If you became a handler...

For those considering the Hot Hatch route, Fifth Gear this week grabbed WRC driver and IRC Champion Chris Meek and used him to test the Golf GTI, RenaultSport Megane 265 Cup, Ford Focus ST and Vauxhall Astra VXR at Rockingham Raceway in three criteria: agility, high-speed handling and a lap of the infield circuit.

The Megane was declared to be "The Hottest Hatch" and they agreed with Top Gear that the Megane was the best track car. But also as with Top Gear, they felt the Astra was more comfortable and had better high-speed handling, even if it fell just short of the Megane on the track.


For those looking for insane performance, but also a bit more practicality, they also tested the new Audi RS4 - which is now only available as an estate. And yes, they liked it.

[youtube][/youtube]
power is nothing without handling

the driver survived,the car, not so much

Awinnell wrote:power is nothing without handling...

The GTS Viper is the handling model (it was designed for track use).

Seriously, yet another case of the driver not being up to the car.

Kiskaloo wrote:For those looking for insane performance, but also a bit more practicality, they also tested the new Audi RS4 - which is now only available as an estate. And yes, they liked it.

No, Alfisti the handler should never be allowed a hot Audi...



...I actually prefer the Cortina, but still.

But who'd risk the front end of a Cortina on that schmuck?

Thescarredman wrote:But who'd risk the front end of a Cortina on that schmuck?

"Gene Hunt, your DCI and it's 1973, almost supper time... I'm 'avin 'oops"...



...that's who.

Kiskaloo wrote:For those looking for insane performance, but also a bit more practicality, they also tested the new Audi RS4 - which is now only available as an estate. And yes, they liked it.

Though I get the feeling handler wanting a new RS4 may be needing to spend a fair chunk of their own money along with the Agency's.

So actually, I was kinda curious:

Touring Cars are kinda excellent. A lot of them are, in fact, the sexiest things you can drive (Aston Martin DB9, Mercedes McLaren SLR, etc.). They also go up to 200 mph.

Yet the purpose of a touring car is to drive across Europe while ensuring that your buttocks are comfortable the whole way, and the only stops you make are to either fuel up or to go to the bathroom. So why not make a car that is super-comfortable, only goes up to 150 miles per hour, and is super economical?

El Conservatore wrote:So actually, I was kinda curious:

Touring Cars are kinda excellent. A lot of them are, in fact, the sexiest things you can drive (Aston Martin DB9, Mercedes McLaren SLR, etc.). They also go up to 200 mph.

Yet the purpose of a touring car is to drive across Europe while ensuring that your buttocks are comfortable the whole way, and the only stops you make are to either fuel up or to go to the bathroom. So why not make a car that is super-comfortable, only goes up to 150 miles per hour, and is super economical?

Well there have been economical Grand Tourers - the Subaru SVX and the Alfa Romeo Brera both had four-bangers. But high performance and status are parts of the equation and that means horsepower which means a large-dosplacement V8 or V12.

El Conservatore wrote:So actually, I was kinda curious:

Touring Cars are kinda excellent. A lot of them are, in fact, the sexiest things you can drive (Aston Martin DB9, Mercedes McLaren SLR, etc.). They also go up to 200 mph.

Yet the purpose of a touring car is to drive across Europe while ensuring that your buttocks are comfortable the whole way, and the only stops you make are to either fuel up or to go to the bathroom. So why not make a car that is super-comfortable, only goes up to 150 miles per hour, and is super economical?

GT cars are by far and away my favorite class of vehicles, I think that's probably fairly well documented by now, but I used to be of a similar sort of opinion... until I bought a car with lots of power.

Part of it is simply prestige: people like to know they can go faster than the other guy. Rolls Royce once famously said they're cars would never need more than 250bhp, because going fast wasn't the point. However the market wanted otherwise and they were forced to respond.

The other reason, and this is the reason I'll find it difficult to go back to a lower-powered motor for touring, is that, while you may rarely, if ever, use all that power; it's jusr really damn nice to have it there. Having driven long distance in everything from a clapped out Alfa, to a Hyundai Accent (which was, at 100kph, frankly so underpowered I thought it dangerous), through a Disco 4 and my current 135i I can tell you the most relaxing journey was in the 135i. Lots of power means that overtaking is a breeze, and you can get out of the way of things if you need to... plus it's just a really nice idling along with the feeling that the understressed engine is using miniscule amount of its potential, with all those bhp in reserve should you need them.

Mostly I think it's a heart rather than head thing (though I do think that having the extra performance in reserve makes the car safer).

