Modern cars are GR8...

[Lord Sterling]

I quite like the Vectras too, they look good in my opinion and do the job they were intended to do very well. I've had a 1.6LS, and I've also driven the 1.8, 2.0 and 2.5 varients, all were very capable, easy and comfortable cars to drive.

 

The 1.6 I had was comfortable, quick(ish) had a great stereo and looked great. I have also never understood why people dispise them so much. For that alone, I'd say its a great future contender for future autoshite as they are the cars that some seem to vocally hate.

[Guest]

like i said put the vectra into context.

 

OK. Modern cars are dull. Even by these standards Vectra Bs are boring. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them, they're just........not very interesting.

If I was in the market for a cheap D segment car I'd have a Mk 3 Cavalier or a diesel Xantia. The former in particular seem indestructible.

 

Driven a GSi V6 Vectra B. Torque steered like a bastard and wanted to go in a straight line. It was fairly fast between corners and the interior didn't rattle, although half of it didn't work. Zzzz. The 1600 I drove felt like it would have difficulty putting a decent distance from my Amazon. Boot was big though.

Omega I'll grant you. They're nice pieces of kit, but still aren't quite as nice as a well sorted GSI 3000 Carlton which I imagine can be had for similar money. I would suspect the rust protection is better on the Omega though.

[Negative Creep]

To be honest part of the reason we find modern cars so dull is that they're common. If this was 1980 we'd all be typing (well. writing in to a magazine and waiting two months to see if it was published) how dull the Marina and mk.1 Escort are as they're everywhere and all new cars look the same. In 2030 the sight of a clean Vectra or Corsa will even make me smile slightly

[Mr_Bo11ox]

WARNING - PRO/ANTI-VAUXHALL FLAME WAR IMMINENT. TAKE COVER IN SHELTERED AREAS

[Guest]

To be honest part of the reason we find modern cars so dull is that they're common. If this was 1980 we'd all be typing (well. writing in to a magazine and waiting two months to see if it was published) how dull the Marina and mk.1 Escort are as they're everywhere and all new cars look the same. In 2030 the sight of a clean Vectra or Corsa will even make me smile slightly

 

I would quite happily write to Sir!

 

If it still existed, and CAR magazine hadn't gone needlessly 'lifestyle.'

 

It's a fair point NC. The stuff Autoshite lusts after was probably despised when new. Or is that the point? Retrospective disdain? I forget.

Perhaps the AS canon was disliked for different reasons to what we deplore nowadays.

[Lord Sterling]

I guess it all depends in what we look for in a car. Some people are very, very particular by the way a car drives/steers/brakes/changes gears etc.... Some are swayed by the comforts/toys, and some just aint bothered, as long as it goes and stops when it suppose to.

 

The toher thing I like about vectras is that, because they are common, parts can easily be had and very cheaply. fair enough on the sensors bit, they are tricky and a bit more expensive. They are now at a stage were its a lottery to find a decent one, some will have been owned from new and therefore very well cared for. Some though, will have been driven into the ground, most probably because they are going through the stages of being bought for low 3-figure/high 2 figure sums by those that dont care what they drive.

 

All in all, the Vectra, for me at least seems a very good package, the ones I've driven seem pretty well nailed together.

 

*Takes cover expecting a barrage of disagreements*

[fiatdaft]

modern cars are dull? i take it you have only driven the dull ones in dull situations! there are many that just ain't dull. btw sensors can be bought aftermarket just like other parts very cheaply.

[Guest]

modern cars are dull? i take it you have only driven the dull ones in dull situations! there are many that just ain't dull. btw sensors can be bought aftermarket just like other parts very cheaply.

 

Yes, modern cars are dull. I drove my C4 on Castle Combe and it was still dull. They make up for it in certain ways, like not rusting. Essentially, every category C car wants to be a Golf, so you get variations on a theme with varying degrees of success. The Golf was dull as ditchwater even with the OMGIVEJUSTCOME blue dashboard lighting, and the Mk4 was over ten years ago now.

