This must be a horrible thing to drive....

[trigger]

I can see where this is going!...

[Pete-M]

Worst thing I ever drove, with "no probable possible shadow of doubt/ no possible doubt whatever" (The Gondoliers, 1889) has to be a 2004 BMW 530d. Close second, 1983 Mercedes 307D. Two experiences I never want to repeat as long as I live; also as long as my grandchildren live!

 

So, let me get this straight - you think an FSO Polonez is worse than an early-80s Merc and a straight-six BMW?! What planet do you live on?!

 

Yup. Same as the rest of us. A Polonez has to be character buildingly awful, whereas the BMW is just soul-destroyingly competent.

[wuvvum]

Worst thing I ever drove, with "no probable possible shadow of doubt/ no possible doubt whatever" (The Gondoliers, 1889) has to be a 2004 BMW 530d. Close second, 1983 Mercedes 307D. Two experiences I never want to repeat as long as I live; also as long as my grandchildren live!

 

So, let me get this straight - you think an FSO Polonez is worse than an early-80s Merc and a straight-six BMW?! What planet do you live on?!

From my reading Mr. Ramrod's post, I believe he is saying that he thinks a Polonez is better than the Merc van and the Beemer. Read it again and see what you think.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

I think E_Richard meant to say better.

Bring on the next 10 pages I say.

[Angrydicky]

 

I love Metros, but I can't understand how anyone can think a Metro with depressurised suspension looks cool.

 

Coming to a weighbridge near you.

 

http://www.retrorides.proboards.com/ind ... read=90403

[pogweasel]

I HAT METRO'S [sic], so that pile of ruined wank would top any chart of 'this must be a horrible thing to drive' that I would be in charge of compiling.

[eddyramrod]

I was going to comment further, but I've decided to let my comments stand; they are, after all, the Voice Of Experience. Let me know when I can have my initials back, EccentricBMWSalesman...

[warren t claim]

I must be easily satisfied because I don't think I have ever been really unhappy with anything I have driven, you just have to understand the limitations of what your driving. Cheap east European cars using outdated designs are always going to be lacking the refinement and ergonomics of a newer design, it's called progress and we've become used to it.

 

If you put a 2010 sales rep used to his 320d behind the wheel of a Polonez he would think it was hideous but if you defrosted Walt Disney and chucked him the keys he'd probably think it was an ace little runabout because he knows no better.

 

I can remember being amazed by a 2200 Princess because I'd never driven anything with power steering before.

[Guest]

I can't think of much I've driven which I would describe as "horrible" to drive - new or old. I just take everything on its own merits. If I was buying new, I'd probably never be happy, but then I'm not going to be doing that.

 

At best I can think of a few specific points, but they're nothing to completely ruin a car - usually pedal positions, gearbox "feel" or overassisted power steering. I really have difficulty understanding how people can get so furious about mass-market cars like "normal" Fords/Vauxhalls - they always seem to drive alright. Basic Corsas/Fiestas are a bit tinny and low-rent inside, what do you expect? Ordinary family saloons can't usually be launched into corners at daft speeds, so what? Always puzzles me when people complain about a car when it was clearly designed to fit a purpose different to their needs - I read a review of the Citroen C6 which whinged about the handling not being particularly sporting. Why on earth would you expect a big diesel Citroen to drive like a sports car? Moreover, do you think the typical C6 owner would prefer it to have a crashy ride? What a cretin.

 

Some of my favourite cars to drive have been ones which people would consider unremarkable - I like a car where you get to work it a bit, fairly safe handling but with some limits to work within, ride which doesn't make my back hurt, I even enjoy it having a little bit of bodyroll. Still reckon my ultimate favourite is the Charmant and not just based on shite appeal, it just feels right - yet motoring magazines usually settle on it being somewhere between mediocre and decent. Other favourites are probably a MK4 Escort 1.6 GL I used for a week and an Espero 2.0 GLXi Automatic - both had a fantastic "solid" feel and just the right power balance. Yet I'm convinced had some other people driven them they would be sat there whinging all day about something or other and saying they'd rather get the bus (I'd love to force someone to actually do that).

[Guest EccentricRichard]

Worst thing I ever drove, with "no probable possible shadow of doubt/ no possible doubt whatever" (The Gondoliers, 1889) has to be a 2004 BMW 530d. Close second, 1983 Mercedes 307D. Two experiences I never want to repeat as long as I live; also as long as my grandchildren live!

 

So, let me get this straight - you think an FSO Polonez is worse than an early-80s Merc and a straight-six BMW?! What planet do you live on?!

 

Yup. Same as the rest of us. A Polonez has to be character buildingly awful, whereas the BMW is just soul-destroyingly competent.