Kiskaloo wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:So actually, I was kinda curious:

Touring Cars are kinda excellent. A lot of them are, in fact, the sexiest things you can drive (Aston Martin DB9, Mercedes McLaren SLR, etc.). They also go up to 200 mph.

Yet the purpose of a touring car is to drive across Europe while ensuring that your buttocks are comfortable the whole way, and the only stops you make are to either fuel up or to go to the bathroom. So why not make a car that is super-comfortable, only goes up to 150 miles per hour, and is super economical?

Well there have been economical Grand Tourers - the Subaru SVX and the Alfa Romeo Brera both had four-bangers. But high performance and status are parts of the equation and that means horsepower which means a large-dosplacement V8 or V12.

So, the purpose of a touring car is nominally to drive across Europe while ensuring that your buttocks are comfortable the whole way, and the only stops you make are to either fuel up or to go to the bathroom, but in actuality, the purpose of a touring car is to drive across Europe while being the classiest rich man around while also driving at a jaw dropping speed because you can either pay your way out of a ticket or are too cool to care?

El Conservatore wrote:So, the purpose of a touring car is nominally to drive across Europe while ensuring that your buttocks are comfortable the whole way, and the only stops you make are to either fuel up or to go to the bathroom, but in actuality, the purpose of a touring car is to drive across Europe while being the classiest rich man around while also driving at a jaw dropping speed because you can either pay your way out of a ticket or are too cool to care?

Yes...

...because, for all the plebs, there's Ryan Air.

El Conservatore wrote:So, the purpose of a touring car is nominally to drive across Europe while ensuring that your buttocks are comfortable the whole way, and the only stops you make are to either fuel up or to go to the bathroom, but in actuality, the purpose of a touring car is to drive across Europe while being the classiest rich man around while also driving at a jaw dropping speed because you can either pay your way out of a ticket or are too cool to care?

I think Alfisti hit it on the head with his comment that it's not about raw speed, but having more than sufficient performance available to both have fun when appropriate as well as get yourself out of trouble all while still being very comfortable to drive both around town and long distances.

If you just want to drive a long distance and be comfortable and economical, buy a Lexus ES or GS with the V6.

Trouble is these days most GT cars don't have a big enough fuel tank, ask Clarkson about that, LOL !

Awinnell wrote:Trouble is these days most GT cars don't have a big enough fuel tank, ask Clarkson about that, LOL !

For GBP110, Mercedes will sell you a larger fuel tank on the UK model 2014 Mercedes SL.

Awinnell wrote:Trouble is these days most GT cars don't have a big enough fuel tank, ask Clarkson about that, LOL !

Though to be fair, Clarkson, for your entertainment, tends to get cars somewhat ill-suited to the task at hand.

Kiskaloo wrote:If you just want to drive a long distance and be comfortable and economical, buy a Lexus ES or GS with the V6.

Personally I'd go something German and diesel: they sip fuel, don't sound agricultural anymore and of course you get wads of torque for overtaking... there's a reason J+M drive a diesel and not a petrol (and of course you can get diesel anywhere). Not to mention that both BMW and Audi's latest six cylinder diesels are starting to seriously worry their own performance cars: Audi's V6 biturbo diesel A6 will out accelerate the RS4.

Though of course, if range off-the-shelf is what you want, then you want a Toyota Prado. I don't know what the deal is in Europe, but in Australia it comes standard with a 90L reserve tank, giving you a cool 180L total.

Alfisti wrote:

Awinnell wrote:Trouble is these days most GT cars don't have a big enough fuel tank, ask Clarkson about that, LOL !

Though to be fair, Clarkson, for your entertainment, tends to get cars somewhat ill-suited to the task at hand.

Kiskaloo wrote:If you just want to drive a long distance and be comfortable and economical, buy a Lexus ES or GS with the V6.

Personally I'd go something German and diesel: they sip fuel, don't sound agricultural anymore and of course you get wads of torque for overtaking... there's a reason J+M drive a diesel and not a petrol (and of course you can get diesel anywhere). Not to mention that both BMW and Audi's latest six cylinder diesels are starting to seriously worry their own performance cars: Audi's V6 biturbo diesel A6 will out accelerate the RS4.

Though of course, if range off-the-shelf is what you want, then you want a Toyota Prado. I don't know what the deal is in Europe, but in Australia it comes standard with a 90L reserve tank, giving you a cool 180L total.

Is the assumption that since you're Australian, you're automatically going to need it when you inevitably are forced to venture into the Outback?

