BMW, Audi, Lexus, VW or Seat?

rake

dont the fords drive well because they have the euro chassis developed mainly by volvo which they nicked along with the 5 cylinder white block engine thats in the focus asbo. thats why they bought in. it also handles well in its propper home the s40 which is the dogs bits.

meanredspider

hopper1 wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

(or maybe a renovated Alfasud...... )

What could you renovate?... They all fell apart years ago!

Just been helping my neighbour put this together to race with me in the SMRC Classics series.



I love Suds though not quite as much as my Giulia

Gav888

meanredspider wrote:

Given this range of cars, I can't help you! All very dull. Audi's have the most wooden steering of any car I've ever driven - even my brother's S8 was ruined (by his own admission) by the steering. Not driven one yet that I've liked. The BMW is a possibility - again ruined by their insistence on horrible run-flat tyres.

Good luck....

You dont have to keep the run flat's, been doing some research and alot of people replace them with std tires which cost ALOT less than those expensive run flats....

Gav888

crumbschief wrote:

£12000,wow,most would waste it but i'd spend it on beer,cold remedies,bike kit,a bigger server for Bikely,a Cake Stop ride out with Flasheart and a photo shoot with some Lycra short clad ladies.

LOL, I dont even think £12k of cold remedies would help get ride of one!!

Gav888

Ive removed the Leon from my list as I had a sit in one yesterday, didn't like the look of the dash or the 'feel' of the car, just didn't feel right sitting in it, didnt bother with a test drive either....

skellator3

can i thro a curve ball here have you considered the VW jetta 2.0 TDi sport 140 get it remapped to 170 and it still costs about 2 grand less than the golf at the same age, you could get a year old jetta with 12k on it for your money, it is just a golf with a v big boot and in my opinion looks better

balthazar

meanredspider wrote:

I love Suds though not quite as much as my Giulia

That's lovely!

Pork Sword

Scrumple wrote:

12k for a 3 yr old bmw 320d m sport trim
???

no chance.....

I have one and the boots are tiny. You wont get a bike in, so make sure the seats fold as it is an optional, coslty extra...

Have you heard of a thing called a bike rack before? :roll:

meanredspider

Gav888 wrote:

You dont have to keep the run flat's, been doing some research and alot of people replace them with std tires which cost ALOT less than those expensive run flats....

Yup - so long as you don't care about any warranty, go for it. BMW dealers insist you keep them for warranty.

meanredspider

balthazar wrote:

That's lovely!

Thanks! Lots of info at www.alfa.me.uk


[/url]

clarkie28

Very very nice meanredspider! 8)

Do you frequent on Alfaowner.com?

Sorry to takeover original post!!

Clarkie.

Gav888

meanredspider wrote:

Gav888 wrote:

You dont have to keep the run flat's, been doing some research and alot of people replace them with std tires which cost ALOT less than those expensive run flats....

Yup - so long as you don't care about any warranty, go for it. BMW dealers insist you keep them for warranty.

I can't afford a BMW with a warranty from BMW so not a biggy.

Don't really like the look of the Jetta to be honest but thanks for the suggestion, the Passat is ok but the dash is horrible, had a few as hire cars.. but still think the Golf is the best of the VW bunch. Love the look of the GTI.

meanredspider

Gav888 wrote:

I can't afford a BMW with a warranty from BMW so not a biggy.

.

Then that would be my choice of those in the list just so long as it's not one with the shockingly cheap interior.

Clarkie, thank you - no, I tend not to be on AO - mostly AROC forum. Lots of stuff on youtube (same username) and coverage on Motors TV too.

proto

meanredspider wrote:

I love Suds though not quite as much as my Giulia

[jealous]I've just decided that I really, really don't likel.[/jealous]

carrock

In terms of value you won't beat the octavia VRS

I have a diesel vrs, bought with 5000 miles on clock for £12k, and have it remapped to 214 bhp. And I still get 45mpg

I did want a 320d M sport with efficient dynamics, but at the time ( 12 months ago ) couldnt get a 2nd hand one for less than £22k

Agreed that Seat Leons are a cramped more expensive version of the octavia with worse build quality

The only car I'd change my Skoda for ould be a 320d m sport- if I could get one for sensible moeny. The audis are common, expensive and have a horribly offset driving position where the pedals are in the wrong place, and if you drive one for long enough you will need a hip replacement. allegedly.

