"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bi7k7b$5v57j$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:c5x1b.2152$L15.468@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> > "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:bi5e56$5e5qc$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de...

<snip>

> > > understeer anyway. I'm itching to get a RWD 'old skool' car, just
need
> > some
> > > money
> >
> > Four grand.
>
> errrrr, keep going down
> >
> > Westfield.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> > H1K
> >
> > (If you want a posh one, then it'll cost more, in my case, replaced a
> [new]
> > '89 AXGT)
> >
> Not for a few years yet!

Robin Hoods and Locusts come in a lot cheaper than that - but, as with most
things, you can often get what you pay for. An enthusiast-built Locust is
probably the better choice (ducks behind parapet ;o)

Did the swap in the middle of a stream of cold winters, back when everyone
was talking about the possibility of running into a new Ice Age. Ten years
on, apparently it's Global Warming. Hmm.

H1K

 

"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bi7l5t$60408$8@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "T T" <RAMTT@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16808-3F43F99B-52@storefull-2214.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > regardless what some of you may think about TT's, I've had my 225
> > Quatro coupe for 2 years & I love it. Granted, there are faster cars out
> > there, but no matter what you drive, there's always something
> > faster.I've owned many 2 seaters ( & yes i'm aware the coupe isn't a 2
> > seater so save your wise remarks). not all cars need to be fast to be
> > enjoyable & i enjoy mine.
>
>
> Therein is the point of the TT. It's a car that anybody can feel good in,
> providing they like the car and the image.
>
> For the keener driver, they perform well within certain limits, and
> certainly if you're law abiding, should be just fine.
>
> For the more enthusiastic of us, and in some respects like the current
crop
> of BMW and Mercedes Benz equivalents, they feel somewhat castrated.

I can agree up to a point - the Mk.I was a very different beast, feel-wise.

With the extra power of a chip, however, even the Mk.II becomes a lot easier
to exploit.

It's a long way from being the best handling car on the planet, and, as you
say, there's the current handling trend of 8/10s.. 9/10s.. "where'd the road
go?" to contend with. That said, as a package, it holds together pretty
well. Provided you turn off the ESP ;o)

Maybe time to start a more general thread on best/sweetest/fastest cars,
handling-wise? One's that people have driven, that is - no magazine quotes!
;o)

H1K

 

"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:eYR1b.2893$L15.2799@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bi7l5t$60408$8@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "T T" <RAMTT@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:16808-3F43F99B-52@storefull-2214.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > > regardless what some of you may think about TT's, I've had my 225
> > > Quatro coupe for 2 years & I love it. Granted, there are faster cars
out
> > > there, but no matter what you drive, there's always something
> > > faster.I've owned many 2 seaters ( & yes i'm aware the coupe isn't a 2
> > > seater so save your wise remarks). not all cars need to be fast to be
> > > enjoyable & i enjoy mine.
> >
> >
> > Therein is the point of the TT. It's a car that anybody can feel good
in,
> > providing they like the car and the image.
> >
> > For the keener driver, they perform well within certain limits, and
> > certainly if you're law abiding, should be just fine.
> >
> > For the more enthusiastic of us, and in some respects like the current
> crop
> > of BMW and Mercedes Benz equivalents, they feel somewhat castrated.
>
> I can agree up to a point - the Mk.I was a very different beast,
feel-wise.
>
> With the extra power of a chip, however, even the Mk.II becomes a lot
easier
> to exploit.
>
> It's a long way from being the best handling car on the planet, and, as
you
> say, there's the current handling trend of 8/10s.. 9/10s.. "where'd the
road
> go?" to contend with. That said, as a package, it holds together pretty
> well. Provided you turn off the ESP ;o)
>
> Maybe time to start a more general thread on best/sweetest/fastest cars,
> handling-wise? One's that people have driven, that is - no magazine
quotes!
> ;o)


Heh! But it's subjective, though. My own preference puts handling and ride
composure _way_ above power and linear performance, but this has been
tempered by my wife's age and inexperience behind the wheel in the UK
(insurance!). She did have a 5.0 litre, rear wheel drive V8 back in
California, which although was probably only in the low 200 PS class, or
maybe high 100s, had shed load of torque and was a proper old school ***-out
handler. I found it wayward in the wet . . .

