I was wondering what peoples thoughts are on cars that were the right package for the right time but never sold well (for various reasons).
For example :-
BMC 1100 - small family car, should have sold better than it did (especially when the oil crisis hit later on in its production life).
Ford Sierra - ok, MKI was before its time but in its MKII edition very likeable and they have not aged badly neither.
Would it look out of place on the road today ?
Rover SD1 - should have sold like yesterday but strikes in the 70's and shoddy build quality soon put paid to that.
Which cars would you say were the right product at the right time but didn't sell well ?
|
|
Was the 1100/1300 a poor seller? They seemed pretty numerous in the sixties albeit wearing half a dozen different makers names.
|
I stand corrected then, after all I was not even thought of then :-)
I wonder why the Audi 50 never sold well, yet the VW Polo did ?
|
>>
>> I wonder why the Audi 50 never sold well, yet the VW Polo did ?
>>
Probably because it was twice the price.
|
"They seemed pretty numerous"
I think it just felt like it, since you could hear the gearbox and tin-bladed fan whine a mile away.. :-)
|
"they have not aged badly"
Most of them aged pretty quickly, as I recall! I agree that the later 3-box ones looked OK, but was anything so hideous as the two-door Mk.1 (not the Cosworth)?
|
The BMC 1100 topped the sales charts for years. As BMC did not develop it...
The Sierra topped the sales charts for years..
The SD1 was a pile of poo.
|
I never knew the BMC 1100 sold well. I stand corrected.
I used the Sierra as an example as the MK1 did not sell well but the MKII did.
|
I learned to drive in an 1100 whilst being under the guidance of a driving instructor (rest of the time it was a Morris 1000) - like those that followed or emulated it such as the Maxi and the Austin 1800 it had a remarkable amount of room for its size both front and rear.
Good to drive too. The Morris 1000 was even better..:-)
Last edited by: Stuartli on Wed 18 Aug 10 at 15:51
|
I always thought that the BMC 1100/1300 was quite a handsome little beast, a pity that BL didn't develop it as a hatchback; I always thought the Maxi was a shade too big.
My grandfather had one, and being a spirited driver I can attest to that whine, even louder inside the car. ISTR the ventilation wasn't too good on them.
|
|
Could you please tell us which sales charts the BMC 1100 topped for years and when???
|
IN its various guises, 2.3 million BMC 1100's were built.
Liked them a lot.
|
|
The fan whine was easily cured with an aftermarket, self feathering fan. It, allegedly, paid for itself due to the reduced engine load.
|
|
Followed by the Allegro which fulfilled one of the criteria for this thread
|
|
The Allegro was never right for any time anywhere.
|
The VW K70 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Volkswagen_K70_Offenbach.JPG
VW's first front mounted water cooled FWD car, I drove quite a few of these and IMO should have sold far more than they did 30 odd years ago, they were replaced by the Passat.
|
K70 was a very nice car. Drove a friend's example in Ghana. Looked good, went well, was refined, felt good inside (large glass area). Perhaps it had faults I didn't notice.
More likely though that the early Passat, quite an austere vehicle actually, was cheaper and perhaps more profitable to VW, so the company just suppressed the K70.
A flood of 'last year's model' Passats arrived in Algeria in the early 80s, some sort of governmental fleet-buying exercise to sweeten middle class Algerians getting a bit cheesed off with socialist austerity. They weren't very nice. I was in a minor traffic crash in one in Algiers once, a hired one being driven by a slightly loopy far-right French news agency snapper.
|
>>K70 was a very nice car. Drove a friend's example in Ghana<<
That's right, and they were well built as well, originally by NSU, I never really liked working on them tbh,
but they always tuned up ok.
|
Which sales charts did the 1100 top?
"with the 1100/1300 range they were the top selling cars between 1963 and 1971. However, in 1967 the 1100 was the 2nd best seller with the Ford Cortina outselling the 1100 by approximately 25,000 vehicles.
"
www.ado16.info/britains_best_seller.shtml
My father had 3 1100s. I owned one. My father in law owned one.
Apart from the transmission noise, it was a great car for its time: handling streets ahead of all competitors...