Because that would be hilariously racist.

El Conservatore wrote:Is the assumption that since you're Australian, you're automatically going to need it when you inevitably are forced to venture into the Outback?

Because that would be hilariously racist.

Uhh... pretty much actually.

To be fair: Toyota Land Cruisers (of which the Prado marks the start of the range) are the vehicle of choice in outback Australia, get more than about 300 clicks outside an urban centre and the ratio of white Land Cruisers to people is about 1:1, and frankly you actually do need the range. Take any other 4x4 and you'll be wanting either to fit aftermarket long-range tanks (fortunately well catered for), or carry a buttload of jerry cans... and no matter what you're driving, don't think you can drive past a fuel stop, because you can't, you'll run out of fuel before you get to the next one.

So yeah... it's actually an entirely practical marketing decision.

Alfisti wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:Is the assumption that since you're Australian, you're automatically going to need it when you inevitably are forced to venture into the Outback?

Because that would be hilariously racist.

Uhh... pretty much actually.

To be fair: Toyota Land Cruisers (of which the Prado marks the start of the range) are the vehicle of choice in outback Australia, get more than about 300 clicks outside an urban centre and the ratio of white Land Cruisers to people is about 1:1, and frankly you actually do need the range. Take any other 4x4 and you'll be wanting either to fit aftermarket long-range tanks (fortunately well catered for), or carry a buttload of jerry cans... and no matter what you're driving, don't think you can drive past a fuel stop, because you can't, you'll run out of fuel before you get to the next one.

So yeah... it's actually an entirely practical marketing decision.

...is it bad that I still find this hilarious?

El Conservatore wrote:

Alfisti wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:Is the assumption that since you're Australian, you're automatically going to need it when you inevitably are forced to venture into the Outback?

Because that would be hilariously racist.

Uhh... pretty much actually.

To be fair: Toyota Land Cruisers (of which the Prado marks the start of the range) are the vehicle of choice in outback Australia, get more than about 300 clicks outside an urban centre and the ratio of white Land Cruisers to people is about 1:1, and frankly you actually do need the range. Take any other 4x4 and you'll be wanting either to fit aftermarket long-range tanks (fortunately well catered for), or carry a buttload of jerry cans... and no matter what you're driving, don't think you can drive past a fuel stop, because you can't, you'll run out of fuel before you get to the next one.

So yeah... it's actually an entirely practical marketing decision.

...is it bad that I still find this hilarious?

No, but remember: our retirees do this for fun.



On a different note.


Sad day on planet Alfisti, because work has put the junker BA Falcon I use in Gladstone up for auction. It was a heap, but I liked that car.

Practical upshot is that the last two times I've been up, I've had a rental, which is both cases has been boredom incarnate:


A Toyota Aurion, which is basically a Camry restyled for people who find the regular Camry too exciting. It's billed as the "prestige" alternative and does, somewhat ironically, come with the most powerful engine in the range.

It got me thinking however: perhaps another way to approach the car question is to get something you really don't give a damn about because frankly, a certain amount of loss of face aside, if the Aurion got broken I'd be happily able to walk away and just go get another.

And here's the annoying bit: it's actually a pretty good car.

Ok, so it couldn't be duller if it tried, the steering has no feel... though the front wheels are resonably easy to place (no idea where the rears are though), it torque steers if you flatten the throttle, the "manual" setting on the gearbox is pretty useless (though to be fair, no worse than most other slush boxes I've tried recently) and it had a somewhat anesthetic impact on my driving.

But that's not the point.

"Driver" gripes aside, it's a practical, resonably quick, resonably well handling, comfortable, well fitted out, well riding vehicle. There's plenty of space in the rear seats for another fratello should they need to be hauled along, a bit boot with enough space for a couple of bodies and weapons... plus you get a large fuel tank with a full size spare. Oh, and the radio (tested on everything from Emma Louise to Shockone) has far more bass than anything designed for the elderly has a right to.

And it's easy to replace.

Ok, so I don't think the Aurion is sold outside of Australasia, but the point is: if you're a handler in a role where your care is likely to take a beating, maybe buying a whitegood is not such a bad thing. Just a thought.

Alfisti wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:

Alfisti wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:Is the assumption that since you're Australian, you're automatically going to need it when you inevitably are forced to venture into the Outback?

Because that would be hilariously racist.

Uhh... pretty much actually.