Best handling machine I've driven? Difficult, because I always take time to
get into a machine, and harder still when you realise how expensive some
are. But it's either the mark one MR2, or the Lotus Elise. Should be
the Elise, but I have spent considerably more time behind the wheel of the
MR2! I've not explored the bosses' M5's handling limits . . . oddly enough
.. . .

So at the moment, we're running the Ford Ka, which has handling qualities
way ahead of the donk . . .

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

 

"DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bi9kpr$6pfre$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:eYR1b.2893$L15.2799@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...

<much snippage>

> > Maybe time to start a more general thread on best/sweetest/fastest cars,
> > handling-wise? One's that people have driven, that is - no magazine
> quotes!
> > ;o)
>
>
> Heh! But it's subjective, though. My own preference puts handling and
ride
> composure _way_ above power and linear performance, but this has been
> tempered by my wife's age and inexperience behind the wheel in the UK
> (insurance!). She did have a 5.0 litre, rear wheel drive V8 back in
> California, which although was probably only in the low 200 PS class, or
> maybe high 100s, had shed load of torque and was a proper old school
***-out
> handler. I found it wayward in the wet . . .
>
> Best handling machine I've driven? Difficult, because I always take time
to
> get into a machine, and harder still when you realise how expensive some
> are. But it's either the mark one MR2, or the Lotus Elise. Should be
> the Elise, but I have spent considerably more time behind the wheel of the
> MR2! I've not explored the bosses' M5's handling limits . . . oddly
enough

I know what you mean about the original MR2 (although I've only been a
passenger in one) - the Elise, though.. if I'd been given the chance to
drive one around Hethel /before/ ordering the TT, I might have had a more
difficult choice ;o) The Lotus is better at coping with the poorer road
surfaces we have locally, making it a better all-rounder than the
Westfield/Caterhams, albeit at (much!) higher cost and lower outright
performance.

I'd also put the Ultima up there (although, again, I've just been a
passenger in one - but a passenger who kept an eye on the speedo to see the
awesome cornering speeds on quite bumpy country roads. Plus brakes that lift
you entirely out of the seat, even with a *correctly* adjusted 6-point
harness) Cost is, of course, a bit of a problem ;o)

The Midtec Spyder - another Lee Noble creation, but with a case of the
uglies - gets similar performance low-speed (<100mph) with a more Sevenesque
weight. The Minari is similar, but I've only tried that on a smooth track,
not the road.

> So at the moment, we're running the Ford Ka, which has handling qualities
> way ahead of the donk . . .

In terms of "sweet" handling (not necessarily neutral, but with the driver
able to position the car exactly where he or she wants), I'd also include
the older Mini, and, perhaps surprisingly, the MGB.

Slow, yes, but you could position them both precisely on (e.g.) the entry to
a bend, know exactly what they were doing while going round it, and be able
to adjust the attitude at any point. The 205 GTi was famous for that as
well, with the 1.6 being considered a little "purer" than the 1.9 - the
larger-engined variant has a reputation for being faster, but less
dynamically adjustable (only been a passenger in the 1.9).

I guess what I'm saying is that you can have enjoyable handling without
necessarily aiming at perfection.

