But they're wrong

[richardthestag]

Being a flat-broke full-time student, blah blah

 

Crikey 1/2 term already!!

 

Well my dad is probably older than your dad, shit I am probably older than your dad!!

 

The first reliable car my dad had was a 1971 Marina - bought when it was 2 years old, previous to that he had Ford Classics, Vauxhall FC and FD estates all of which required frequent repairs and rustproofing. The Marina worked straight out of the box and kept going happily for many years. The first was sooo reliable and effective as a family car that he bought another. Across the ownership of two marinas nothing went wrong with either of them, nor did they rust. the 72 car was still going strong in 1984 when I might have had an accident but NOT as a result of the cars predictable understeer.

 

mind you we love shite in our family, which can boast long term ownership in addition to the brace of Marinas, Vauxhall FC and FD estates, Allegro estates and 1500HL, TR7, Cortina Mk4 Estate, Triumph 1500, MG Montego EFI, many Sierras, Mk3 Granadas, Metro (Studio2 no less) Fiat UNO, brace of Pandas, 3 Citroen BXs etc etc etc I'd happily revisit ownership of any of these

[richardthestag]

and you don't see any early golfs for a very good reason - from 1977 on IIRC they were better rust protected - the early ones were as bad as any 1970s Fiat.

In the mid 1980s my mum had a 1978 Golf and it went very rusty. 1100cc with a 4 speed box for loads of noise at 60+mph

 

The 1.8GTi was much better, but not a patch on the Alfasud Sprint I had at the same time. VW's marketing was spot-on though

 

That reminded me of my friend, Stewart, who owned a P reg Golf. The bulkhead was so rusty that the steering column would move when he pressed down on the clutch

[Guest EccentricRichard]

Shows what you know about Golfs. Look at their prices - generally at least 4k more than the equivalent Kia or Hyundai or whatever.

New Golf, Kia or Hyundai?

 

All a bit meh to be honest. I'd rather spend £12k on something enjoyable, such as:

 

Peugeot 504 coupe, Talbot Tagora V6, a Matra Rancho and a Panhard 24, that's without moving from ebay.fr Others sensible choices are available, see the ebay thread here for details.

 

And you'd still need another car to actually get you about when that lot had broken down, perhaps a nice 1980s Golf for example

 

Absolutely right! That's why I'm on Autoshite and not Auto Express... I was just using the pricing of those cars to illustrate my point.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

The very idea that people pine away aspiring for a Goof or BowelMovement makes me fold in half. That's it? That's the Mt. Everest?

 

Yeah, me too. Can't understand it. My parents' cars are both BMWs, but bought secondhand (the 520i for £3990, despite just one owner, 8 years and 54k miles under its wheels), and bought not for badge prestige (parents couldn't give a flying f**k about that bullcrap), but simply because they're bloody well-built and handle beautifully, turn the TC off and you just get a little bit of understeer followed by oh-so-predictable oversteer. Lots of fun. You wouldn't believe the amount of speed the 1.6 ton 520iT can carry into corners... I'm hoping to buy it off my parents in a few years' time and take it and a few mates to the Nurburgring, and (hopefully) make it back home without crashing! =)

 

Also, now Dad's had a car with a straight-six engine, he's absolutely refused ever to have a V6... and, at the moment, only BMW and Ford Australia are building straight-six car engines, which kind of limits his choice! Also, with their lives being as hectic as they are, much as they'd like to be in proper shite, they can't really afford to...

[whitevanman]

If you can afford to buiy and run those pair of Beemers......you could afford to drive shite.........

[garethj]

Also, now Dad's had a car with a straight-six engine, he's absolutely refused ever to have a V6

Yeah, there's no way I'd give house room to an Alfa 164 with its V6, a Citroen SM with its Maserati V6, a Porsche 911 with its flat 6, a Lancia Aurelia with its jewel of a V6, a Lancia Stratos with its V6....

 

In fact, someone offered me a Renault Alpine with a V6 last week and I told him to sod off or get the cylinders lined up. He bleated on about they'd stick out through the rear wing but I sent him off with a flea in his ear

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

To be fair, aren't V6s a bit more complicated than straight sixes?

[garethj]

To be fair, aren't V6s a bit more complicated than straight sixes?

In what way? They're not as well balanced, but I wouldn't discount a car just because it had a V6.

 

But I've also owned V4, V8 and V12 engined cars

[M'coli]

V6s don't suffer from the torsional vibration issues that an I-6 has because of the long crank.

[scaryoldcortina]

Hey here's an idea... you do a head gasket on your dad's bimmer, I'll do both head gaskets on autofive's scimitar then we cam compare notes on complexity.

