Rover 600s

Well that is 25% less power, and i bet the car is heavier, and they cost lots, and i bet the torque doesn't come in at 2100rpm ;)

Nah, i'd go for power, and use my stereo :)

Evo are only concerned with shiny new stuff, and Autocar lost their way many years ago.

Lets see. Bland Honda design with a re-hashed Maxi engine. Hmmmm.

Accord in drag is a bad thing, given that the only selling point of the Accord was reliability and build quality. Which is something the 600ti doesn't have, mainly because it's not screwed together by Honda.

To be fair - yours will need doing twice as often. Plus it doesn't have

Sounds like a works Quattro when you put your foot down :-)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And actually another point, if its unreasonable to pay £400 for a new turbo, or £400 for a new gearbox once in the cars life if you're very unlucky, how is it NOT unreasonable to pay £800 for a CERTAIN cambelt change!?!?!?!?!?!?!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nah my service book says every 72k or 5 years :)

Yea but Dervy, to be fair, 900cc Cinq DOES suck arse :)

Get both, one as a "garage queen?"

Odd, then, that every 600 I've driven and been in has felt Hondesque screwed together.

understated.

You think or you genuinely know? Good luck and happy hunting, because every sub three grand BMW I've ever looked at has been in the twilight years of its life, and most certainly feels like it has seen much better days!

This would depend on (a) what you're comparing it with, and (b) what your criteria are.

If you're comparing the Cinquecento with warm hatches, and you want the fastest machine, then it's not going to come out especially favourable (although a few of the boy racers at Festival Park, Hanley, couldn't overtake my Cinquecento, heh).

But if you're comparing four seater cars with engine capacities of one litre and under, then the Cinquecento shows up well for its age. Back in 1996, there wasn't much else offering competition - most other cars had larger engines, with heavier fuel consumption and insurance premiums.

The Daewoo Matiz, and I suppose the Lupo / Arosa, Hyundai Atoz, those awful Suzuki / Vauxhall things (Wagon-R and Agila?) and a few Daihatsus - almost all of these were later than the Cinquecento.

So I stand by my comments!

Anyway, if I'd borrowed the bosses' M5 this weekend, everything might feel a bit pants in comparison. :)

I know...... my brother had an E34 520i that had some crazy mileage (we never did find out how much - estimated 250k at least) that was still pretty damned good. Body wasn't rusty, engine still sweet, and the interior was tidy - apart from wear on the outside of the driver's seat.

His current E36 has 130k miles on it, and still feels very tight. Only problem with this is that it's red - and we all know what happens to solid red cars over time.

My Dad had a manual, and now he's got an Auto.

It wouldn't be any heavier than the Turbo lump. Rover's cast-iron T16 is VERY heavy indeed :)

Yeah, '90 onwards were 3.0 and then they switched to the 3.2 in '98

Interestingly, both share front brake pads with the 620 TI :)

Ditto.

Yep. Newer cars are almost universally better than older ones. They're safer, more reliable, comfier, higher spec, better looking, etc. etc. Remember that technology plays a HUGE part in a car - everything from the way it drives, to the way it's built. The newer the car, the better the tech. that is used.

I don't give two hoots what my neighbours think !

But the 600 DOES have a galvanised chassis ! If a car needs galvanising in order not to rust, then it's not being built properly. Pug 405s aren't galvanised, and they don't rust.

That's absolute tosh, and you know it.

If the car is being built from the same parts, it doesn't matter in the slightest who is actually putting them together. They all fit together in the same way, with the same fixtures-and-fittings.

What relevence does that have ? Neither will come ANYWHERE CLOSE to the in-gear performance of the TI !

Whoever you trust, it's fair to say that Alfa don't have a reputation for great handling. They make nice engines, and cars that look pretty - nothing more.

And so they should be !

AGAIN : The 620 TI is an "executive cruiser" - it's designed to do motorway journeys quickly. If I wanted a car with great handling, I wouldn't have chosen a bloody great barge would I !

So who DO you listen to ? Certainly not your own opinions, cos you've never driven a 620 TI. You must be getting all this garbage from somewhere...

Huh ? As we've already discussed, the "selling point" of the 620 TI is the performance - and it's got plenty of this. It doesn't matter how bland it is - some of us think that's a GOOD thing !

...which is still absolutely RIDICULOUS.

Hell, you could buy a 620 TI with 0 miles, run it to 100K, then get your gearbox and turbo sorted, and still have change from that £800 !

...unless you've got a crapload of power :)

meaningless

Enlightened ? You ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

If you were any more narrow-minded, you'd have no mind at all !