To be fair: Toyota Land Cruisers (of which the Prado marks the start of the range) are the vehicle of choice in outback Australia, get more than about 300 clicks outside an urban centre and the ratio of white Land Cruisers to people is about 1:1, and frankly you actually do need the range. Take any other 4x4 and you'll be wanting either to fit aftermarket long-range tanks (fortunately well catered for), or carry a buttload of jerry cans... and no matter what you're driving, don't think you can drive past a fuel stop, because you can't, you'll run out of fuel before you get to the next one.

So yeah... it's actually an entirely practical marketing decision.

...is it bad that I still find this hilarious?

No, but remember: our retirees do this for fun.



On a different note.


Sad day on planet Alfisti, because work has put the junker BA Falcon I use in Gladstone up for auction. It was a heap, but I liked that car.

Practical upshot is that the last two times I've been up, I've had a rental, which is both cases has been boredom incarnate:


A Toyota Aurion, which is basically a Camry restyled for people who find the regular Camry too exciting. It's billed as the "prestige" alternative and does, somewhat ironically, come with the most powerful engine in the range.

It got me thinking however: perhaps another way to approach the car question is to get something you really don't give a damn about because frankly, a certain amount of loss of face aside, if the Aurion got broken I'd be happily able to walk away and just go get another.

And here's the annoying bit: it's actually a pretty good car.

Ok, so it couldn't be duller if it tried, the steering has no feel... though the front wheels are resonably easy to place (no idea where the rears are though), it torque steers if you flatten the throttle, the "manual" setting on the gearbox is pretty useless (though to be fair, no worse than most other slush boxes I've tried recently) and it had a somewhat anesthetic impact on my driving.

But that's not the point.

"Driver" gripes aside, it's a practical, resonably quick, resonably well handling, comfortable, well fitted out, well riding vehicle. There's plenty of space in the rear seats for another fratello should they need to be hauled along, a bit boot with enough space for a couple of bodies and weapons... plus you get a large fuel tank with a full size spare. Oh, and the radio (tested on everything from Emma Louise to Shockone) has far more bass than anything designed for the elderly has a right to.

And it's easy to replace.

Ok, so I don't think the Aurion is sold outside of Australasia, but the point is: if you're a handler in a role where your care is likely to take a beating, maybe buying a whitegood is not such a bad thing. Just a thought.

Are the Executive Versions of the Subaru Impreza sufficient within the bounds of a "practical, resonably quick, resonably well handling, comfortable, well fitted out, well riding vehicle"?

El Conservatore wrote:Are the Executive Versions of the Subaru Impreza sufficient within the bounds of a "practical, resonably quick, resonably well handling, comfortable, well fitted out, well riding vehicle"?

I don't see why not, though I'd be more inclined to go with the Subaru Legacy Wagon Comfort.

Kiskaloo wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:Are the Executive Versions of the Subaru Impreza sufficient within the bounds of a "practical, resonably quick, resonably well handling, comfortable, well fitted out, well riding vehicle"?

I don't see why not, though I'd be more inclined to go with the Subaru Legacy Wagon Comfort.

So I went to Subaru and built a Forester, an Impreza, and a Legacy just out of curiosity.

The Subaru Legacy 2014 2.5i Premium with a 110V Power Outlet and a spare cigarette lighter thing costs $24,040.

The Subaru Impreza 2014 2.0i 4-door with a Moonroof, GPS, 110V Power Outlet, spare cigarette lighter thing, and a deflector for the moonroof, costs $25,363.

Finally, a Subaru Forester 2014 2.5i Premium with a 110V Power Outlet, spare cigarette lighter thing, and a heavy duty cargo basket costs $25,067.

Conclusions: While the Legacy is cheapest, the Impreza has a smaller turning radius, among other things, and more HP while being $1,000 more. The Forester is basically just not a good deal, because it costs $1000 more than a Legacy and doesn't come with any packages or whatnot. So it's down to either a Legacy or an Impreza. Personally, I think I'd prefer the Impreza, which looks better in my opinion, among other performance and handling considerations.

El Conservatore wrote:

Kiskaloo wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:Are the Executive Versions of the Subaru Impreza sufficient within the bounds of a "practical, resonably quick, resonably well handling, comfortable, well fitted out, well riding vehicle"?

I don't see why not, though I'd be more inclined to go with the Subaru Legacy Wagon Comfort.

So I went to Subaru and built a Forester, an Impreza, and a Legacy just out of curiosity.

The Subaru Legacy 2014 2.5i Premium with a 110V Power Outlet and a spare cigarette lighter thing costs $24,040.

The Subaru Impreza 2014 2.0i 4-door with a Moonroof, GPS, 110V Power Outlet, spare cigarette lighter thing, and a deflector for the moonroof, costs $25,363.

