Rover 600s

to me the pro's and con's of an alfa and a rover are big.

ok to me the alfa has a couple more pro's as it looks and probably handles better but the cons outweigh the rover so much easily

the rovers probs can be sorted pretty simply just like the probs my MR2 has. my mk1 can have probs with gear boxes too but normally after a high millage, not to much to replace, the other is rust. bit pricy but if treated right is pretty much future proof.

Both of which, have an importance of about 0.7%

Er, you can stop just about ANY car from being dull, if you give it 200bhp,

Correct. You also have to revise the suspension, fix the handling, fit bigger brakes, keep the ride quality, raise the spec, and change the exhaust. You then have to give it INSANE depreciation, so after 5 years, it's worth less than 20% of the new price.

Er, surely it's *you* that doesn't "get it" ?

Yes, please do. Why are you wasting everyone's time with your meaningless contributions to this thread ?

As the only person who thinks the TI is "s**te" for the money, you stand out like a sore thumb.

They were _way_ OTT on that one.

Even a main dealer shouldn't charge more than £800. Independents can do it for less.... I've seen it as low as £400-£500. Yes, it's bad, but only needs doing every 72k miles, ISTR.

I could get an Alfa 24v V6 change done for about £250 including a full service.

Not.

Have you actually been reading any of my posts? Have you looked at my Cinquecento pages? Or is this speculation, kinda like your opinion of how the 620ti drives? :(

Lol.... you're totally obsessed with the ugly little f***er.

I have looked:

"I liked the Cinquecento's enthusiastic engine, her handling, ride and brakes, how easy she was at parking, how cheap she was to run (primarily fuel economy and insurance) and her cheeky image."

Having driven both 900 and 1100, and owned an 1100 for several years, all I can say is that you seem to know slightly less than f*ck-all.

The 900 is a horrible, wheezy, rattly engine and non-sportings wallow, roll and generally under-steer into oblivion.

About the only things you got right there were easy to park and cheap to run.

Have you ever thought that I'm one of the enlightened few? Not some bland, boring, Mr Average with his bland, boring Eurobox.

Right. So you're comparing this to the other sub-one litre offerings, then? Like the 950 mark two Fiesta, then the 1000 mark three?

Or are you just cherry picking the bits you can pick fault with?

meaningless

No; you read as though you will defend the Alfa until you're blue in the face . . .

. . . a trait I admire. Keep it up! :)

Oh, ffs!

Does it matter if it's sub 1ltr or 1.1ltr? As a City car, the 900cc Cinq is just about OK - but the Sporting (which costs fractionally more to run, but nothing significant) is vastly superior. I really can't see how anyone could get any pleasure out of the 900cc. It really was that bad.

i got a cam belt changed for £180 which including an oil change, new plugs, new leads and a new set of pads :)

Have re-read this, sounds condescending, and it isn't meant to.

If you're comparing sub one litre cars, then it is pretty critical! :)

Yes, you're right, when you dissect ongoing running costs, there's almost nothing in it.

However, at the time, the Sportings had minimal depreciation. I bought my Cinquecento SX when she was ten months old for just £3,600 and they were approximately £6,000 new.

The Sportings were either £6,500 or £7,000 (I forget which), but a similar aged machine was £6,000 on the forecourt.

At the time, the initial outlay was too much.

As it happened, and with the benefit of hindsight, after 40,000 miles and over two years, I sold her to a used car dealer for £1,800 cash. I had cheekily asked for two grand, and he said, "if it were a Sporting, then yes maybe I could." So the depreciation charge was significantly less with the SX.

No, it wasn't. The 900cc version of the Cinquecento didn't have all that much poke, but you never tired of trying to apply all of it all of the time. As for the handling, yeah she'd understeer if you were loopy, but she had bags more grip than go so unless you were being utterly foolish, it was difficult to get into proper trouble. Not impossible, but difficult. Or you could inflate the rear tyres a little bit more . . . and get oversteer on demand . . . great fun! :)

I used to thoroughly enjoy getting a Cinquecento Sporting as a courtesy car, since it made a big difference to the linear performance, but both roll a lot and both have the same handling characteristics (the 1.1 has less body roll and I think it sits lower, too).

There's _so_ much more to fun than having more power.

His neighbour has a landrover project in the front garden IIRC, so isn't gonna be impressed :)

Don't the 600's have galvanised chassis'? I suspect they may do, but i could be wrong :)

And i say again, my car isn't galvanised and hasn't rusted, no Pug's are in no pug made in at least the last 10 years rusts.

Ok, the 2.0 will be shockingly slow compared to the Ti, and surely the sound is of zero importance compared to the handling?

Yea but what even is that? A 155 is surely a LOT smaller than a Ti? On the same basis a Clio 172 would be even better, but you can't really compare them.

Well you have to trust someones opinions!

But surely having Honda build quality with the Ti's engine is a good thing? I don't think you can really use 'Accord in drag' to mock it...

No - the 155 is about the same size. Sort of Sierra / Mondeo sized.

It's just, well, the V6 just sounds so lovely......

Hard decision to make.