 

Not a lot of new stuff interests me, but then again this is Autoshite. If my numbers came up there aren't many new cars I'd be after, unless you want to talk stupid money. I don't even think they make the Morgan Aeromax any more, for instance. Wouldn't fucking lose that in a car park.

 

Tell me which modern cars aren't dull. Bear in mind I drove a new Fiat 500, and whilst I found it far less hateful than a BINI, I still didn't like it much. It wasn't exciting. I then tried an Abarth, which was pokey for a little car (I use the term 'little' relatively) but didn't want to corner hard unless the road surface was perfect. Then again, I know you're very happy with yours. I suppose new cars put me off because of the bitterly sour experience I had with my C4 in the first 6 months of ownership, where it went downhill and didn't get any better from there until I stopped caring about a couple of its more irritating faults. If new stuff had more redeeming features I might feel less ambivalent.

[fiatdaft]

a c4 is dull,there are other cars out there!

[Negative Creep]

Even the most dismal of 80's and 70's cars give you some degree of brake and steering feel, something entirely absent from every modern car I've driven. It's the complete detachment that puts me off

[Guest]

a c4 is dull,there are other cars out there!

 

What, that I can afford without being reamed on some godawful finance agreement? Indeed.

Not wanting to have a go or anything, but I've done that and it was bollocks. Expectations not met, lots of money paid out, dribble bollocks bling blah.

 

I probably should clean the C4 actually. I haven't bothered in nearly three months and looks disgusting. Then again, I'm a student, we're not known for our high standards of automotive or sartorial elegance.

[Guest]

Even the most dismal of 80's and 70's cars give you some degree of brake and steering feel, something entirely absent from every modern car I've driven. It's the complete detachment that puts me off

 

That said, my Celeste drove like someone had coupled a supertanker helm with an impeccably smooth engine and gearbox, and then added the slackest diff in the world to finish on. And the seats were shite. That said, I could see out of it.

[fiatdaft]

look i love shite cars but i don't wear rose tinted specs,wat i bet for what you are paying/paid for your c4 there would be a few other interesting modern choices,and as for feel,the last m3/350z /even mx5 had more feel than my old 1979 1300 beta berlina,i know you guys hate moderns but a 2010 insignia exlusive is the equivilant of a 79 cavi 1600l ,your c4 is the modern equivilant of a gsa special,steering and brake feel when going to the shops and going to work is as important now as it was in 1979 (or your year of choice) my 1400 punto was loads of fun round the nurburgring,actually it was fun getting there too,i like shite cars but there are some that are shit,they were also shit when they were new,just like alot of moderns, (i'm in the trade so i get to drive many) as i say i like shite,but i am realistic and i don't wear rose tinted specs.

 

you should have bought my celeste gsr!

[Guest]

look i love shite cars but i don't wear rose tinted specs,wat i bet for what you are paying/paid for your c4 there would be a few other interesting modern choices,and as for feel,the last m3/350z /even mx5 had more feel than my old 1979 1300 beta berlina,i know you guys hate moderns but a 2010 insignia exlusive is the equivilant of a 79 cavi 1600l ,your c4 is the modern equivilant of a gsa special,steering and brake feel when going to the shops and going to work is as important now as it was in 1979 (or your year of choice) my 1400 punto was loads of fun round the nurburgring,actually it was fun getting there too,i like shite cars but there are some that are shit,they were also shit when they were new,just like alot of moderns, (i'm in the trade so i get to drive many) as i say i like shite,but i am realistic and i don't wear rose tinted specs.

 

you should have bought my celeste gsr!

 

I had a Celeste GSR, and it was in better nick than yours. I loved the car and its 7/8ths Audi 100 Coupe styling but didn't like how it drove, and it needed too much work for what I had to spend.

 

For what I paid for the C4 I couldn't have afforded a M3 or 350Z. Not even close. Not even in a million years. New MX5s are what, £17-18k? The MX5s I could afford are gutless little slugs, horribly rot prone and will have been thrashed by every hairdresser from here to Nagasaki.

Christ, how much money do you think I have?