SteveR_100Milers

meanredspider wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

(or maybe a renovated Alfasud...... )

What could you renovate?... They all fell apart years ago!

Just been helping my neighbour put this together to race with me in the SMRC Classics series.



I love Suds though not quite as much as my Giulia

Yum and double yum.

I've come close a couple of times to succumbing to the ebay motors challenge, there was a stunning 1982 red sprint veloce about 2 years ago that I so nearly nearly bought.

Gav888

djbarren wrote:

My brother has a Leon FR and He loves it alot, also remapped to 200+BHP and wow what a thing to shift, personally I would consider the VRS Octavia as I have a 320d BMW M sport and I find it uncomfortable, too firm on the road, rather harsh, so I too am considering going for one of these

What about the ST TDCI mondeo old shape? Anyone had any experience with them?

Do you have the run flat tires as alot of people say the ride is quite harsh when these are fitted and changing to normal tires its improves the ride quality.

I did think about another Skoda but the misses said she would kill me if I go another one as she is snob lol plus I want something different where I dont have to keep telling people 'its basically a golf' lol

rake

http://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/volvo/vol ... _265.jhtml
torque is what counts for acceleration not hp.
has more torque than a porsche boxster and nearly as much as a bmw e46 m3 and gives 40-50 mpg.

SteveR_100Milers

rake wrote:

http://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/volvo/volvo_s40/review_volvo_s40_d5_265.jhtml
torque is what counts for acceleration not hp.
has more torque than a porsche boxster and nearly as much as a bmw e46 m3 and gives 40-50 mpg.

Not as simple as that.

At rest, yes, because there is 0 air / mechanical resistance. However, as you accelerate, your velocity increases, as does drag. so you need to use calculus to predict at delta T how much power is required to maintain that velocity, and what surplus torque is available to continue acceleration of the vehicle. Otherwise, you would be able to accelerate at the same rate at whatever speed you were doing (which is possible in deep space of course).

rake

delta t ?

meanredspider

Yes - where torque really helps is in heavy cars. The old E-Class Merc I use for towing my race car has oodles of torque and pulls the loaded trailer almost as if it wasn't there. That torque would be wasted in a Caterham or in a motorbike (as one of the Caterham bods once said "Torque is for pulling up trees") hence these cars can run motorbike engines - high power, low torque.

beverick

Get the Beemer but go for the 320 SE and not the sport. I've had three, they're more comfortable than the Sport and are better appointed. Watch out for faulty switch gear and wear on the door-side edge of the driver's seat (especially on leather clad versions). Also, consider the petrol engined 320i. The engine's an absolute peach and much better matched to the car although it's not as economic.

If you go for the Golf go for the 140 bhp. I'm currently on my second (either side of the Beemers above!). The chasis/traction control can't cope with the extra power and you just spend the additional 30bhp stripping the rubber of the front wheels. There was an excellent 4 wheeled drive version which was the one to go for with the 170 engine but even the newest ones are getting a bit long in the tooth now.

I looked at, and drove the Seat last year when I bought the Golf. It's a good car but you can tell where VW have cut the corners to keep the cost down. I think a better option is the eqivalent Skoda although they don't look as good as either the Golf or the Leon - the interiors are definately VW standard though.

I don't think that the A4 is worth the premium over the equivalent Passat or Skoda but I haven't driven any of them. A mate's got a Skoda Superb and he recons it lives up to its name though.

A colleage has a Lexus. It's quirky inside and is definately more Toyota than Lexus in a few places - including the rattles here and there. Being polite the engine lacks refinement; being honest it's pretty agricultural - oh, and you definately know where the potholes are as there seems to be little or no damping effect from the suspension!

Bob

SteveR_100Milers

rake wrote:

delta t ?

calculus

Gav888

beverick wrote:

Get the Beemer but go for the 320 SE and not the sport. I've had three, they're more comfortable than the Sport and are better appointed. Watch out for faulty switch gear and wear on the door-side edge of the driver's seat (especially on leather clad versions). Also, consider the petrol engined 320i. The engine's an absolute peach and much better matched to the car although it's not as economic.

If you go for the Golf go for the 140 bhp. I'm currently on my second (either side of the Beemers above!). The chasis/traction control can't cope with the extra power and you just spend the additional 30bhp stripping the rubber of the front wheels. There was an excellent 4 wheeled drive version which was the one to go for with the 170 engine but even the newest ones are getting a bit long in the tooth now.