 

I have a new car! It's a 1990 1.8 CVH sierra sapphire and its GR8

[Guest EccentricRichard]

If you can afford to buiy and run those pair of Beemers......you could afford to drive shite.........

 

Not really. It's more a matter of time than money... the working week is seven days long (each working day starting early in the morning and rarely finishing before 9pm). The BMWs don't cost much to run anyway. Parts and labour are mostly cheap (even at the main dealer), they both do about 38mpg, they hardly need any work doing to them anyway. Mind you, all four brake discs on the E39 are close to scrapping size (having done 76,000 miles or so), and that's going to be about £450 to do, IIRC...

[M'coli]

If you can afford to buiy and run those pair of Beemers......you could afford to drive shite.........

 

Not really. It's more a matter of time than money... the working week is seven days long (each working day starting early in the morning and rarely finishing before 9pm). The BMWs don't cost much to run anyway. Parts and labour are mostly cheap (even at the main dealer), they both do about 38mpg, they hardly need any work doing to them anyway. Mind you, all four brake discs on the E39 are close to scrapping size (having done 76,000 miles or so), and that's going to be about £450 to do, IIRC...

I've got a Saab 900 for sale that's cheaper than the brake discs.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

To be fair, aren't V6s a bit more complicated than straight sixes?

In what way? They're not as well balanced, but I wouldn't discount a car just because it had a V6.

 

No, neither would I, but I'm not much of a mentalist. If engineers thought the same way as EccentricRichard's dad straight-8s would still exist.

 

Anyway, V6's complexity? I guess it's just the two heads. The Rover KV6 has 3 cambelts I believe.

[scruff]

I could replace the entire braking system on my LR with genuine bits and get a new set of tyres for less than £450.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

Yeah, there's no way I'd give house room to an Alfa 164 with its V6, a Citroen SM with its Maserati V6, a Porsche 911 with its flat 6, a Lancia Aurelia with its jewel of a V6, a Lancia Stratos with its V6....

 

In fact, someone offered me a Renault Alpine with a V6 last week and I told him to sod off or get the cylinders lined up. He bleated on about they'd stick out through the rear wing but I sent him off with a flea in his ear

 

It's all about balance. The inline six has inherently balanced primary and secondary moments, making it smoother than the V6. Also, flat-sixes are irrelevant here - I'm talking I6 vs V6. You can't get a front-engined car with a flat-six (except old Subarus) anyway. I wouldn't mind a V6 for some applications, but, when you consider that the V6 is heavier, more complex, has twice as many camshafts, cam chains/belts, cylinder heads, valves, head gaskets, etc, the straight-six starts to make sense.

 

Mind you, I'm no big fan of internal combustion engines in general for modern transport. It's high time the internal combustion engine was relegated to secondary source of propulsion, with most modern cars being electrically-powered with gas turbines to stop 'em running out of juice... a hell of a lot more efficient than even the smoothest, best-designed of IC engines.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

how does this combo of electric power and gas turbine wortk then?

[Guest EccentricRichard]

I could replace the entire braking system on my LR with genuine bits and get a new set of tyres for less than £450.

 

Fair enough, but I bet your LR ain't doing 22,000 miles a year, 7 days a week...

[scruff]

It is actually

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Steam power is the future of the past.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

If engineers thought the same way as EccentricRichard's dad straight-8s would still exist.

 

Not true. Just as the straight-six is better than the V6, the V8 (in cross plane crank configuration) is better than the straight-eight. The CPC V8 is balanced, compact and doesn't have torsional load issues on the crankshaft. The S8 is too long (so you get torsional issues on the crankshaft), it ain't balanced (being essentially two four-cylinder engines stuck together - you get the same problem with a flat-plane crank V8), and there are obvious packaging issues.

[Guest EccentricRichard]

how does this combo of electric power and gas turbine wortk then?

 

Like the Capstone CMT-380, or the better-known Jaguar CXS-75... the turbine drives a generator (I'm assuming through a reduction gearbox), the generator charges the onboard battery, which also drives the electric motors. The efficiency gains are such that much of the time you don't need the turbines anyway - and they weigh a vast amount less than an internal combustion engine, and have no vibration to talk of, as there are no reciprocating masses (they also use something like a twentieth of the number of parts in the average IC engine, so they'll be vastly more reliable). Add in the ability to plug the car in and charge it overnight in a garage and you've got yet further gains (including, of course, in your electricity bill ). Trust me, the technology works, and it won't be long until we see it in the mainstream. Pure electric vehicles already work well (they just have severe range limitations). GM has the Chevrolet Volt (Opel/Vauxhall Ampera, as it'll be called in Europe), but it still uses the internal combustion engine to drive the generator (and, it seems, if you're low on juice, the generator will double as another motor, pushing motion from the engine straight to the wheels or something like that). Capstone have been working on turbine range extenders for years, and Jaguar are catching up quickly.