Haven't tried the Ka, but I'd imagine that it falls more in this sort of
category. This would make it quite an exception to many modern cars, that
effectively let you do what you want, then succumb to violent breakaway at
the limit, and often with little warning. Well, that's the excuse that
people seem to use most often ;o)

H1K

 

"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:vRZ1b.3065$L15.1530@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bi9kpr$6pfre$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > news:eYR1b.2893$L15.2799@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> <much snippage>
>
> > > Maybe time to start a more general thread on best/sweetest/fastest
cars,
> > > handling-wise? One's that people have driven, that is - no magazine
> > quotes!
> > > ;o)
> >
> >
> > Heh! But it's subjective, though. My own preference puts handling and
> ride
> > composure _way_ above power and linear performance, but this has been
> > tempered by my wife's age and inexperience behind the wheel in the UK
> > (insurance!). She did have a 5.0 litre, rear wheel drive V8 back in
> > California, which although was probably only in the low 200 PS class, or
> > maybe high 100s, had shed load of torque and was a proper old school
> ***-out
> > handler. I found it wayward in the wet . . .
> >
> > Best handling machine I've driven? Difficult, because I always take
time
> to
> > get into a machine, and harder still when you realise how expensive some
> > are. But it's either the mark one MR2, or the Lotus Elise. Should
be
> > the Elise, but I have spent considerably more time behind the wheel of
the
> > MR2! I've not explored the bosses' M5's handling limits . . . oddly
> enough
>
> I know what you mean about the original MR2 (although I've only been a
> passenger in one) - the Elise, though.. if I'd been given the chance to
> drive one around Hethel /before/ ordering the TT, I might have had a more
> difficult choice ;o)

Yeah, the original MR2 . . . a mate of mine and Tim has (had?) one, but
before then I'd spent far too long being left home alone with one
<mwahahahahahah!>. Another friend's Dad said, "if you can recover the MR2
from a greasy roundabout slide, you'll be able to drive anything." I never
did master it completely when I was younger . . . heh.

> The Lotus is better at coping with the poorer road
> surfaces we have locally, making it a better all-rounder than the
> Westfield/Caterhams, albeit at (much!) higher cost and lower outright
> performance.

Indeed. I used to live in Norwich, and the number of crashed Elises [sic?]
on the road on the way in to work was always a good indicator of the
severety of the frost that previous night! Lotus priced the Elise just
right - it's affordable for those people who will only buy one car, it's
also affordable for those people who have a company BMW, Merc or Audi and
want a toy for the weekends, and it looks a bit more like a proper car
compared to a Caterham. Unfortunately, aforementioned more well off drivers
are not used to the rather raw nature of their handling . . . and that the
Lotus doesn't have weighty extras such as ABS, traction, stability
protection.

The record on a 17 mile commute was four - although we did live in the
sticks on some infamous gooning roads.

I have only driven the basic Elise - the 118 PS version as I recall - and
for half of the time, it was raining. Then I was "invited to leave" the
showroom for suggesting they source a quality turbodiesel lump for the car .
.. .

> I'd also put the Ultima up there (although, again, I've just been a
> passenger in one - but a passenger who kept an eye on the speedo to see
the
> awesome cornering speeds on quite bumpy country roads. Plus brakes that
lift
> you entirely out of the seat, even with a *correctly* adjusted 6-point
> harness) Cost is, of course, a bit of a problem ;o)
>
> The Midtec Spyder - another Lee Noble creation, but with a case of the
> uglies - gets similar performance low-speed (<100mph) with a more
Sevenesque
> weight. The Minari is similar, but I've only tried that on a smooth track,
> not the road.

Although a different kettle of fish, the Honda S2000 was great fun to be
taken for a ride in at Elvington Airfield on an organised track day,
although I didn't drive it (chap mumbled something about "my precious, it's
all mine, mine mine!").

> > So at the moment, we're running the Ford Ka, which has handling
qualities
> > way ahead of the donk . . .
>
> In terms of "sweet" handling (not necessarily neutral, but with the driver
> able to position the car exactly where he or she wants), I'd also include
> the older Mini, and, perhaps surprisingly, the MGB.

Ahhh, yes, the original Mini, I'd forgotten about them, heh. Quite how, I
don't know . . .

> Slow, yes, but you could position them both precisely on (e.g.) the entry
to
> a bend, know exactly what they were doing while going round it, and be
able
> to adjust the attitude at any point.