Finally, a Subaru Forester 2014 2.5i Premium with a 110V Power Outlet, spare cigarette lighter thing, and a heavy duty cargo basket costs $25,067.

Conclusions: While the Legacy is cheapest, the Impreza has a smaller turning radius, among other things, and more HP while being $1,000 more. The Forester is basically just not a good deal, because it costs $1000 more than a Legacy and doesn't come with any packages or whatnot. So it's down to either a Legacy or an Impreza. Now, on to Top Gear, where they probably test an Impreza at some point, so we can get a bit more information....

They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

Awinnell wrote:They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

But you are getting the new Mustang with the V6 EcoBoost engine!

Awinnell wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:

Kiskaloo wrote:

El Conservatore wrote:Are the Executive Versions of the Subaru Impreza sufficient within the bounds of a "practical, resonably quick, resonably well handling, comfortable, well fitted out, well riding vehicle"?

I don't see why not, though I'd be more inclined to go with the Subaru Legacy Wagon Comfort.

So I went to Subaru and built a Forester, an Impreza, and a Legacy just out of curiosity.

The Subaru Legacy 2014 2.5i Premium with a 110V Power Outlet and a spare cigarette lighter thing costs $24,040.

The Subaru Impreza 2014 2.0i 4-door with a Moonroof, GPS, 110V Power Outlet, spare cigarette lighter thing, and a deflector for the moonroof, costs $25,363.

Finally, a Subaru Forester 2014 2.5i Premium with a 110V Power Outlet, spare cigarette lighter thing, and a heavy duty cargo basket costs $25,067.

Conclusions: While the Legacy is cheapest, the Impreza has a smaller turning radius, among other things, and more HP while being $1,000 more. The Forester is basically just not a good deal, because it costs $1000 more than a Legacy and doesn't come with any packages or whatnot. So it's down to either a Legacy or an Impreza. Now, on to Top Gear, where they probably test an Impreza at some point, so we can get a bit more information....

They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

Well, that, yes, but more to the point: if memory serves, they've described the Impreza as decent, but not as impressive as other similar models, as the Impreza has a certain "splashiness" in comparison to the crispness of other rally cars.

Kiskaloo wrote:

Awinnell wrote:They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

But you are getting the new Mustang with the V6 EcoBoost engine!

does anyone Rally a Mustang ?

Awinnell wrote:

Kiskaloo wrote:

Awinnell wrote:They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

But you are getting the new Mustang with the V6 EcoBoost engine!

does anyone Rally a Mustang ?

Only on tarmac (that I know of).

As to the Scooby, lets be honest here: the Impreza's rallly glory days are long past... at least regards the newer models. I've not tried one recently though, so couldn't judge how well it fits into the category above though. Personally I think the pick of the current lineup is the XV, which at least gives you a bit of ground clearance into the bargain.

That said, if I was buying an Aurion equivalent in Europe, I'd probably look at a VW Jetta or a Skoda Octavia.

Alfisti wrote:

Awinnell wrote:

Kiskaloo wrote:

Awinnell wrote:They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

But you are getting the new Mustang with the V6 EcoBoost engine!

does anyone Rally a Mustang ?

Only on tarmac (that I know of).

As to the Scooby, lets be honest here: the Impreza's rallly glory days are long past... at least regards the newer models. I've not tried one recently though, so couldn't judge how well it fits into the category above though. Personally I think the pick of the current lineup is the XV, which at least gives you a bit of ground clearance into the bargain.

That said, if I was buying an Aurion equivalent in Europe, I'd probably look at a VW Jetta or a Skoda Octavia.

The Legacy is probably on par or better than the current Impreza, this is true. And yet, I'd still have the Impreza. It still looks slightly sexier, in my opinion, and is technically cheaper if I don't get the satnav and moonroof combo and replace it with an iPhone and a cyborg with a rifle. While yes, you can probably get a more comfortable car with on-par performance in the Legacy, I can do everything I need to do with the Impreza with less cost. If the goal is to find a comparatively cheap car that you can do a lot of things in, then the Impreza seems like the best choice.

Don't really know much about the Jetta or the Octavia, but the Octavia seems like a good choice for most SWA work. Boring to look at, but reliable and sufficient in the power and maneuver areas.

Hmm... maybe the XV isn't sold over there... But the XV I know if is basically just an Impreza with extra ride height:

Meh, the new Impreza is just dog slow. The 2014 WRX and STI will be out in a couple months. Hopefully they'll be a bit easier on the eyes than the current gens.