 

I don't wear rose tinted specs. Old cars are a pain the arse. I ran my Amazon for two months in the summer because MOTHA_WAT needed a larger car and the running costs crippled me. I was also wary of getting it wet and whether or not it would start in the morning. Don't get me wrong, modern cars have their place but don't expect me to get excited about them. I bought my C4 to do a job. Modern cars do a job. They're supposed to work and need nothing but routine maintenance for at least 4-5 years. Then I will accept that things begin to wear out. If they can't do that, what exactly is the point of them?

 

Reliability, even in an old car is quite boring. Constantly replacing knackered parts is as grimly bollocks.

 

I can't ever see myself buying a 'nice' new car, to be honest. I'd take a company car if it was offered. Now that's what owning a modern is about. Thrash it to fuck, don't pay for tax, don't pay for servicing or parts, hand it back when done, get another. White goods for white shirts. WIN.

[fiatdaft]

did your celeste cost £150? mine did. i could do you a very nice uk low miles 350z for less than the cost of a new c4,btw i have been there using the car for (131 sport ) mon- sat for work and repairing it on the sunday to get me to work for the next week,and i only worked 3 miles away.i had a choice while buying the punto,and thats what it came to.choice. although with this weather i seem to be closer to choosing a ford explorer thats on the go (arrrrghhh) but i do have the choice.

[Guest]

did your celeste cost £150? mine did. i could do you a very nice uk low miles 350z for less than the cost of a new c4

 

Nope, my Celeste was £450. But there's still more than £300's worth of work \ fabrication in yours to get up the state mine was in. And I seem to remember you wanting £400 for your Celeste, so I wouldn't get it for '£150', would I?

 

Can you imagine how hard the insurance would laugh at me when I went for a quote on a 350Z? It's lost a lot of money if it's worth less than a new C4.

From what you've said it seems as if you have to spend mega money to get a modern that's exciting to drive \ quick. The bread and butter stuff on offer is dull and not that special to drive. I could mention the four letter model of a very well known German manufacturer now, but I won't. What a fucking disappointment. It wasn't the best driving \ riding \ handling \ stopping car ever like the magazines said, and the way they were banging on, it bloody well should have been.

 

I imagine your 131 does more than 22 MPG on a run anyway. I know the Amazon makes a crap daily. That's why it isn't used as one.

 

The only definite advantage a modern has over anything older is in terms of safety. Then again, I don't go out looking to cause an accident like the majority of the half witted cunts on the road at the moment.

 

In the end, you're right. It does boil down to choice, and I chose wrong.

[Pete-M]

What kills Vectras for me is everything between the front and rear bumpers.

 

I really can't abide the things. Boring to look at, shit to drive, uncomfortable seats (unless Recaros are present), and generally miserable to be in. The ride quality is dire and they all seem to do this strange floaty thing at the rear end, as if the rear springs and shocks were specified by people who'd never met or indeed travelled in a car. The ride is crashy one minute and boat-like the next, but always at precisely the wrong time. The centre armrest on the late Mk1s is a joke, designed seemingly to just get in the way. The gearshift is woefully imprecise, and when the bushes are even slightly worn becomes a lottery. The clutch seems to have a very 'over-centre' action. The steering is vague and imprecise on most. The gearing is all wrong on most, short first and second gear, reasonable third, fourth kills all momentum and fifth is insanely long to save fuel on downhill bits of the motorway but is useless elsewhere. They blow headlamp bulbs for fun, the cambelt sensor limp-home mode thing is just comical and the dot matrix info display seems to have the lifespan of a mosquito. The ashtrays nearly always break which results in them sticking open, and it's rare to see one with working cupholders or an unbroken centre armrest hinge. The overhead cubby on the late Mk1s is a joke. The steering wheel is almost exactly wrong to hold. The mirrors would fit in Barbie's handbag - yet they went to the hassle of fairing the things into the wings. The bonnet cables always feel like they're about to snap - if they haven't done just that. The handbrake is always crap. The 2.0 16v DTi is agricultural and burns more oil than the first Gulf war. The carpets are made out of something which seems to fluff up and wear out in a matter of seconds, and which looked cheap and crap when new.

 

They do have a few plus points though.