Very true. I was often treated to a ride or a drive of a 1972 Mini 1275GT
(or is that a GT1275?). Big fat wide tyres on small wheels, loud exhaust,
twin carb machine. Not quick - aerodynamics put paid to that! - and a ride
that made you dodge *** ends on the road, but it gripped, gripped and
gripped, and then gripped some more, until starting to drift. Lovely!

> The 205 GTi was famous for that as
> well, with the 1.6 being considered a little "purer" than the 1.9 - the
> larger-engined variant has a reputation for being faster, but less
> dynamically adjustable (only been a passenger in the 1.9).

Ditto, I'm imagine that trouble with the 1.9 is that it was quite a bit
heavier at the front, and also just that little bit quicker, so if you
overcooked it and - heaven forbid! - backed off around a bend, the weight
transfer effect was fuly magnified, thus the back end started getting
twitchy rather sooner.

The 205 . . . /sighs/ Was the first hot hatch that I drove, so I guess I've
got rose coloured spectacles. Chap down our road went through four (crashed
three), so I guess he's one reason why they were so expensive to insure. I
don't know what it was with the 205 GTi, but I think it was the way the car
whispered things to you whilst you were driving. "Go on, faster" it would
mutter, "come on, your Grandma would be going faster than this," and "yawn
I'm falling asleep." If you didn't give it one hundred percent, you'd hear
it saying things - bad things - behind your back when you'd parked it up.
It encouraged you to have at it all of the time . . . and it didn't like
tootling along. It felt quick with the slightly lumpy behaviour in traffic,
too, and sounded purposeful just parking up.

I can't think of an equivalent today that has the same feel, probably
because current hot hatches are perfectly happy doing the shopping trip . .
.. hence my previous comment about feeling castrated (a sexist one to make,
heh).

> I guess what I'm saying is that you can have enjoyable handling without
> necessarily aiming at perfection.
>
> Haven't tried the Ka, but I'd imagine that it falls more in this sort of
> category. This would make it quite an exception to many modern cars, that
> effectively let you do what you want, then succumb to violent breakaway at
> the limit, and often with little warning. Well, that's the excuse that
> people seem to use most often ;o)

Yes! One of the reasons why I enjoy the Ka (and for that matter, the Puma,
plus to a lesser extent the cooking model Fiestas, they're all based on the
same bits, more or less) is that you can play with understeer and oversteer
when you overstep the limit of adhesion, but it drifts into a slide rather
than (205 GTi) snaps into it and bites your hands off. It doesn't goad you
like a 205 nor question your parentage when you're tootling around a
roundabout at sensible speeds, nor does it protest when you up the tempo.

Heh; we're a bit off topic now, but I expect most people are not reading any
more!

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

 

> I have only driven the basic Elise - the 118 PS version as I recall - and
> for half of the time, it was raining. Then I was "invited to leave" the
> showroom for suggesting they source a quality turbodiesel lump for the car
..
> . .

LOL!!

Talking of turbodiesels and quick cars. Well, talking of turbodiesels -
anyone know how much a 2.5TDI 140bhp 5-pot lump can be tuned up to just with
a chip? What about going to extremes - anyone know what the most anyone's
ever got out of that engine before, reliably? (Cue reply from Spider
calling me selfish for wasting everyone's time when I could have just looked
it up on google).

> Heh; we're a bit off topic now, but I expect most people are not reading
any
> more!

Well I made it to the end anyway!

Peter

 

> If that's the same lump as the Volvo S80 2.5 (not the newer D5) and the
> older Volvo V70 / 850 (and I think it is) then Rica have those chipped
from
> 140 to 174 bhp.

Sounds good - do you know if there was much of a fuel economy penalty?

Anyway, first things first - I haven't bought it yet, and even when I do, I
think it'll go at least a few months to a year before I bugger with it
(apart from silly little things like changing the oil).

Peter

 

> Sounds good - do you know if there was much of a fuel economy penalty?

Normally, chipping doesn't affect cruising economy, however if you drive it
harder....