Pity about the rust...the rear subframe, the sills, the doors. the wheelarches, the floor...the front wings etc..
Much easier than a mini to work on and much nicer to drive..
Last edited by: madf on Wed 18 Aug 10 at 17:06
|
|
My Dad's first 'car' (he had a Ford 100E van before that) was an 1100. Went on honeymoon to Austria in it, then it developed a horrible knocking noise that sounded like a little end. Engine out and stripped, only thing found was a bit of play in the dizzy drive shaft - which then went on to be replaced every 10k miles or so for the next few years. Engine out for a rebuild in about 1976 'cos it was worn and smoking like a good un. Rear subframe replaced in 1976 when I was about 22 months old - I was found hammer in hand giving it some on the body work, emulating Dad (although he had obviously been giving the subframe some!) - "Daddy do it...." Replaced with an Ami 8 estate in 1977 when my younger Sister was due to arrive on the scene at Christmas '77. Ami was the first in a long line of Citroens - broken only by an emergency All-aggro when a GSA fell in half.
|
>> The SD1 was a pile of poo.
The SD1 was a brilliant idea totally ruined by build quality. I had a V8 auto. The auto box was too low geared for the engine, it revved way too high at motorway speeds. The manual was better, especially in Vitesse form, but the Lucas fuel injection was crap. The panel gaps were massive, the door seals didn't work, the electrics went wrong.
But it was a really comfortable, spacious car (massive hatchback), and good looking. Safe for it's time too. If it had been built properly, with something like Bosch injection, it could have lasted long enough to be further developed, maybe replacing the crude live axle (I had some hairy moments!) with an independent set up, further refining the looks, and updating the engines. As it was, they were thrown together and a good concept was completely wasted by the idiots in charge.
Still, at least it lives on in 27 litre form...
www.ppcmag.co.uk/tag/27-litre.html
|
>>Still, at least it lives on in 27 litre form<<
I could never really get on with the SD1 and I tuned and drove em all 2.3, 2.6 V8 and the Vitesse,
I preferred the ole P6 but ... that SD1 on youtube is WKD!!
|
...I could never really get on with the SD1...
Coppers round our way had 2600 autos.
Dunno how they got on with them.
|
>>Coppers round our way had 2600 autos<<.
Carp!
|
>> I preferred the ole P6
I loved the P6, the interior was was a really nice place to be, and, I believe, front suspension consisting of horizontal coil springs acting on the bulkhead. Who thought of that one? I saw a hillclimb version in a mag once, british racing green with boxed arches and huge tyres. Man, that looked good!
|
>>I loved the P6, the interior was was a really nice place to be<<
I suppose the SD1 was a BL ... Blimming Lousy!
:-D
|
>>>> The SD1 was a pile of poo.
The SD1 was a brilliant idea totally ruined by build quality. I had a V8 auto. The auto box was too low geared for the engine, it revved way too high at motorway speeds. The manual was better, especially in Vitesse form, but the Lucas fuel injection was crap. The panel gaps were massive, the door seals didn't work, the electrics went wrong.
But it was a really comfortable, spacious car (massive hatchback), and good looking. Safe for it's time too. If it had been built properly, with something like Bosch injection, it could have lasted long enough to be further developed, maybe replacing the crude live axle (I had some hairy moments!) with an independent set up, further refining the looks, and updating the engines. As it was, they were thrown together and a good concept was completely wasted by the idiots in charge.<<
Absolutely, corax. I agree with most of the points, but I never experienced the FI, more's the pity. The ones I had handled brilliantly - I was always amazed at how you could chuck about a great big motor like that as if it was a Mini.
I know I always harp on about this but I really think there should be a requirement in forums for people who present one-line judgements - usually at least 10th hand - to have actually owned, or even driven, the object of their criticism. There are many cars that merit the 'pile of poo' description in my opinion, but I don't voice it because I have no personal experience. Anyway, even the six-cylinder SD1 was a nice motor, barring the head problems, and they didn't all have them by any means. It was always said in the trade that only gently-driven ones gave trouble.