 

Really? The BMWs of that time actually do have character, and the way they can just be flung into corners and pushed out with the back end nibbling away at the edge of traction... far better than the kind of Terminal Understeer crap it seems some people here like...

 

Oh, and I know this is subjective, but the Polonez is far and away the ugliest of the three, even though the Merc is a van (sorry, when I saw 307D, I immediately mixed it up with the 300D, which, of course, was the six-pot diesel W123, I can understand the 307D might be a tad shit).

[Guest EccentricRichard]

I think E_Richard meant to say better.

 

Indeed I did - but please let's not go on and on about this!

[Guest]

That's exactly what I'm talking about - do I really want to fling a car into a corner and dance around the limits of oversteer? It sounds absolutely thrilling, but on actual roads, it doesn't generally translate that well. I've hurried some of my rear wheel drive stuff into roundabouts a bit too fast (usually because I've been late for work) and felt the back end do a "wobble" - always easily caught as I've never been driving too daft - but when you're on a roundabout with the possibility of lorries and suchlike turning up, for a flicker of a moment your insides feel numb - at least mine do, and I wouldn't describe myself as a big wuss when it comes to cars. There is a small satisfaction of a job well done, but also a deeper feeling of "I shouldn't have had to do that". A bit like when I bury kids down the canal.

 

Incidentally, unexpected understeer gives my guts roughly the same feeling as it does unexpected oversteer.

 

Edit: Just to add, this is more of a general comment than quoting anything specific - good handling does not automatically make a car great, nor does it endow it with "character". There's a lot of cars with good handling which are absolutely humdrum.

[seth]

Really? The BMWs of that time actually do have character, and the way they can just be flung into corners and pushed out with the back end nibbling away at the edge of traction...

 

Don't forget that dab of oppo!

[eddyramrod]

the Merc is a van (sorry, when I saw 307D, I immediately mixed it up with the 300D, which, of course, was the six-pot diesel W123, I can understand the 307D might be a tad shit).

 

This is going to be interesting... please (please!) explain exactly why being a van gives the 307D so much more likelihood of shiteness than the 300D being a car. Ohhhhhhhh I'm going to love this...

[pogweasel]

Have you driven many BMWs of the era recently then Eccentric_Dickhead...?

[scaryoldcortina]

[Guest EccentricRichard]

the Merc is a van (sorry, when I saw 307D, I immediately mixed it up with the 300D, which, of course, was the six-pot diesel W123, I can understand the 307D might be a tad shit).

 

This is going to be interesting... please (please!) explain exactly why being a van gives the 307D so much more likelihood of shiteness than the 300D being a car. Ohhhhhhhh I'm going to love this...

 

The 300D, while not exactly the slipperiest thing in existence, is still a hang sight more aerodynamic than the 307D. Also, the 300D used an inline five, whereas the 307D is an inline four - the five ought to be a bit smoother, and a bit more powerful (Wikipedia tells me that the 4-pot never had more than 78bhp, which, in something as big, heavy and brick-like as that van sounds painful). Oh, and the van's centre of gravity will be quite high, not a good sign in terms of its handling.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

That's exactly what I'm talking about - do I really want to fling a car into a corner and dance around the limits of oversteer? It sounds absolutely thrilling, but on actual roads, it doesn't generally translate that well. I've hurried some of my rear wheel drive stuff into roundabouts a bit too fast (usually because I've been late for work) and felt the back end do a "wobble" - always easily caught as I've never been driving too daft - but when you're on a roundabout with the possibility of lorries and suchlike turning up, for a flicker of a moment your insides feel numb - at least mine do, and I wouldn't describe myself as a big wuss when it comes to cars. There is a small satisfaction of a job well done, but also a deeper feeling of "I shouldn't have had to do that". A bit like when I bury kids down the canal.

 

Incidentally, unexpected understeer gives my guts roughly the same feeling as it does unexpected oversteer.

 

Edit: Just to add, this is more of a general comment than quoting anything specific - good handling does not automatically make a car great, nor does it endow it with "character". There's a lot of cars with good handling which are absolutely humdrum.

 

Oh, absolutely, unexpected oversteer isn't nice... but when it's planned for on a nice empty B-road, it's very enjoyable. Anyway, thinking of the 5-series to which the original poster referred, it being 2004 vintage, it was either a very late E39 or an early E65 - either way, 255-section rear tyres IIRC, it doesn't lose traction THAT easily! Plus you've got the traction control nanny to help you out... and I seem to remember that you have to hold the traction control button in for eight seconds or something like that to turn it off? Bastards. But anyway, it won't just suddenly oversteer when you're not expecting it, not unless you're driving a wet road with the T/C off - and even so, you get a little understeer first to warn you to back off before you feel the back end starting to lose grip.

