of

Stlying and image are subjective. I happen to like both, so for me at least, they were a bonus. Handling is just fine - you freely admit not having driven one, so I'm not sure your comment has any worth whatsoever !

Quite possibly. I fail to see the relevence here :)

Er, both look very pretty to me ! Omega has even less style and image than the Rover 600 - you couldn't make a blander barge if you tried. BMW 5-Series is a class (or three !) above when it comes to price - I'm not quite sure why you're comparing them ?

I've got plenty thanks.

Who cares ? Both were a pap load more when new, and are a pap load more now, for an equivalent year and mileage !

Of course. Age of the car is about the first thing I look at when buying.

Er, if I cared about 0-60 times, I wouldn't be driving a 7 second barge ! They have zero importance to me. In-gear times are where it's at, and funnily enough, this is where the TI excels.

It managed to look just like a Honda Accord with some chrome bits tacked on. Maybe that's because it it?

ie. made for Mr. Average and his 2.4 children?

All distinctive designs. The number plate is just a hint at their Italian history. And the 145 _still_ cuts it as the most distinctive

Would I want that? - No. Would any of the marque enthusiasts want that - definitely not.

That's only because they sold by the bucketload to fleet buyers. Wonder why that is? - perhaps because they're the best looking car in their class? - because people wanted something other than a Mundano or a sparten poverty-spec BMW?

Fiat are struggling for a number of reasons. The main one being that Fiat don't produce anything really special at the moment, Alfa / Maserati / Ferrari are doing quite nicely. Which is why Fiat want to protect those brands from any GM-ness should the takeover come.

You've managed to pick one of the worst of the modern-day Alfas there. Funny driving position, conservative styling. But you rave on about the Ka, so it's no surprise you thought it was so good.

individuals

Er, yes they are. I've had half the dashboard out of mine to fit my ICE, and it's all Honda-branded. Switchgear, panels, electrics, ashtray, you name it. Bar the engine and some of the drivetrain, the TI is all Honda.

Seems to have had zero effect though. I looked at a few when I bought mine, and none had any rust. Never read about any rust issues on any of the Rover forums I frequent.

But you can't buy a mint, full-history '96 with 50,000 miles for two grand - so it's moot really.

Yes.

But you get the point I'm making, yes?

You do need to try a 620ti yourself, I should add!

But of course not! If they don't like the handling of the Alfa, then they must be s**te, yes?

You have no justification for making this comment because you've never driven a 620ti!

As long as my cars remain more than three-years old, none of them will ever go to a main-dealer unless absolutely necessary. My local Unipart place charges half the labour rate (£30) and he's always sorted my cars just fine :)

The 620 TI is a pretty simple car. If you were so inclined, you could easily work on it yourself. It's actually quite an old engine, and hence it's easy to work on.

Can't see it would be any more than £150 to £200 to be honest. It's a pretty simple job. Undo driver-side engine mount, and remove. Swap cambelt. Replace engine mount. The end.

A shade over £1200 for a cambelt change on a Fiat Coupe Turbo (yes, really !) at a Fiat dealer. I looked into buying one ... and then relised that maintaining it was absolute loonacy.

Seconded.

Yep. It's not got the best roadholding at seriously illegal speeds (120mph+ on a lumpy country lane, results in BadThings?), and it's obviously no match for a real "sporty" car on a twisty road.

Er...

Maybe. But do you not find it strange that most of the general public don't actually know that the 600 and Accord are the same car?

Perhaps - this is a characteristic that can be levelled at almost the entire class.

In your opinion, but to some it's ugly and has a daft front. Charlie thinks that most Alfas look too "wanna-be," although she can have dubious taste. I like the look of some features of some cars, but I don't think the 145 is the most distinctive of all three door hatches, and it's distinctive because from some angles it looks awful.

But it's not quite priced at this area of the market, and they don't have the abilities, either.

Or perhaps it's because Fiat have encouraged this with stonking great big discounts, and people who always wanted to drive an Alfa but never to run one (because of the ruinous depreciation and dangerous reliability image) finally had their chance?

Alfa Romeo had a lot to prove back in the late 1990s, but three out of the five Alfa Romeo drivers I've chatted with said, "never again." One remarked that over the 42,000 business miles he did in the three years of having it (it's just been replaced), he did just 32,000 miles in the 156, and the rest in a Punto or similar.

It was my favourite because it was an early second generation model (right after the 1.6 went from the gutless wonder to the twin spark, and the 1.7 was dropped) and the quickest, both in sensations and speedo readings. Cracking engine, uncomfortable driving position, awful rearward visibility, iffy interior switches, nice noise, good performance.

I didn't find the driving position any stranger than the other Alfa Romeos that I had. As for the styling, it cut a certain dash, and I much preferred it to the 145, except it was a pain to reverse.

Heh. One, when was the last time I raved about the Ka, two, I had the 146s back in Cinq days, and three, totally off topic, here, too.

Good, yes, great . . . . hmmm . . . . arguably yes. I'd have loved to drive a manual rather than the automatics my Dad used to get. ;)

Would have worked well in the 627 I suppose, well aside the weight issue! We don't want it handling like a V6 Alfa Romeo, now, do we? :)

Enlarged, too, I'd guess - the NSX the owner foolishly let me borrow was a

I've never tried the 825 petrol, although have my share of long haul trips in the 825 diesel. :)

Nope. Interior trim is fine - of the few I tried when buying, mine was the ONLY one with any squeaks at all.

Yep.

Nope. All turbos wear out - the Rover T16 uses the same Garrett blowers as everyone else. You can reasonably expect to have to replace it between 0 and

Anything that spins at well over 100,000rpm *WILL* wear out. It doesn't matter whether it's fitted to a Rover, a SAAB, a Scooby, or Ed's Micra :) You're lucky if your Turbo lasts more than 100,000 miles.

Ahhh. It's that obsession with age again, innit?

Gotta have a 'respectable' age-plate to impress the similarly 'average' neighbours?

I'll spell it out slowly for the hard of hearing 'G A L V A N I S I N G'

Did you get it this time?

It uses Honda bits, but it's screwed together by Rover. Huge difference.

The factory in Swindon could screw the bits together better.

Age and mileage don't bother me. It's relatively easy to find an E34 with 100k plus on the clock at 10 years old that will feel newer than a '96, 50k mile Ti.