It was a car that certainly suffered at the hands of British Leyland but it also suffered at the hands of the ill-informed press - I've often concluded that motoring journalists of the lower echelon are extra hard on the sort of motors they can't afford for themselves.
|
Agreed, Mike. I've had two SD1s - both 2300cc autos.
One did suffer head gasket failure, but that was an easy DIY repair - maybe my gentle driving didn't help!. Oh, and they were one of the first cars to use a bonded-in windscreen rather than a big rubber grommet. In typical BL fashion, though, it didn't work too well - cue one soggy glovebox :-(
Other than that, for its time it was a pretty bold design - a bit more 'rakish' than its contemporaries (to my eyes at least).
One of my SD1s was in 'Moonraker Blue' - possibly its best colour. The other was a sort of orangey/burgundy exterior with a burgundy-ish velour interior - a stong resemblance to many an Indian restauraunt of its era. So much so that a work colleaugue fondly referred to it as the 'Taj Mahal' :-) Happy days....
|
>> The SD1 was a pile of poo.
>>
Went like stink though and looked great.
|
>> Ford Sierra MKII... Would it look out of place on the road today ?
I don't think it would, apart from lacking the more bulbous look demanded by today's pedestrian / occupant crash protection.
I've often thought the design of a few "new shape" cars was a step backwards - for example the Astra MKII (1991-97) looked less advanced to me than the model it replaced.
|
>> I've often thought the design of a few "new shape" cars was a step backwards
>> - for example the Astra MKII (1991-97) looked less advanced to me than the model
>> it replaced.
I think the same is true of the Mondeo mk1 compared to the Sierra. The Mondeo was a better car in every single way than the Sierra, but the styling was "lose it in a car park" bland. I've seen a few tidy Sierras recently, and they are still not a bad looking car, when clean, tidy and unmolested, IMHO. Considering the basic design is now 27 years old.
images03.olx.org.uk/ui/2/24/46/f_31111846_1.jpeg
The main things that date this one in my opinion are the piffling little wheels and balloon tyres.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 18 Aug 10 at 20:41
|
The Allegro was completely wrong for its time - not only was it a lot uglier than the 1100/1300 but it didn;t have a hatch - allowing the Golf, which WAS right for its time, to clean up.
I suppose that the rather mundane conclusion has to be that if a car is right for its time, it sells. That's what 'right for its time' means.
|
Audi A2 - Aluminium body, frugal engines - should have sold in the showroom but for the astronomical prices.
Car was right then, would be right now but the price crucified the car.
|
Audi A2? I had one for a day. Underwhelmed. Stiff ride, 5th gear would not engage when the engine was cold and reversing...oh dear.
Car Mechanics list of problems shows I was right as do the Audi forums.. Expensive unrelaible junk.. Yaris is much better all round and much cheaper.
Rover2600s lunched their camshafts.. Pile of poo.
I had an Allegro... Junk.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 18 Aug 10 at 19:49
|
The Ford Cortina was almost universally accepted as 'the' mid sized family car, albeit that its sales were boosted enormously via the fleet market. In its time it was the ideal car for the market in which it competed.
The Sierra which succeeded it in 1982 was a vastly superior car, marred only (in some people's minds, but not mine) by its radical shape.
Far from being a model that didn't sell it was consistently the top selling car (in its segment) in the UK for virtually all of its lifespan.
By today's standards it looks almost pre-historic but the subsequent advance of the 'Mondeo' brand owes a lot to its much maligned predecessor.
|
The biggest wow factor for me when I first saw a Sierra was actually the interior. I loved the way the centre console curved towards the driver, and the high transmission tunnel gave a lovely "cockpit" feel to proceedings. For some reason though, Ford still fitted a ridiculously long gear lever to the early models. The later ones had a nice, short, stubby item, and all Sierras had that lovely, tight, "mechanical" feeling RWD Ford gearchange that went right back to the mk1 Escort.
I agree the Sierra was a big step up over the Cortina, but it is remarkable when you consider that putting the bodyshell, fixtures and fittings, and rear suspension aside, there wasn't actually that much difference between the two.
