147 & other Alfa owners

cupra > wrote:

> SteveH wrote:
> > John > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec
> >> engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I
> >> am probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may
> >> be too expensive for my budget.
> >
> > An Alfa is never too expensive..... just look at the depreciation ;-)
>
> lol

Sadly true, though.... where else would I get a 155bhp luxury sports
saloon at 6 years old for £2800?

A BMW 320i would be at least double that price, even a half decent A4 or
Passat would be at least a grand to 1500 quid more.

I love my Alfas, but you can never defend the depreciation..... but
that's a good thing, really. Let the company car drivers take the hit,
then buy when they're cheap :-)
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:37:36 -0400, some stupid top-posting,
nym-shifting troll, currently calling himself Mike Hunter wrote:

>Those that hate SUVs and do
>not want others to drive them like to distort the facts about accidents to
>favor their cause.

Bull****. What you say about "size helping" is true, but what you
conveniently leave out is that the higher mass of the SUV inflicts
higher-than necessary damage on the other vehicle. With proper
engineering, people can be SAFER in a car than in an SUV, and NOT be
the danger to everyone else on the road that heavy trucks and SUV's
are.

>I don't own an SUV, I drive only larger RWD vehicles.
>From what I know I will never ride in a small FWD car just to save a few
>hundred dollar a year on fuel.

I can understand why you feel that way, considering all the freaking
BARGES on the roads these days...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:02:14 GMT, "tomb" > wrote:

>I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics.
>
>However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy?
>What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle?
>Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what?

Exactly. It's an "arms war" mentality, where EVERYBODY loses, due to
all the wasted resources.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:00:34 -0400, flobert > wrote:

>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over
>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised
>theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry,
>its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87
>caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie
>steel for you.

An '05 is "already rusting", huh? Yeah, that's real believable.

The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short
term, when it's galvaneeled and painted.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:02:18 +0100, John wrote:

> Thanks for all the help guys. I think Alfas are great, the Honda vtec
> engines are first class, and Toyota are also pretty reliable too. I am
> probably going to go for a Seat Tdi though. I think an Alfa may be too
> expensive for my budget.
>
> John

Are Spanish made VW's as bad as Mexican made VW's?

I like the SEAT models, but they don't sell in the US...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:27:26 -0400, flobert wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:21:52 GMT, Hachiroku > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:14:51 -0400, flobert wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:42:22 GMT, Hachiroku > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There was also a representation from Citroen where they had some of their
>>>>new models, a Rallye car (whoa!) and one of the oldest 2CVs in existance
>>>>(number 3, I think!)
>>>>
>>> not a big fan of modern Rally cars. They're getting to be so
>>> sensitive, and delicate, and computer controlled. I'll stick with
>>> 6R4's and my fathers old 71 escort rally car.
>>
>>Was it '88? '90? '92?
>>
>>

Was it '88? '90? '92?Ford RS200 Rallye car. What a machine!
Um, this is what I meant...

> yeah, and what a shame the 6R4 metro kept kicking its backside
>
> the escort was a 1971. (hence '71 escort')

I remember the Escorts. We had a different model here. The looked kind of
similar, but you guys got the GOOD looking one!

>
> most of the 6R4's i've driven were 83-84ish, groupB like the RS200s

Gruppe B..the Killer B's. They cancelled for what, one year? Two years?

Killing off your spectators is NOT a good way to advance your sport!
Kinda like 'football' (soccer) or Rugby.

I remember watching a race from Spain and a car went off the road, into
the crowd, running over a Mother and her 12 YO son, killing the boy. Can't
remember the driver; if I said the name you'd know it.

Poor kid probably bugged his Mom for hours or days to get her to take him...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:02:14 +0000, tomb wrote:

> I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but...
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> One can not defy the laws of physics. In nine out of
>> ten collisions the larger the vehicle the less likely proper belted
>> passengers will be injured or killed, period.
>
> I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics.
>
> However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy?
> What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle?
> Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what?
>
> This is an escalation that does not make sense. As others have pointed out,
> all that large vehicles do is endanger the smaller ones. As hard as it may
> seem, one has to think not only egoistically (because that will get all of
> us killed), but also consider what's around you.
>
> I just shudder everytime I see one of those ridiculously *huge* SUVs, with
> one *tiny* person sitting in it, mostly on the cell phone (not paying
> attention to the traffic, thereby greatly increasing the risk of accidents).

You've been reading my posts again, eh?
Plagarism...you'll be hearing from my Lawyers...

Honest to God true story: saw a woman on a rural highway (2 laner) about
to enter the highway, talking on the phone, eating a sandwich and doing
something that looked like drying her nails, while driving an Expedition.


> How dumb is that? It's not about the few hundred dollars a year of gas you
> save, it's about the insanity of just blowing away a finite resource that
> your children, and your grandchildren, and their kids will want to use, just
> to "make you feel safe" (Jim Beam has already touched on the "feel safe" vs.
> "be safe" points)
>
>> From what I know I will never ride in a small
>> FWD car just to save a few hundred dollar a year on fuel.
>
> But you *would* run over those wimpy folks in their Civics, wouldn't you?
> The main thing is you survive?