 

I can't comment so much on the Bimmer diesels, but there's something about BMWs with petrol inline sixes... the way they steer, the precision of the gearchange, the snarl of the engine (somehow, BMW's relatively 'ordinary' engines still have soul, when a lot of others don't)... and there's a definite smell to them which I like. I do definitely understand that cars with good handling can be dull - let's face it, most modern cars handle quite well, but are quite dull (Lexus GS, anyone?!)

[pogweasel]

 

Oh, absolutely, unexpected oversteer isn't nice... but when it's planned for on a nice empty B-road, it's very enjoyable.

How would you know, you cannot drive?

there's something about BMWs with petrol inline sixes... the way they steer, the precision of the gearchange, the snarl of the engine

All gained through your extensive driving experience? THOUGHT NOT.

 

I do definitely understand that cars with good handling can be dull - let's face it, most modern cars handle quite well, but are quite dull (Lexus GS, anyone?!)

Do you understand about good and dull handling cars? Do you? When you can't drive??

 

SPASTIC.

[Mr Lobster]

Oh, absolutely, unexpected oversteer isn't nice... but when it's planned for on a nice empty B-road, it's very enjoyable.

 

How would you know, you cannot drive?

 

Probably interupts the DVD of High School Musical, spills his pop and crisps all over the back seat. That can't be nice can it.

[scaryoldcortina]

Oh, absolutely, unexpected oversteer isn't nice... but when it's read about in Top Gear magazine it sounds very enjoyable.

 

EFFA (mfkr)

[Guest]

the Merc is a van (sorry, when I saw 307D, I immediately mixed it up with the 300D, which, of course, was the six-pot diesel W123, I can understand the 307D might be a tad shit).

 

This is going to be interesting... please (please!) explain exactly why being a van gives the 307D so much more likelihood of shiteness than the 300D being a car. Ohhhhhhhh I'm going to love this...

 

The 300D, while not exactly the slipperiest thing in existence, is still a hang sight more aerodynamic than the 307D. Also, the 300D used an inline five, whereas the 307D is an inline four - the five ought to be a bit smoother, and a bit more powerful (Wikipedia tells me that the 4-pot never had more than 78bhp, which, in something as big, heavy and brick-like as that van sounds painful). Oh, and the van's centre of gravity will be quite high, not a good sign in terms of its handling.

 

Yeah, it'll be shit round the Karoussel, but do you know what? It's probably quite handy as a van.

 

Please shut the fuck up about driving until you can actually drive. Please.

[pogweasel]

This must be a horrible thing to drive...

Would LOVE your opinion though, Egotistical_Richard...

[RedSparrow]

Ah, a fight about FSO vs BMW, this is what this forum is for!

 

By the way, my BMW E30 is an absolute pleasure to drive. Makes me

[wuvvum]

(sorry, when I saw 307D, I immediately mixed it up with the 300D, which, of course, was the six-pot diesel W123, I can understand the 307D might be a tad shit).

I'm pretty sure the W123 300D was five-pot, not six.

[RedSparrow]

I'm pretty sure the W123 300D was five-pot, not six.

 

It was indeed.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

ER's impenetrable wall of glossy-mag 'facts' is literally falling down around his ears!

[fiatdaft]

i think its a wind up tbh.

[Pete-M]

Hmm. If you read any magazine in the world, it'll tell you that a Jag XJR is a fast car and handles very well for something of its size. CAR magazine used to label them as "Steroid cars".

 

If you read the same magazines, it'll tell you that a Fiat Cinquecento Sporting is a buzzy little thing that is enjoyable to drive and nippy in the bends, but it isn't fast.

 

My mate Rik has a Cinquecento Sporting which is slightly tweaked, better shocks, bigger wheels, sticky tyres and a few other tweaks. I was following him down some twisty lanes earlier in my 326 bhp, RWD, Steroid car. Could only just keep up with the bloody Cinque as the little Fiat could avoid most of the bumps that the Jag couldn't with being on big fat sticky steroidal tyres. This meant that the Ãœberfast Jag's traction control kept interfering - I wasn't gonna switch it off on damp, leaf strewn lanes - killing the power and slowing progress somewhat. On any straight that didn't have bumps the Jag could easy catch the little Cinque, but the lane was too bumpy to give it beans.

 

End result was pretty much a draw, but the Fiat will have been more fun. The Jag was just a big fat handful, but probably less of a handful than an M5 or E55 would have been. Don't tell you that in magazines...

[Justin Case]

Don't believe all you read. The mags will tell you that an engine behind the back axle is bound to cause terminal oversteer and you are likely to go off backwards at the first sharp bend. I've been halfway across Europe as a passenger with such a set-up, but I never noticed the driver having any trouble.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...... perhaps the Scania Irizar designers don't read the same mags as ER