[garethj]

It's all about balance. The inline six has inherently balanced primary and secondary moments, making it smoother than the V6. Also, flat-sixes are irrelevant here - I'm talking I6 vs V6. You can't get a front-engined car with a flat-six (except old Subarus) anyway. I wouldn't mind a V6 for some applications, but, when you consider that the V6 is heavier, more complex, has twice as many camshafts, cam chains/belts, cylinder heads, valves, head gaskets, etc, the straight-six starts to make sense.

True, the straight 6 is smooth but new fangled technology can make other engines smooth enough to not notice.

 

For me, there's more to life than smoothness which is why I had a soft spot for the Suzuki Cappuccino with its turbo 3 cylinder, the bonkers Tatra V8s and I even loved the old Audi 100 with its straight 5. Keep your eyes and opinions open IMHO

 

Is a V6 really heavier? I'm not sure a direct comparison has ever been done, but as you can perhaps make the rest of the car smaller to fit a V6 it's not so clear cut. The rest of your statement isn't necessarily true either, as a quick look over different V engines will show. You might want to have a particular rethink on why a V6 has twice as many valves as an inline 6

[Guest EccentricRichard]

It is actually

 

And I bet it won't average 85mph up the M40 while feeling like it's got plenty more to go AND return a calculated 41mpg (yes, you heard that right, that's what the E39 did on a run up to Oxford)...

[garethj]

It is actually

 

And I bet it won't average 85mph up the M40 while feeling like it's got plenty more to go AND return a calculated 41mpg (yes, you heard that right, that's what the E39 did on a run up to Oxford)...

True, but his average speed will still be higher because people will let him out of junctions

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

z

 

Who the fuck gives a shit about your dad's BMW?

[Lankytim]

The gas turbine engine is an internal combustion engine is it not?

[Guest EccentricRichard]

True, the straight 6 is smooth but new fangled technology can make other engines smooth enough to not notice. For me, there's more to life than smoothness which is why I had a soft spot for the Suzuki Cappuccino with its turbo 3 cylinder, the bonkers Tatra V8s and I even loved the old Audi 100 with its straight 5. Keep your eyes and opinions open IMHO.

 

Is a V6 really heavier? I'm not sure a direct comparison has ever been done, but as you can perhaps make the rest of the car smaller to fit a V6 it's not so clear cut. The rest of your statement isn't necessarily true either, as a quick look over different V engines will show. You might want to have a particular rethink on why a V6 has twice as many valves as an inline 6

 

I know there's new-fangled technology: the four-banger 318i has it. It's got balancer shafts to make it smoother. The result is you lose efficiency, gain inertia, and the throttle response is spoilt. There's something utterly wonderful about the purity of a straight-six: it's the bare necessities of the internal combustion engine and nothing more. It revs so fast that, when my parents first got it, they found its throttle response so much sharper than the 318i that they kept hitting the rev limiter.

 

Those Tatras (which I adore) had cross plane crank V8s, so they were balanced. Also, straight-fives, although not quite straight-sixes, are still smoother than four-cylinder engines (plus they make a wonderful noise). I have an ambition to revive Rover as a maker of rear-wheel-drive saloons, with the smallest engine you can get being an inline five, with a six further up the range, and a V8 at the top... plus a turbine range extender as the 'green' option.

 

And yes, I was entirely wrong on the 'twice as many valves' thing

[Guest EccentricRichard]

It is actually

 

And I bet it won't average 85mph up the M40 while feeling like it's got plenty more to go AND return a calculated 41mpg (yes, you heard that right, that's what the E39 did on a run up to Oxford)...

True, but his average speed will still be higher because people will let him out of junctions

 

Strangely, the dark green E39 520i is always let out of junctions really quickly, much more so than the blue E46 318i. People seem to like green cars more...

[scruff]

It is actually

 

And I bet it won't average 85mph up the M40 while feeling like it's got plenty more to go AND return a calculated 41mpg (yes, you heard that right, that's what the E39 did on a run up to Oxford)...

 

Sorry Richard. It'll do 85mph, but only 35mpg. I feel so inadequate

[Guest EccentricRichard]

The gas turbine engine is an internal combustion engine is it not?

 

Strictly speaking, yes - but I was using the term 'internal combustion engine' in the common understanding of its meaning, as a reciprocating-mass piston engine.