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:01:05 +0100, John wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:02:14 GMT, A strange species called "tomb"
> > wrote:
>
>>I swore I wasn't going to add to the fire... but...
>>
>>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> One can not defy the laws of physics. In nine out of
>>> ten collisions the larger the vehicle the less likely proper belted
>>> passengers will be injured or killed, period.
>>
>>I agree on the not being able to defy the laws of physics.
>>
>>However... so you're postulating a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy?
>>What if you neighbor now gets a Hummer? Will you get a yet bigger vehicle?
>>Then he gets an 18-wheeler? Then what?
>>
>>This is an escalation that does not make sense. As others have pointed out,
>>all that large vehicles do is endanger the smaller ones. As hard as it may
>>seem, one has to think not only egoistically (because that will get all of
>>us killed), but also consider what's around you.
>
> This has kind of diverted from my original post a bit. I think that
> there is a lack of understanding on both sides of the pond here.
>
> In Britain and Europe we mainly have Smaller economical manual cars
> because they are ideal for and designed for our needs.
>
> In the US they mainly have bigger automatic cars and SUVs because they
> are ideal for and designed for their needs.

Not really. I'd bet 3/4 of the SUVs in this country NEVER see ANY off-road
use, and prolly 1/2 of those never even see dirt roads. "I need it for
winter" (buy a Subaru...or a MAtrix AWD). I want my kids to be safe (at
the expense of someone in a Yugo...)

Nope...not necessary. I never saw the craze, myself. Who the hell wants to
maintain a 4WD vehicle when you only really need the 4WD maybe 6 times a
year? (he says after spending the weekend working on his AWD Grand Caravan...
But I use my AWD van to move the amps and drums to gigs in the winter)

>
> In the UK we don't really need a big car or large engine as we don't
> need to do as much driving. In the States they can afford to have
> bigger gas guzzlers, they need them and can afford to fuel them.

Then why is is, EVERY SINGLE TIME I see someone on TV bitching about gas
prices, they are driving an Excursion, or an Escalade, or a Suburban?


>
> I don't see what the big deal is. It is all about supply and demand
> and market forces. The reason the Americans probably don't think too
> much to a fair percentage of the cars made for our market, is because
> they are not suitable for theirs and it's the same vice-versa. The
> companies that customise cars for different markets, those cars will
> do well. There will only be the odd exceptions to that general rule.

Like the SUVs in places like NYC and LA?

>
> One point I would like to add on this whole crash thing, I would say
> that the newer a car is the better it will withstand a crash against a
> similar sized but older car.
>
> I seem to recall an episode of Top Gear here in the UK where they had
> two large 4x4 vehicles and they showed how the newest model just went
> straight through the older one in a crash with relatively minor damage
> whereas the older one was completely trashed and there could have been
> fatalities. That also has to be a factor in crashes from what little
> I know. So even if you have an SUV that may be slightly bigger than
> the other person on a collision course, you may come out of it worse
> if they have a brand new model.
>
> One thing I like about American cars is the seat belt. I was in I
> think it was a Saturn, and the seat belts moved across automatically
> for me to plug in. Are their any cars in Britain than do this? This is
> a serious question. I expect it may just be some of the executive cars
> with things like this. This Saturn though I believe that was just one
> of their basic cars.

Toyotas once used the Ford system, where the shoulder harness would glide
into place. After hangging out the window of a Camry when my BIL started
the car, I think I know why they stopped (GAG!)

>
> John

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:01:05 +0100, John > wrote:

>One thing I like about American cars is the seat belt. I was in I
>think it was a Saturn, and the seat belts moved across automatically
>for me to plug in. Are their any cars in Britain than do this? This is
>a serious question. I expect it may just be some of the executive cars
>with things like this. This Saturn though I believe that was just one
>of their basic cars.
>
>John
>
the US had a law sometime in the ealy 90s or late 80s, requiring a
form of passive restraint system that didn't require the driver to do
anything. Many went for the airbags (and thats what is used
exclusively now) but early on, many distrust them, and went for a
system using seatbelts. When the door was closed, the seatbelt was at
the shoulder position, when it was open, it was somewhere on the
a-pillar. This meant you only had to get in, and sit down, and when
you closed the door you had a seatbelt which went from shoulder to
hip, no effort etc. There was then a second inertia reel belt usually
on the door side, by the hip, you brought across as a lap belt. Was a
simpler and easier solution than airbags, but easily circumventable -
just use the clip to undo th seatbelt (required for large packages and
other situatiosn when such a belt would be a hinndrence.

not sure when, but i believe airbags are now required, and the
motorised belt system can not be installed in cars any more.

(note, i'm a brit who only started driving in the US in 98, and only
moved here in 03 so i don't know the 'history' that well)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:40:32 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:00:34 -0400, flobert > wrote:
>
>>Toyota's, i feel sorry for you - With all the high-end turnover over
>>the past few years, and the switching to cheap metal, i'm surprised
>>theoir vehicles ahven't fallen apart already. Friends got an 05 camry,
>>its had more work done to it since december, than my 88 civic and 87
>>caravan combined. Oh, and its already rusting, but thats cheap argie
>>steel for you.
>
>An '05 is "already rusting", huh? Yeah, that's real believable.

Rust was first visible in feb. Easy to remember, since i noticed it in
the road outside my house, and it was whilst we were moving.

>
>The quality of the steel is pretty much meaningless, in the short
>term, when it's galvaneeled and painted.

Well, assumingits galvanised and painted right. But with all the
shakeups at all ifferent levels of the corp, the financial switching
arond and so forth, you'd be amazed. Amazing what you find out when a
reletive owns a company that supplies toyotas metal (or rather did,
and never got paid for it, and has been trying to get payment via the
courts for 5 years)