I was selling Fords for a living when the Mondeo was launched, and was probably one of the first in the country, outside of Ford and the motoring press to drive one. When a 1.8 litre, non-sporting, mid spec variant of a humble family hack puts a smile on your face, and feels so cock-on from the moment you drive it out of the car park, you know it's a corker. And so it was.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 18 Aug 10 at 21:12
|
DP
Your experience mirrors mine almost exactly. I sold loads of Sierras largely because none of my sales colleagues were in the slightest bit interested in the new upstart. A mate of mine had a Capri 2.0S with which he was delighted. He drove me to the airport in my 'demo' Sierra 2.0GL and used it (probably without insurance now that I think about it) whilst I was on holiday in Portugal. A couple of weeks after I got back he bought it!!
|
>> Sierra, fine car.
>>
>>windscreen steamed up too quickly
you banged your head as you got in
it was very plasticky
the dashes reflected sunlight badly
they pinked a lot and that vv carb could become a nightmare
they rotted bad
a vauxhall in the same period was a far better car with a much stronger body and an engine to die for
|
>> a vauxhall in the same period was a far better car with a much stronger body and an engine to die for
>>
Have to say that Dad had a Mk 1 Cavalier and a fine car I thought it was too. Seemed to go like stink.
As a brief aside (Vauxhall) I was carried about in an 04 Vectra estate 2.0 DTi a day or so ago and I have to confess to being suitably impressed considering the £ it cost him.
MD
|
"The Allegro was completely wrong for its time - not only was it a lot uglier than the 1100/1300 but it didn;t have a hatch - allowing the Golf, which WAS right for its time, to clean up."
The Allegro was far better than its reputation. They were solidly built and comfortable. The bodywork was way ahead of any French or Italian car of that era. They were economical and cheap to service. If you got the 1750 it came with a five speed 'box - big stuff in the dismal 70's
It was a better car than most of the foreign rubbish of that period.
|
NSU RO80 - way ahead of its time, really, but arrived along with the oil crisis, when its relative thirst was more noticeable. The engine seal problem was soon rectified, but NSU never recovered from the warranty claims. To add insult to injury, someone discovered that the Ford V4 could be made to fit, thus replacing the smoothest engine in history with one of the roughest at a stroke!
Car magazine's 'car of the decade' if I remember correctly. I saw one a few months ago and it still looked modern.
The Citroen CX should have sold better, IMO, but deep suspicions about the 'complicated suspension' put people off for years, although it never gave much trouble. It was crying out for a 6-cylinder engine, which I think was originally planned, but dropped for cost reasons. I had a ride in a friend's 23-year old Mk.1 this evening, and the ride is still wonderful.
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Wed 18 Aug 10 at 21:47
|
I agree about the NSU RO80, nice looking car even today.
Shame I wasnt even walking the planet when these were about.
I would have liked to drive one.
|
|
MK1 Sierra. Didn't they have to put little 'ears' on the rear quarterlights to stop the back wheels overtaking the front?
|
>> MK1 Sierra. Didn't they have to put little 'ears' on the rear quarterlights to stop the back wheels overtaking the front?
>>
"Early versions suffered from crosswind stability problems, which were addressed in 1985 with the addition of "strakes" (small spoilers), on the rear edge of the rubber seals of the rear most side windows."
Lots more info below
wapedia.mobi/en/Ford_Sierra
|
|
1950s Austin A90 Atlantic.
|
I thought the stability problems of the mk1 Sierra were overstated. I had one for 5 years and it wasn't great in crosswinds but it was far from dangerous.
I agree with madf that the Cavalier had far nicer engines, but it rotted just as badly and the styling dated far quicker. The interior wasn't as nice either.
That said, I remember both fondly.
|
Personally I hated the Sierra, we were commuting in several company cars at the time, a Sierra, a Mk 2 Cavalier and a Montego... The Cavalier was the nicest, followed by the Montego and then the Sierra which was, amongst other things, very cramped compared with the others... good old rwd!
Re the Astra mentioned earlier, wasn't the Mk2 just a reskin of the Mk1? I always thought the the Mk2 looked the better, the Mk one was too boxy and upright in my eyes...
|
I think the RO80 was crippled by its mechanical reputatation long before the 1970s oil crisis.