 

1: The 2.0 and V6 ones were quite nippy. Definately quicker than the equivalent Mondeos.

2: They tend to be quite good on fuel.

3: Big boots.

4: RDS clock.

5: The SRi and GSi seem to ride and handle better than cooking ones.

6: There are a lot less now than there used to be.

 

 

 

As for old cars being a ball-ache. Yeah. Of course they are. That's why 'normal' people don't have them. With a few exceptions, there aren't many old cars that are as painless to own as something built in the last 10 years or so. Even a 10 year old Micra is designed to go up to 18000 miles between services, but with something from the 70's or '80s you'd be brave to leave the oil for more than 6000 and you'll be fixing stuff in between so it works out as a permanent service. With most old stuff on carbs you'll end up changing plugs, points, leads, or distributor caps every winter, there are valve clearances to set, mixtures to adjust, grease nipples to deal with and you have to keep a demon eye on levels and gauges all the time. There's no OBD on the majority of '70s and '80s stuff so instead of spending 30 seconds asking the car what's wrong you have to fiddle about eliminating everything and working through faults whereas with a Focus you can plug it in and it'll tell you pretty much exactly what the problem is.

 

Then there's the lifespan of bits on most old stuff. Firstly you've got the age of the bits involved. With stuff like bushes they've had the weight of the car on 'em for 20 odd years which isn't going to help. Then there have been the material advances with the parts involved. In the '80s if a car had 100k on the clock it was almost guaranteed to be an expensive liability. Nowadays there are loads of cars out there that have done 100k in the first two years and have only needed routine servicing, a few tyres, a set or two of brake pads and there's nothing at all wrong with them. Tell that to Cortina / Cavalier / Princess / 131 man from the '70s and he'd be astounded that you've not needed to replace all four shocks, the camshaft, exhaust system and sills.

 

Modern stuff is bull-buggeringly reliable and maintenance free in comparison to cars from even the '80s, although that seems to be when the tide finally turned. Not long ago I was reading a CAR long term test from 1986. Over 20k miles the amount of warranty work needed was astonishing, rust repairs, clutch cables, gearbox rebuild, shocks, the list went on, but it didn't appear to be out of the ordinary. Seat fabric wearing thin in 20k just wouldn't be acceptible now. The only stuff out there that unreliable now tends to have a Griffin on the front and a CDTi badge on the back...

[barefoot]

I'm having a bit of a 'well surely they can't be that bad' moment here,

there's a bloke on here drives a Torslanda & a Sherpa

I drive a VW Scirocco & a VW T2 Camper

 

although I've never actually driven a Vectra

I imagine them to be an improved version of a Mk3 Cavalier

again, not a car I've actually driven,

but I did own a 3 yr old X plate 1.6 Cavalier 2

and in it's day it was amazing. Economical & rapid.

 

I think that the majority of the Vectra hatred is

down to that twat Clarkson's disappointment, that it

was merely an advance, a progression on the Cavalier.

And not the mind boggling stepping stone progression that

the Mk2 Cav was over the lacklustre Mk 1 Cav*

 

 

*you see - a first generation Cavalier is almost sought after on here,

as is a Rover 213 SE so why not a Vectra?

 

I think it's all down to Clarkson & I don't really have much time for him.

 

.

[fiatdaft]

wat ,i ain't having a go at you,my point is that not all moderns are boring and not all shite cars are actually that great to own! there are other points i could go over but you could think that i am being argumentative but i'm not,a spade is just another fecking spade,thats all.

[Pete-M]

*you see - a first generation Cavalier is almost sought after on here,

as is a Rover 213 SE so why not a Vectra?

 

I think it's all down to Clarkson & I don't really have much time for him.

 

I worked for Avis when the Vectra first came out. Although I wasn't a fan of the Mk3 Cav it wasn't a bad car, just a bit ordinary and a bit old feeling in comparison to a Mondeo or Laguna. The Vectra looked quite smart at first glance and I was quite looking forward to driving one when we got our first batch of shiny new N reg GLS hatches delivered.