I looked at, and drove the Seat last year when I bought the Golf. It's a good car but you can tell where VW have cut the corners to keep the cost down. I think a better option is the eqivalent Skoda although they don't look as good as either the Golf or the Leon - the interiors are definitely VW standard though.

I don't think that the A4 is worth the premium over the equivalent Passat or Skoda but I haven't driven any of them. A mate's got a Skoda Superb and he recons it lives up to its name though.

A colleage has a Lexus. It's quirky inside and is definitely more Toyota than Lexus in a few places - including the rattles here and there. Being polite the engine lacks refinement; being honest it's pretty agricultural - oh, and you definitely know where the potholes are as there seems to be little or no damping effect from the suspension!

Bob

Nice, thanks for the info.

The Golf is now off the list as the boot is too small, thought it would be ok to get the baby stuff in but nope, too small.

Ive not seen the lexus up close yet but hoping to have a look at one the weekend to see what its like, but the way things are going the BMW is looking top dog

ilm_zero7

Gav888 wrote:

Audi A4 2.0 TDI S Line 140 or 170
Golf GT TDI Sport 140 or 170
Seat Leon FR
BMW 320d M Sport
Lexus IS220d Sport

Lexus Sport- should be done under the trade descriptions Act
BMW - the mondeo of the 21 C
Seat - a cheap VW
Audi - an expensive VW

the golf it is then - yes i do own one - two in fact - and the 170psd GTi has more oomph and guts than the petrol GTI and returns 53 MPG on a decent run - brilliant

Monsieur Les Papadici

Are you asking which is the biggest selfish inconsiderate prick on the road? Hmmmmm, difficult one...

mocev

I've got the Seat FR.
Don't bother.

I had an Audi A3 before it and I bitterly regret the swap. The Seat is miles quicker, but the ride is very hard and as mentioned on numerous other posts, it's very cheap and tacky inside.
I had to drive to Glasgow and back last Saturday (from Sheffield) and my back felt worse than it does after a 6 hour bike ride.

Mine's 3 years old now, so I can swap it again next month (company car policy). I'll be going straight to the Audi dealership for an A4.

You can buy mine if you like! (approx 75k miles, FDSH 18" alloys, IPOD conn, bluetooth.. )

rake

but its a vauxhall :twisted:

Woolfie

Can't comment on all your options but the A3 is a lovely car - probably the best all round car me and the mrs have owned. One thing I still can't get over is the BMW - since the A3 my mrs has had two 320D sports, one was an older model 54 plate which then got swopped for the latest model. The older model was a much better car, imho the newer car had a much cheaper feel. Also I just don't get the BMW whole driving experience bit that everyone keeps going on about - the BMW's drove horribly, tramlining badly, bouncing around on rough surfaces, terrible traction in all but good conditions. They just don't handle on snow or ice. I am sure they are great on nice smooth tarmac or a track but that just doesn't exist near me. My Subaru (not an Impreza or souped up effort) would absolutly trounce the BMW's round the Derbyshire lanes near me in terms of performance and comfort. If you are doing a lot of motorway driving it might be different.
So in short any of the other cars on the list would be my choice

beverick

Woolfie wrote:

..... 320D sports, one was an older model 54 plate which then got swopped for the latest model. The older model was a much better car, imho the newer car had a much cheaper feel....

Agreed. The second, facelifted variant of the E46 (launched in about 2003) was the best of the recent cars. The current E90 was a step back down the evolutionary chain in looks, finish and refinement. Also, the additional of run-flat tyres did the handling no favours at all.

Woolfie wrote:

..... Also I just don't get the BMW whole driving experience bit that everyone keeps going on about - the BMW's drove horribly, tramlining badly, bouncing around on rough surfaces, terrible traction in all but good conditions.

Which is why the SE is the better car. It handles well and you can place it on the road exactly where you want it. I never experienced 'tramlining' on any of my cars. The SE, with slightly revised suspension and different tyres, are much more forgiving of poor surfaces but they can be fairly harsh at low speeds on poor surfaces. Once above 30-35 mph they're fine though. However, and as above, the E46 was much better on poor road surfaces.

Woolfie wrote:

..... They just don't handle on snow or ice..........:

Tell me about it. Again, the E46 could cope with light snow and slippery surfaces by engaging a high gear (2nd or 3rd), 'booting' the accelerator and lifting the clutch completely: basically letting the electronics take over completely. However, the current E90's (and again I blame the run-flats) are useless. You can spin the wheels on frost!

Bob