Still one of the loveliest looking motors ever made though...
|
Mark2 Cavalier was great - esp the SRI.
Mark 3 imo was even better.. a great ride..
Austin Atlantic? Uncle had one. Went like stink for the time... Pity most have been scrapped..or banger raced...
I loved the otiginal AC Ace: a beautiful design. The Cobra - based on its design - was brutal and unsubtle.. Also loved the Aston DB2-4 - first hatchback.. A Primera is similar..at the rear.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 19 Aug 10 at 12:51
|
I loved my mk2 SRi. It was raw, fun, and really rather quick for its time. In fact, it's 0-60 time would put it right up there with the best of the 2.0 repmobiles today.
Dynamically, I thought the mk3 in SRi trim at least was a massive step backwards. It rode better than the mk2, but had a really nasty combination of very numb steering and the most aggressive, persistent plough-on understeer at the limit of any car I've ever driven. Because the steering had no feel, and the body didn't roll much, you got no warning that you were pushing your luck until the steering suddenly stopped working, usually on a wet roundabout. The weighting and feedback through the rim was the same regardless of speed, steering input, or front end grip. It actually makes me grimace even thinking about it. I drove half a dozen of these and they were all completely hopeless.
Similarly the 2.0 engines would defeat the chassis' traction in the lower gears with comical ease. 2500 RPM off the line was enough to send 1000 miles worth of rubber up in smoke. I never tried the 150 bhp GSi version, but strangely after the SRi I had no yearning to. ;-) I can't imagine it was any quicker in the real world at all, unless in a completely straight line, over 30 mph, in bone dry conditions.
What these cars were though were quick in a straight line (all versions, relatively, but particularly the 2.0 models), smooth, beautifully built, reliable and long lasting. The 2.0 in non-sporting trim (GLi, perhaps) was a cracker.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 19 Aug 10 at 13:43
|
|
I think you're right, Mike - I didn't check the dates. Can't have helped its recovery, though. I'm surprised no-one put Mazda engines in them, but (amazing as it seems now) Japanese cars were still regarded with some suspicion then.
|
To answer the original question. Perhaps the Hillman Imp? Came out a few years after it's main competitor the Mini, and maybe the alleged head gasket problems/pneumatic throttle/too low headlights caused lower sales than anticipated.
The design was sound and it eventually won the british saloon car championship for a number of years. I vaguely fancied a Sunbeam Stiletto in the days when black vinyl roofs were 'in'.
|
|
Quite agree. Always preferred them to Minis. The pneumatic throttle was soon replaced with a cable, but I expect the mud stuck. There are still a couple around here - I saw a 'Californian' in the B&Q carpark recently. Loud shirt and shades - I know!
|
>> Re the Astra mentioned earlier, wasn't the Mk2 just a reskin of the Mk1? I
>> always thought the the Mk2 looked the better, the Mk one was too boxy and
>> upright in my eyes...
>>
Yes more or less, virtually Identical same engines, drivetrain etc it was a new body on the same equipment the later ones and the GTE came with fuel injection and a 5th gear.
The engines that GM made then where more or less indistructable, my 1.3 OHC in my mk 1 outlasted the body of the car, which quite frankly one of the wings was just a huge bubble that required pop riveting onto the chassis, to get it through the MOT.
Finally the body could take no more, and bits of it where falling to peices, after 160,000 miles and "when I felt like it" servicing it was time to say by.
I agree that though the sierra interiors where much nicer than the equivelant Cavalier (for the time) but i think that the quality of the cavailer espcially the mechanicals was much better.
Circa 1998 though I think that when the Mk3 Cav came out it was much more superior than the Sirrea ( i dont know maybe im being biased?) - however when the mondeo was launched drivabilty was the key factor here.
The Mk2 Astra (E) can still be a good looking car the Astra (F) was boring, bland and design wise a step backwards IMO I sometimes think that with the Astra (G) they tried to go back design wise to the Astra (E) whuch is why if you have a perfect untouched condtion Astra (E) Esp the GTE ones they can still look modern.