-----


I apologize in advance for letting my car-dork syndrome flair up this morning but...

Kiskaloo wrote: the Subaru SVX and the Alfa Romeo Brera both had four-bangers. But high performance and status are parts of the equation and that means horsepower which means a large-dosplacement V8 or V12.

The SVX had a flat six.

Kiskaloo wrote:

Awinnell wrote:They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

But you are getting the new Mustang with the V6 EcoBoost engine!

The UK is getting the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder Ecoboost not the 3.5.

Hamster wrote:

Kiskaloo wrote:

Awinnell wrote:They already told us the New Impreza is not coming to the UK

But you are getting the new Mustang with the V6 EcoBoost engine!

The UK is getting the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder Ecoboost not the 3.5.

At $9-10 a gallon its not much of a surprise we are only getting the smaller more fuel efficient versions, unless you are very wealthy , most people can't afford to run large V8's with less than spectacular fuel efficiency, on top of that vehicles are taxed by engine displacement/carbon emissions, so smaller engine cars are cheaper to run and tax

Hamster wrote:Meh, the new Impreza is just dog slow.

Unfortunately I get the impression Subaru is struggling to get performance out of the boxer engine and keep it emissions compliant... maybe Alfa Romeo was right when they decided it was an evolutionary dead end... *shrugs*


On the dull-but-still-good side of things... if I needed something larger the current Mazda 6 would be high on my list as well:


Partly because Mazda has a good rep for building quick, reliable, comfortable cars with good handling and performance for a resonable price... and partly because I just think it looks brilliant.

Personally I like the estate better... but see previous conversation about hiding things in the boot, so for SWA work it'd have to be the saloon, probably in diesel.

I forgot that Mazda existed.

Shoot. I feel silly now.

Still, as I say, the Impreza is cheap while still retaining a certain level of performance. Any word on how much the Mazda 6 costs?

If you like the size of the Imprezza, you could go for the Mazda 3. There is also the Mazda 2, which would work even better on tight Italian roads.

El Conservatore wrote:Still, as I say, the Impreza is cheap while still retaining a certain level of performance. Any word on how much the Mazda 6 costs?

No idea for Europe, but in Australia a mid-high spec one goes for about AU$46k. To put that in context, a 135i new is about AU$80k.

I'm dubious of the Mazda 2, as it's getting on a bit these days. However Mazda notably do an MPS version of the 3 hatch: with AWD and a hot engine.

Jean: Are you hearing this? 24,000 this and 'only' 28,000 that.
Lorenzo: Hmmmm...... *ahem* Now here this:
Uh, Izuzu Trooper anyone?
;o)

Jean: Are you hearing this? 24,000 this and 'only' 28,000 that.
Lorenzo: Hmmmm...... *ahem* Now here this:
Uh, Izuzu Trooper anyone?
;o)
Fleet purchase. Hefty discount.
Your choice of colors, as long as it's black.

A fleet car in Italy would be the Lancia Thema (Chrysler 300C in the US and UK), which Fifth Gear absolutely savaged earlier this year, rating it the worst car they've team tested to date (11 out of 40, as I recall, and it was lucky to get that score).

Kiskaloo wrote:A fleet car in Italy would be the Lancia Thema (Chrysler 300C in the US and UK), which Fifth Gear absolutely savaged earlier this year, rating it the worst car they've team tested to date (11 out of 40, as I recall, and it was lucky to get that score).

Plenty of manufactureres do a fleet programme... including Mercedes, BMW and Audi.

Budget wise, I've been working roughly on car allowances where I work (for those fortunate enough to get it, of which I am not one); which is about $600 a week (and is expected to cover purchase/finance, fuel, maintinence, consumables, rego etc) and is based on something like a Holden Commodore or Toyota Camry, PMs are about $1000 a week as they're expected to run a 4x4 vehicle: though we seem to be going back to vehicles being issued under project costs rather than car allowances being paid. Over at BHP car allowance is something in the order of $250... a day.

While I don't expect the SWA to be paying on mining/construction company rates (or for the handlers to need mine-spec 4x4s - about $85k a pop for a base model Prado and modifications), a car allowance for a "large saloon car" seemed reasonable for a handler "work vehicle"... the Mazda 6 I'd expect to be able to cover with it, the 135i coupe and VW from the first post would probably require some additional payment out of Handler Alfisti's pocket.

Here's a recently released contender in the "there's some of my own money in this too" class: the Mercedes CLA.