 

I remember walking up to one, plipping the central locking, checking out those funky faired in mirrors, the RDS clock, the little thingumabbobin clipped to the petrol flap for removing the tyre dust caps. All seemed rather funky. Sat in it, and remember thinking that the driving position was a bit weird, the steering wheel seemed to be in the wrong place no matter where it was set, as if the column finished too high up and the rake adjust was just there to try to compensate. Seat height adjust didn't help much. Electric window switches were quite cool though, I liked the radio dot matrix thingy, and the trafficmaster button. The dash seemed very posh compared to the one in the Mk3 Cav, but the Cav had more rear legroom, which seemed a bit weird. Started it up. Seemed quiet enough at idle, but when revved a bit it boomed more than I'd expected, I put that off as it being a new car and revving an engine to 3000 rpm when sitting still isn't something you do on a daily basis so I ignored it. The gearchange felt horrible, as if the cables were bungees, but I put it in gear and off I went for a run down the expressway.

 

After 10 minutes driving I called into the local Vauxhall dealership to ask them to investigate whether there was something wrong with the rear suspension on it. Felt like the shocks were leaking as the back end just seemed to float around undamped, and the engine and/or gearbox mounts felt suspiciously soft, as if they weren't attached properly. Mechanics popped it up on the ramp and pronounced it to be as it should. Which you'd expect for a car with 20 miles on the clock. I just couldn't believe that that was how they're meant to be so went back to work and tried another one, which was exactly the same. I quite often used Cav CDXs to go home in and thought they were ok, why the replacement would be this horrible to drive was a mystery to me. Still is.

 

Over the next few months I must have driven 100 Vectras, and they were all equally bad until they'd done 10k miles when they started to get even soggier. The SRi ones didn't seem to suffer from the rear suspension problem as badly, but the ride was more harsh around town.

 

I used to get rid of any Vectra that came to the Avis branch I worked at as soon as possible, send them on any one way hire I could just to get rid of them so I didn't have to drive 'em. I pretty much avoided them for a couple of years and then went to work for a Budget franchise, who had a load of S and T plate ones, some of which were the first of the facelifted jobs. The T plate ones were an improvement over the early jobs but all had the stupid front armrest / cubby and that rear end float soon appeared once they'd clocked up 15-20k miles. I used to inflict them on the drivers if they'd pissed me off. Being made to use a Vectra for a night as a runner was normally enough to make them behave, they'd normally use a Focus and the threat of a night in S670VNT (a bluey purple Vectra with about 70k on the clock, was possibly S673VNT) was enough to put the fears up 'em. I ended up getting lumbered with the thing for a month after I crashed a new Fiesta Zetec S. Arrgh.

 

Shortly after this they got a few brown X reg Vectra 2.0 16v DTi hatches which were hated by everyone. One of the drivers discovered that if you started one on a frosty night and left it idling for 20 minutes with the heater on full blast with all the vents closed and the dial set to defrost it'd crack the windscreen right across from left to right. This meant the car couldn't be used until the screen was replaced, and therefore the driver couldn't be made to go out in it. This happened on a regular basis with all of them. The bloke from Auto Windscreens had his own mug in the canteen after a while.

 

So, nothing to do with Clarkson (other than his points about them being entirely valid). They're just shite.

[Cavcraft]

Some interesting reading here but I'd just like to lob something into the equation:

 

Vectras are boring compared to what? Up against some sort of perceived supercar perhaps, but up against the competition 'in the day' I honestly fail to see how the Mondeo/Xantia/Passat/Rover 600 for example were any more 'exciting' than the Vectra. They were pretty much rep-mobiles which doubled as family cars and I suspect pricing and badge loyalty played a part in whichever marque people bought.

I have honestly found in life there are a lot of people who slate cars despite never having owned one. It's one thing to abhor the look of cars but another to bash on about unreliability and what not when you've not owned or driven one for long enough, and that's any car. I don't throw that against anyone on here but Clarkson did have a small part in it all imho. The Vectras problem was always going to be it's predeccessor (sp?) and the Cavalier was a bloody hard act to follow, though this doesn't automatically make the Vectra crap.