I like the Mk1 though maybe becasue it was my 1st car but with a decent colour of paint I dont think it would look to out of place?
|
>>The engines that GM made then where more or less indistructable
They did have rather an appetite for camshafts. Fitting them was almost a bread and butter job at one stage.
|
Do you mean that they where easy to do?
I replaced the valve seals and piston rings at 130,000 miles on mine (with guidence but what brilliant skill to learn) it breathed a new lease of life into the engine, its just a shame that the bodywork could not out last it.
|
We did lots of them, until Vauxhall began to use a different hardening process in ~ 1990.
They were easy to do with a valve press - the cam slid out of the back end of the head.
There were cheap aftermarket cam kits available at the time, which weren't very well made - in some cases, the cam would snap!
Yes, the valve stem oil seals went hard very quickly, and chaning them did make quite a difference. It was easy to push the valve stem oil seals too far onto the valve stem, and if you did that, they didn't seal very well.
|
There you are, you see? Beauty is in the eye... etc, etc.
I had a Cavalier SRI, three years old and low mileage, and I really did think it was awful. So much so that I sold it after a few months.
I bought it after being used to a Lancia HPE, thinking it would be a good idea to have something sensible for work. How wrong I was.
The engine was good and the Recaro seats were comfortable. But it ended there. After the Lancia, which had very obviously been designed as a driver's car, the Vauxhall was dreadful. Went round corners like a camel - it was quite clear that it was a very inadequate chassis, with big tyres to try and make it's lamentable handling acceptable. I tried fitting gas dampers, etc, but to no avail.
And inside, well... I remember being amazed to find there was no way to dim the fascia lights, for example. I suppose I should have been pleased there were any.
A373 TYA where are you now? Long converted into baked bean tins I hope.
|
Yes I think that’s always been Vauxhalls downfall handling and driving experiences, don’t get me wrong (and please tell me if Im being biased) but I loved all my prev ones (with the exception of my Astra G (I didn’t love it, it was ok)) and my current Vectra I would not swap for anything. But I think that drivability wise maybe ford have had the edge.
Without wanting to set of a debate on how good or bad Vauxhalls where what where the alternatives (excluding premium marques)
Sorry my list my not be comprehensive / complete, I was only 5 in 1983
A Reg 1983
Astra / Escort / Maestro (?)
Cavalier / Sierra / Montego
Etc, etc
which ones where the better car some where better styled others drove better and some where better quality of build
IMO
Last edited by: Redviper on Thu 19 Aug 10 at 14:36
|
In capability terms, the Montego was very underrated. Very spacious, decent handling by the standards of the day, and with a gutsy range of engines. Just the usual Austin Rover build quality / rustproofing issues, which they did eventually get sorted, but by then nobody cared.
Anyone remember the loopy MG Turbo version? A friend had one which he took to MotoBuild for a bit of fettling. It was kicking out just shy of 200 bhp when they'd finished with it. Couldn't take full throttle in either of the first two gears without lighting the tyres up, and struggled even in 3rd over bumps and crests. Insanely quick though.
|
the montego/maestro was the only model of car i ever remember that wouldnt self centre if put on full lock
how did they get away with that?
frightening if you forgot........................
|
>> Anyone remember the loopy MG Turbo version? A friend had one which he took to
>> MotoBuild for a bit of fettling. It was kicking out just shy of 200 bhp
>> when they'd finished with it. Couldn't take full throttle in either of the first two
>> gears without lighting the tyres up, and struggled even in 3rd over bumps and crests.
>> Insanely quick though.
I had one, a later black lowered beast with uprated boost. One of the most exciting cars I've had, and because the engine was lower in the later version (so the driveshafts were straighter), it hardly had any torque steer. They regularly trounced more exotic machinery on the drap strip because they could put so much of their power down. I'll never forget the first time I drove it. A fair amount of lag (the turbo was a Garret T3, quite big), then relentless shove up the road, and no let up at higher revs. On the motorway, it really felt like a much larger engine, going up long climbing hills was really satisfying as the thing just never ran out of puff. A subtle chattering from the wastegate completed the pleasure.