Pros are it's resonably quick, probably stylish and, if your handler's salary will stretch to it: the AMG version is due with AWD and an impressive 0-100 time. Of course it also has the added bonus of having extra, and covered, boot space over the hatch whilst retaining the well-done interior.

That said: I'm still not sold in pictures on how well the CLS's "big hatchback" styling translates to the smaller FWD A-class, but I'll reserve judgement for seeing one in the flesh. The other, and probably bigger elephant (for me at least) in the room is: it's actually bigger than a C-class saloon so; why not just get the C-class?


On a completely unrelated note: I had another Aurion on Tuesday and learnt something else about it. If you put your foot down properly it heads off at about a 45 degree angle to the direction you wanted to go... which can be a little disconcerting when, say, overtaking a roadtrain or pulling out of a site entrance onto a busy highway.

Torque steer FTW!!

El Conservatore wrote:Torque steer FTW!!

Pretty much, and here was me thinking manufacturers had somehow managed to get a better handle on that since the 80s

At least you're on the ground. Torque steer in an airplane is ridiculous. Apparently, if you angle up at about 30 degrees at low speed in a Cessna 172 and don't push stupidly hard on the right rudder pedal, your airplane will automatically and immediately swing left until the nose is pointing to the ground. Presumably, if you're in a less stable aircraft, your plane will yaw AND roll to the left, which really isn't something I want to think to hard about.

And that is why engineers get paid gonzo amounts of money. Because they keep you from exploding yourself.

I'm interested to see how the Volkswagen Up GT turns out - it's about as small, light and powerful as the Mk. I GTI, which I can't see being a bad thing. It also has a huge boot and plenty of front and rear legroom for a city car.

Could be a solid choice for a fratello on a budget.

[youtube][/youtube]
how about an improved and uprated 6x6 wheel drive 536 bhp G wagon ?

Awinnell wrote:how about an improved and uprated 6x6 wheel drive 536 bhp G wagon ?

With planetary gear hubs... interesting.

See the thing I'll always remember about the G-wagen, at least the civillian version of it (and I realise it's probably quite unfair to judge them on this, but it is what sticks in my mind) is that, when the latest version was released, Mercedes thought it would be a really good idea to take seven of them through the centre of Australia as part of the local launch.

Well, they broke seven of seven, quite publicly too...


On a side note, I'll be testing my theory on the 135i's pocket Grand Touring/continent-munching credentials next week by driving to Canberra and back. Not a huge trip admittedly but still enough to get some idea.

Kiskaloo wrote:I'm interested to see how the Volkswagen Up GT turns out - it's about as small, light and powerful as the Mk. I GTI, which I can't see being a bad thing. It also has a huge boot and plenty of front and rear legroom for a city car.

Could be a solid choice for a fratello on a budget.

You know, thinking about it this evening, we've generally been gravitating towards the hot versions of cars... which is fair enough. However, even without all the go faster bits the Polo, Golf, Megane, Focus... 1 Series hatch et al. are still pretty capable pieces of kit in their own right. For a fratello on a budget buying a base model, or one a little up with a few extra horses, and investing in some better tyres may be not a bad option...

And lets face it (and this will sound odd having stated elsewhere that it's really nice to have lots of power, even if you never use it), the average handler's car is likely to spend very little, if any, of its time running from or chasing baddies... more likely it will be lugging cyborgs from place to place, including tightly monitored, well supported operations, abling too and from work or possibly running up the highway to pick up supplies from Rome. *shrugs*

Alfisti wrote:

Kiskaloo wrote:I'm interested to see how the Volkswagen Up GT turns out - it's about as small, light and powerful as the Mk. I GTI, which I can't see being a bad thing. It also has a huge boot and plenty of front and rear legroom for a city car.

Could be a solid choice for a fratello on a budget.

You know, thinking about it this evening, we've generally been gravitating towards the hot versions of cars... which is fair enough. However, even without all the go faster bits the Polo, Golf, Megane, Focus... 1 Series hatch et al. are still pretty capable pieces of kit in their own right. For a fratello on a budget buying a base model, or one a little up with a few extra horses, and investing in some better tyres may be not a bad option...

And lets face it (and this will sound odd having stated elsewhere that it's really nice to have lots of power, even if you never use it), the average handler's car is likely to spend very little, if any, of its time running from or chasing baddies... more likely it will be lugging cyborgs from place to place, including tightly monitored, well supported operations, abling too and from work or possibly running up the highway to pick up supplies from Rome. *shrugs*

I give the Up GT the "Eli-han" (an amalgram of Jim and Jamiebel's last names) seal of approval.