 

In times of desperation for a cheap hack, and as the odd long termer, Vectras have served me well to be fair, even including the dreaded £1,000 FUEL PUMP WILL FAIL 2.0DTi special model.

[Pete-M]

Some interesting reading here but I'd just like to lob something into the equation:

 

Vectras are boring compared to what? Up against some sort of perceived supercar perhaps, but up against the competition 'in the day' I honestly fail to see how the Mondeo/Xantia/Passat/Rover 600 for example were any more 'exciting' than the Vectra.

 

I don't think it's a case of the alternatives being more 'exciting' than the Vectra, but they were all better than the Vectra.

 

When the Vectra was introduced it had to fight against quite a few, far better, cars.

 

Xantia - which had better handling, better ride, better steering, more room, and was cheaper.

Laguna - which had better handling, better ride, better steering, nicer interior, better equipment

Carina E - more space, easier to drive, quieter, comfier, better handling, more reliable, annoying handbrake

Primera - vastly better handling, better ride, better steering, better brakes, slightly less spacious,

Mondeo - much better handling, better ride, better gearchange, slightly nastier dash, slightly rougher engine

Rover 600 - quieter, better handling, better ride, nicer steering and gearchange, better seats. Lack of a hatch a problem.

Volvo S40 - noisy ride - they always sounded like the wheel bearings were shot, and small inside, but an ok drive, unlike the Vectra.

 

By the time they facelifted the Vectra it was miles behind.

 

Xantia - as before but now with better equipment and nicer interior

Laguna - now with more power and better mpg from 16v 1.6 than the old 2.0 managed..

Avensis - dull, but comfy, quiet, startlingly economical and better handling and ride.

Mondeo - facelifted ones were quite a bit quieter and smoother but handling was improved again. More space inside.

Primera - massively improved to sit in, still rode / handled a billion times better than a Vectra. Slightly bigger than old one.

Rover 6 - Hmm, still better than the Vectra, but feeling old and unloved.

Volvo S40 - already improved, quieter ride, better interior, still slightly small inside though.

Passat B5 - There was absolutely no reason to even consider a Vectra once this was launched.

 

I would choose any of the above cars over a Vectra, and often did.

[fiatdaft]

there are good points and bad points with any car,the vectra b was the 4 th best selling car in the country through its production life,and the vectra c was only second behind the mondeo through its life,the vectra was easy to buy,easy to run and easy to sell,cheaper than its competitors,those are the things new car buyers look at ,had good motorsport success,was available everywhere ,had high power halo models.

[garethj]

wat ,i ain't having a go at you,my point is that not all moderns are boring and not all shite cars are actually that great to own!

 

True, but to dip into my Book Of Management Bollocks for a sec, it’s all about managing expectations. Pay £700 for a car made in 1990, and if it was good quality when new and it’s been looked after, it’ll probably drive pretty well today. 4x4s are good off road, big cars are smooth and quiet, little cars sip the petrol, nowadays cars will almost do all 3.

 

However if you spunk £7000 on a newish car, it won’t drive 10 times better than the £700 car. Because of the compromises, it might even drive worse than a £500 posh car and won’t be as economical as a £700 little car.

 

Maybe not all modern cars are boring, but lots of them are rubbish. That’s because it’s a quality based on opinion or expectations; a brand new Yaris makes a Pug 205 diesel look like a gas guzzler and is as quiet as Peter’s Merc on the motorway, but you can’t see out of it when reversing, there’s naff-all space inside and it feels like you’re driving with an anaesthetic. That, with the cost means I wouldn’t buy one. Most people disagree with me, which is why there are more Yarises sold than old Peugeots.

 

I’m fine with most people disagreeing with me, I don’t mind how many others get it wrong.

[Pete-M]

there are good points and bad points with any car,the vectra b was the 4 th best selling car in the country through its production life,and the vectra c was only second behind the mondeo through its life,the vectra was easy to buy,easy to run and easy to sell,cheaper than its competitors,those are the things new car buyers look at ,had good motorsport success,was available everywhere ,had high power halo models.

 

I suspect that the Vectra only sold that well because there will always be people who buy things made by certain brands. I'm guilty of that when it comes to televisions - I always buy Sony.

