What makes the difference? (I can think of : more comfortable, so need less stops. Or can take a shortcut. Or less likely to be pulled by plod, so can drive faster. Or the road's got better.)
cheers, clive
In news:4568f7e5$0$8743$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net, Clive George wittered on forthwith;
Most important things to me on a long, cross Europe trip are a huge fuel tank, auto box, air con, comfy seats, cruise control, a decent stereo and a Klingon Kloaking Device [1]
Although the last few times I've driven across Europe have all been in manuals with no cruise or KKD.
[1] Klingon Kloaking Device - fast but completely inconspicuous cars. The Renault Safrane 2.5 is one of the fastest motorway cars on the planet because no-one notices them. You could average 130 mph through a shopping centre in a Safrane 20v and no-one would notice.
I ran a 2.0 V6 for two years, a brilliant car let down by poor build and durability (mine was a cowley one, I'm told the longbridge ones were better). The handling though was excellent, grippy and adjustable like an Alfa but with softer springs. Great cruiser, did lots of european driving in it (did 80k miles in 2 yrs despite one stint of 3 mths off the road and another of 2 mths)
The 75 was tuned to be smooth and have an easy going power curve, the BMW is tuned with a more peaky response.
Great stereo???? The 75 didn't have all the toys then - I specified the factory amp, crossover and sub (not a cheap option...) on mine and it was nearly as good as the Volvo.
Yeah. Don't. Me too.
If it's really twisty the explorer will go straight across the fields.
Auto box isn't a big deal if sticking to motorways, though a huge torque band is handy. The 75 was full on KKD. Silent V6, quiet ride, climate, cruise, manual. 140mph was the chosen indicated forward cruise, fuel tank was a bit sad (170 miles to warning at 120mph+, then 65 litres to fill) but it meant you could pick up plent of drinks. Clever design of the hidden behind bumper exaust melted the bumper...
Having driven a Mondeo, I'd say that everything you have against the Passat are what I see as failings in the Mondeo.
The gearbox is typical VW - short throw and precise. The seats have been almost universally praised by almost every review you read and I have to agree. The steering can be a bit light, but it provides enough feedback and is better than the torque steering Mondeo.
You're a blue oval fan, though. As a balance between performance, ride, handling, equipment and cost, the Passat is absolutely spot on.
I found the Mondeos to be badly built, with vague throttle and clutch and the supposed 'class leading' handling was way behind the standards set by the new Passat.
I've not driven a 3-series diesel, and probably never will - the basic
318d is a few grand more than a Passat 2.0TDI SE - it's slower, has less equipment and is a fair bit smaller.
Right. Guys. Hold on. Stop. Right there. Now.
Pete - was the 54-reg Passat you drove the new model (B6) or last of the old lot (B5.5) ? Steve - that might make a difference. Let's at least make this a fair argument, like.
Hmmm, hadn't thought about that. A 54 would more than likely be a B5.5.
We have a couple of 54 platers on the fleet, both of which are B5.5 estates.
It's always straight into libel for you isn't it?
You need to improve your reading skills BTW.
No, and you were talking about cross country, not about track days. You also missed the reference to "crossing countries" which requires a different type of vehicle to a buzzbox.
in any of the
Tssk, moving goalposts is like a hobby for you is it?
Huge comfy seats so you only need to stop when the fuel tank is empty. Cruise control so you can cruise at exactly the legal limit and not have to worry about plod. Huge torque from the engine so that it can cross mountains without frantic cog swapping, and maintain its speed on the climbs up the mountains. There are three major mountain ranges between here and there, Vosges, Alps, Appenines. The other advantage is the height of the Explorer. It means I can overtake in safety on country roads/National roads as well as on the motorway.
In every other RHD car I have driven in Europe it's impossible to overtake unless one has a passenger to look for oncoming, and trusting a passenger to look for overtaking traffic in the blind spot is nerve wracking.
The Golf was probably the worst car I have driven over long distances. Typical German seats, uncomfortable becoming painful after an hour or so. No elbow room to speak of, none of the Exploders lumbar support, air cushion thingy that can be used to massage one's back. Also it's possible to get a decent nights kip in the Exploder by either putting the front seats back or by putting the rear seats down and having a space larger than a double bed.
The record with two drivers was UK to Central Italy in a day. In everything else it takes about two days, sometime three if the departure timing gets fouled up. The Exploder's routine is UK/Luxembourg (or Reims) fill up, on to Switzerland, fill up just before leaving Switzerland, on to the destination in Italy. Three tanks in total, about 1200 miles.
Someone i work with who does the same journey reckons I should have a look at an Avensis D4D estate, because the diesel will do 800 miles to a tank, however it suffers from the height problem as well as being an Avensis.
You realise that's worse than the Exploder? You're refilling about twice as often at that rate hence wasting around 30 minutes, your extra fuelling apart from the cost means that you'll be up to four hours behind someone driving more slowly.
Had the new lights and stuff, seemed to be slightly less s**te to drive than the last Passats I drove. Interior with a silly ski-slope centre console, Mercedes rip-off ignition key, Yup, I'd say it was the B6. Looking through my paperwork, it was 05 reg, not 54.
As for me being Blue Oval man, how come I own 2 VWs and no Fords at the moment?
I don't know where you get that from, its 0-62 time is 9.2 seconds.
Hang on you've been having a look at the s**te posted by "honest" John haven't you? IRRC he gets it so badly wrong it's a joke. The Explorers sold in the UK had the high compression SOHC (which was actually a DOHC) 4.0 Cologne engine, the one that's fitted to the current Mustang. US versions had a pushrod 4.0 engine which gave the 11 seconds figure. The UK version could also top 120mph, which wasn't possible in the early US versions. When they changed to the same engine in the US, the extra speed was a factor in the tyres bursting. They had fitted under-rated tyres for the performance of the vehicle.
See
Max speed: 110 / 120 / 130 / (mph)
0 - 62 mph (100 km/h): 9.1 / 8.0 / 6.8 / (secs) Engine: 4.0 / 4.6 / 4.6 supercharged Power: 210 / 292 / 390 (BHP)
You ever thought of getting a fecking huge LPG tank for it (obviously with the LPG conversion to go with it) ?
Problem is they won't let LPG vehicles through the Chunnel.
Oh yeah, that's a bloody good point. So Steve - how many litres is the tank, or more simply, how many mpg does it get on those long runs? 2 fillups on a long journey like that doesn't sound all that bad anyway.
The Rangie I used for towing stuff to Italy used 7 20 gallon tankfulls to get to Ancona..
Even if it was a B5.5, they were and still are, a good car.
Food for thought:
I'll see all your Mundaneos and Passats, and point out that the Mk3 Golf has a far better rating on the reliability index than either the B5.5 and current shape Mundaneo.
:-P
That, and I actually own my car (outright)... ;-)
Ronni?
The Mk3 Golf???? But they never made a decent one.
I own all my cars outright :)
My Merc is better built than anything we're discussing!
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.