Alfisti wrote:On a side note, I'll be testing my theory on the 135i's pocket Grand Touring/continent-munching credentials next week by driving to Canberra and back. Not a huge trip admittedly but still enough to get some idea.

Also, 135i pocket-GT credentials: confirmed.


After four hours sleep and fifteen solid behind the wheel, I got out in Canberra feeling relatively fresh. So notch that one up as a win.

I just wish it had a slightly larger fuel tank.

Alfisti wrote:

Alfisti wrote:On a side note, I'll be testing my theory on the 135i's pocket Grand Touring/continent-munching credentials next week by driving to Canberra and back. Not a huge trip admittedly but still enough to get some idea.

Also, 135i pocket-GT credentials: confirmed.


After four hours sleep and fifteen solid behind the wheel, I got out in Canberra feeling relatively fresh. So notch that one up as a win.

I just wish it had a slightly larger fuel tank.

So, since you're Australian, does that mean that most everyone else will be more than satisfied with the fuel tank size?

El Conservatore wrote:

Alfisti wrote:I just wish it had a slightly larger fuel tank.

So, since you're Australian, does that mean that most everyone else will be more than satisfied with the fuel tank size?

*Shrugs* Don't know, you tell me. On the highway the range calculator is saying about 650km (a smidge over 400miles) to a tank.

We've had this discussion before, guys. Extra fuel capacity is nice, but not essential to travel in well-populated countries where filling stations are frequent. Otherwise a big tank just adds weight and lowers fuel efficiency. Unless you're chasing someone flat-out for two hundred miles, idling for six hours a day, or driving across Russia, big tanks are necessities only in special markets.

Thescarredman wrote:We've had this discussion before, guys. Extra fuel capacity is nice, but not essential to travel in well-populated countries where filling stations are frequent. Otherwise a big tank just adds weight and lowers fuel efficiency. Unless you're chasing someone flat-out for two hundred miles, idling for six hours a day, or driving across Russia, big tanks are necessities only in special markets.

Funny you should mention Russia... because guess what J+M are doing right at this moment

Admittedly they're an extreme case.

I actually agree with you... mostly. The rest being tempered by the fact that I live in what is probably considered a "special market" (Landcruisers are sold here with long-range tanks as standard), so part of me won't be convinced that, when it comes to range, more is not better.

That said: in all reality, my preference for a car with intergalactic cruising range is just personal taste. If I'm driving long distance, once I'm going, I would really prefer not to stop if at all possible, and instead just let the miles roll away under the tyres. In that respect, big fuel capacity is a bit like having big power: not a necessity, but it sure makes life easier and more relaxing.

For the Social Welfare Agency i would suggest that:


Audi's "Security" Version of the A8 L.
Features:
W12 Engine, bullet proof and of course, Audi's understatement, (aside the respect with more than 2,5 tons of weight.....).
Plus I guess the blue flashlights are already inculded.

Hey, glad yer back Schas, hadn't read from you in a while!

Schaschanist wrote:For the Social Welfare Agency i would suggest that:


Audi's "Security" Version of the A8 L.
Features:
W12 Engine, bullet proof and of course, Audi's understatement, (aside the respect with more than 2,5 tons of weight.....).
Plus I guess the blue flashlights are already inculded.

You have no idea how much I want a magnetic flashy light for the top of my car...

As to the A8: probably a bit much for a handler to buy/run on his own, but a definite possibility as an agency pool car.

Alfisti wrote:But... I dunno... maybe it looks better in the metal but the more pictures I saw the more top and tail heavy it looked: the "big-hatch" proportions just don't seem to have worked so well on the smaller 3-series, particularly with the lower front of the new model. Long story short: it was struck from the lineup for being ugly.  

So, I actually got a chance to look at a 3GT in the metal today... and it looks much better than in pictures. If they do a diesel x-drive version, it may well be a contender should I need to replace J+M's Audi.

A mate of mine recently bought himself an E30 325i coupe: a rather nice, unmolested (bar being dropped about an inch), 1990 model. Aside from the minor issue of being red it's pretty much perfect.

Since I'm apparently "the driver" ( ) in my group of friends, I got to have a go. After getting used to the high clutch take-up, I can honestly say I quite like that: it feels light, nicely balanced, and with a decent amount of power. Double bonus it starts every time and the aircon works. About the only thing it needed to be properly everyday usable would be cruise control (saver of licenses); for a fratello on a budget, a well-maintained example probably would not be a bad option... we'll see how this one goes reliability wise.