The electronics were Lucas though, and as I've mentioned before in this thread, just useless. I got through three ignition advance units, and my version was much rarer in the scrapyards, so I had a struggle locating one. It was pretty crude with an SU carburettor, but the engines were very strong, with sodium cooled exhaust valves.
The earlier versions had terrible torque steer, I remember seeing one in front of me careering all over the road as he booted it.
Last edited by: corax on Thu 19 Aug 10 at 18:05
|
I didn't know they lowered the engine on the later ones. My mate's was an early (C plate) car, and that would wind itself almost to full lock under power if you let go of the wheel.
His was very reliable which considering the way he drove it was a testament to the strength of the drivetrain. He used to thrash the wotsits off it absolutely everywhere.
I seem to recall a boost increase and a reprofiled carb needle were all that you needed for a reliable 200 bhp, and some very serious performance.
I remember it would wind off the 130 mph clock with ridiculous ease. I believe the later ones had speedos calibrated to 150 rather than 130.
|
I can see following cars of recent years never sold in good numbers even though they were good cars
Daihatsu Copen
Daihatsu Terios
Kia Magentis/Hyundai Sonata
Suzuki Ignis
Honda HR-V (they had 5-door version)
Honda Legend
Mitsubishi Lancer
None of these cars are/were unreliable.
|
cant say i would want any of those movilogo
you have gone from the car fit for the vertically challenged to a car with a big horn
interesting.;-)
|
"Mazda Xedos?"
Funny you should say that:
www.flickr.com/photos/fjp/395824363/
|
>>"Mazda Xedos?" Funny you should say that:<<
I've been checking out your fotostream effendi, some great pics there,
I particularly liked the buddhafly's and the poppy field.
|
|
Thank you, Dog! A rather mixed bag, I fear, but the butterflies were nice - I just caught a profusion of them at the right moment. I have some more poppy field ones, but I might get into trouble from the model if I posted them publicly... :-)
|
>>I have some more poppy field ones, but I might get into trouble from the model if I posted
them publicly... :-)<<
Say n'more (nudge, wink,) you might get in trouble with the webmaster as well :)
|
" the Lancia, which had very obviously been designed as a driver's car"
Wasn't it just? I loved mine, and would probably still have it, if it had been galvanised!
Not just nice to drive, but an extraordinarily good design - four decent seats, big tailgate and luggage space, lovely looks and sweet engines. Nearest modern equivalent I can think of is a Celica, but it's not as pretty.
|
BMC 1100
"... it had a remarkable amount of room for its size both front and rear."
Yes, it was very roomy inside, but very small outside. It was a family car, but compared with modern cars, it was tiny.
Austin 1100
Length: 3727mm
Width: 1533mm
Height: 1346mm
Weight: 776kgs
Ford Fiesta (2010)
Length: 3950 mm
Width: 1973 mm incl mirrors
Height: 1481 mm
Weight: 970 - 1164kgs
Ford Ka (2010)
Length: 3620 mm
Width: 1894 mm incl mirrors
Height: 1505 mm
Weight: 940 - 1055kgs
BMW Mini First (2010)
Length: 3699 mm
Width: 1912 mm incl mirrors
Height: 1407 mm
Weight: 1135 kgs
Now, if someone can dredge up the amount of leg room and boot space in the 1100 . . . .
|
>> Now, if someone can dredge up the amount of leg room and boot space in
>> the 1100 . . . .
>>
>>
It will be considerably more than that nasty pastiche the BMW mini.
How someone can make a car that big with so little room inside is beyond me. It should be taken to court for the use of the name "mini"
|
|
well they do keep saying its an adventure so maybe thats their getout clause
|
There was a lot of room in the back of an 1100 (better legroom, I remember, than in a Rover P6 2000), and even in the original Mini four adults could sit in reasonable comfort. But the boot in both was tiny.
SWMBO is on her third MINI and loves it but no way would we have one as an only car. It was designed to be fun (which it is) but not practical (which it isn't, particularly SWMBO's current convertible). The MINI convertible would really be better as a two-seater with a bigger boot. It'll be interesting to see what next year's Roadster will look like.
|
Cars that were right for their time but never sold - Bromptonaut