 

I don't rate the Vectra because it doesn't do what I want a car to do. It's not comfy, good handling or enjoyable to drive. They're capable of basic car functions - carrying people and items from one place to another, but they're not a nice place to spend time and generally depress me. Mondeo / Xantia / Laguna / Avensis / Primera are all nicer cars to both drive and be driven in.

 

As you say, Vectras are easy to buy / run / sell. The fact they're shit will never get in the way of that. People will like them for exactly those reasons. To me, buying a crap car because it's easy is an act of lunacy, especially when pretty much every alternative is just as easy to buy / run / sell.

[Timewaster]

Maybe the title should be "Modern cars WORK!"

 

Regardless of how pleasant or not a Vectra might be, its going to be warm, dry and reasonably comfy and above all it will be pretty reliable and will withstand incredible neglect.

I think back to the stuff my dad used on a daily basis - some of it only a few years old - that would be 50/50 if it would start on a cold morning.

Weird back end handling, a badly placed armrest or less than ideal driving position are nothing compared to a car that sits at home refusing to start before noon.

 

For my 2 pennorth, I've never driven a vectra but have been in a few, the interior wasn't a nice place to be even in a CDX. Shiney hard surfaces everywhere, the nastiest fake wood ive seen this side of a E36 M3.

I wouldn't choose one, but if I needed wheels and it was cheap enough I'd give it a go. Wouldn't touch a Laguna personally but thats just me.

 

Peace and love Shiters!

[Cavcraft]

Pah, it's all subjective. One man's poison and all that. I'd have a Vectra over a Mundano, Avensis, Passat, Carina or Primera. Each has their own virtue (except perhaps the Mk2 Mongdeo which to me has absolutely fuck all of any appeal whatsoever) and in truth there's probably not much between any of them. The Xantia is quite an interesting, quirky and comfortable car, but they aren't exactly fantastically well made and if/when the suspension system goes it can be a lot of money and hassle to sort out.

[Rusty Pelican]

Next door neighbour has a Y reg 2 .0 one in burgundy , hes had it years and is now reliable after an engine change , MOT this year involved springs , shocks , bushes and front brakes all of which cost him a packet , Ive been in it a few times and it didnt seem that bad and might be a bit better now with all the newness bits fitted .

Thing is to me its just boring , its lost in a sea of loads of other boring , medioca modern shit that gives me no pleasure whatsoever to look at or drive ,

My 51 Astra was sort of reliable if changing EGR valves is your thing , seats were great as was the heater , But is was soooooooooooo fugly and mindnumbing .I hated driving it or even being seen getting out of it , i got shot of it and bought an 86 E30 Beemer ( Another hated car on here I think )

Moderns just dont do it for me although the latest Seat Leon looks OKish , One modern i sort of like in a sea of thousands

Not good .

[Pete-M]

Pah, it's all subjective. One man's poison and all that..

 

Indeed it is, squire. I can understand why Joe Public likes the ol' Vectroid, but it's like eating at McDonalds when the Mondeo Diner is doing full english breakfast for the same price.

 

Some people like cars that 'get them from A to B' and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a good thing to own a car that will get you to the destination, have enough space inside and a decent radio and do exactly that every time. Number of times I've been stuck somewhere with some mad bit of semi-exotic tat and needed rescuing by mates who own stuff like Vectras is embarrasing. They have good heaters and they're fairly cheap to run for the size of car, bits are plentiful and cheap and you can buy quickish ones for peanuts or diseasel ones for not much more.

 

Looked at that way, yeah, good car. But so's a Mondeo / Avensis / Primera / Xantia (mainly) etc, and I'd choose any of the others over a cooking Vectra. Although, to be perfectly honest, if someone turned up in an immaculate low mileage V6 GSi Vectra for pennies I'd probably give it a go for a few weeks.

[wuvvum]

I'd have a V6 Vectra B purely for the noise they make - they sound so much better than an ST24 Mondeo. The rest of the Vectra range does absolutely nothing for me, but they are obscenely cheap now so if I was desperate for a cheap runabout I might consider one.