|
|
Dec 13, 2004 20:32:43 GMT
|
There are still excuses for curse word cars today.
Some of them come from developing countries, where producing cars as good as they do is impressive. It could be said, however, that there is no excuse for importing them.
Which brings us to the City Rover. MG Rover's only excuse for this car is that they are trying to claw something back from a company that was hopelessly mismanaged for decades until all there was left was outdated plant and large debts. I do, however, think they are being greedy sticking what amounts to a 100% mark up on them if you inlcude tax. Drop the price by 1500 quid and they would still be making a profit, but selling at a price where such foibles may be excused.
Which is where mean little cars like some of Suzuki's recent output come in. Cars like the Alto and Swift (and other similar stuff such as the Perodua Nippa) were built down to a very low price. They were old designs so the development cost had been largely offset, the Nippa was a Daihatsu Mira which was a facelifted Domino. They had no equipment, not even a basic radio. In short they were designed for people on low incomes, and they do the job. I've owned a Nippa and it was reliable, economical, cheap to service and cheap to buy (£99 a month for three years. Oh, and it was a hoot to drive. I don't think Suzuki design particularly bad cars either, but most of their designs are old and I don't think much to Hungarian build quality.
Ah yes, the Justy. The later Justy was, AFAIK, a rebadged Suzuki Swift built at Suzuki's Hungarian plant and available with 4WD. I'm told it was possible to buy a Swift GTI with 4WD in Australia, sort of a baby Impreza.
I remember reading once that the Volvo 480 had a lot of input from Honda, which may explain why it was so different from the 440 and 460.
Getting back to the specific subject of curse word cars though. I've been wondering what to buy for my next toy. I want something cheap and rear drive. I've done front drive to death. Solution? A Volvo 300 series. Why? Because it's curse word. They really aren't a very good car at all, but they do have their advantages. Sticking the engine at the front and the gearbox at the back is good for weight distribution. The De Dion style rear axle will beat a live axle once the springing and axle location is sorted out. There's loads of room in the engine bay for something different. But the biggest advantage is it's crapness. The fact that it's curse word makes it cheap. The fact that it's cheap means I won't be bankrupt if I mess it up. And the fact that it's curse word means I won't have an angry owners club after me when I hack it about.
Let's hear it for curse word cars!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2004 20:36:47 GMT
|
^^^That's the attitude!^^^ Bring on the modded 340!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2004 22:35:25 GMT
|
We could pick on the Rover 25/45 and its cynical marketing, but it would be churlish to pick on Rover. They're pretty much at rock bottom and know it.
I agree with the unusual quality of driving a genuinely curse word car. I drive several.....which is why the likes of a Hyundai stellar of even better the XG30 will be something I would seriously consider! Those cars are not trying to be anything other than curse word - concieved from the day it was born as a mini cab, but even sarf london mini-cabbers have more demanding tastes these days.
Things like the first late eighties Bluebird and Sunny ZX hatchbacks (not the curse word cars one) look pretty bland but they are seriously fun to drive. Ultimately look curse word but its all in the power and handling.
I like your Volvo 300 theory, its so deeply unfashionable that its brilliant. The 360 GLT is actually a lot of RWD fun for the money!
Go seek!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2004 23:13:37 GMT
|
I really like "curse word" cars too! As devilsadvocate points out, they're dirt cheap, and most have gone to the crusher so they are in a way quite rare! I'm a perpetual owner of "curse word" cars but I just love blasting around in a car that's worth less than the guy in front's wing mirror. I don't have to worry too much about car thieves, and if I scrape it (which I do quite often in my bangers...), it just adds to the look ;D Plus you can scare the living curse word out of the reps who try to bully you when they realise that you really don't give a monkeys about dents / scratches in the bodywork. Back off suitboy! I drive a wreck and I'm not afraid to use it! ;D As for the book, it's a laugh. Anyone who gets offended by someone highlighting the shortcomings of their cars are taking things far too seriously IMO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there ARE such things as curse word cars, and they can be curse word for a variety of reasons. I loved my Polo G40 for example, went like poo off a greasy shovel. Since buying the Audi though i've come to appreciate things like AirCon, soft suspension, a quiet exhaust and a working radio. and being able to accelerate without playing "guess which lane i'll end up in". This makes my Polo curse word, but I'd have another one for sure. It's just different, there is no car out there that can please everyone. I had a beetle, which I understand to be curse word car number one in this book. i loved that too, for the simplicity of it all, the reliability (no, really) and the 'scene'. it was a gaudy colour, had nasty seats and smelt funny when the heating was on. but i still loved it. i think the point i'm trying to make here is that you can poke fun at anything. the good thing about this forum is we turn around when people laugh at our cars and go "actually yeah, it IS pig ugly!" whereas on a lot of other forums you'd get flamed outta there. heck i've got a 1972 VW Fastback... i need to be able to take critisism
|
|
Never trust a man Who names himself Trevor. Or one day you might find He's not a real drug dealer.
|
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2004 10:11:25 GMT
|
I think that the author's view of crapness is at times a reaction to the popular view of a car.
The beetle is the prime example; too many people view the beetle as being a brilliant car, when in fact it was designed to be the Perodua Nippa of it's day. Cheap, basic, transportation. And that it became such a popular car. Once upon a time you could buy them used for peanuts and anybody could service, repair or improve them with a very basic toolset and indeed skillset. And all of that is very much a good thing.
However I don't understand their continued popularity. You can no longer get a roadworthy beetle for peanuts, they tend to sell for more than other, better cars of a similar age. And therein lies the problem, I can't see why somebody would pay a premium for a 70's beetle when they could pay a fraction of the cost for an alternative.
And I can see why you could describe it as a truly curse word car, if you define crapness as being the size of the gap between the popular opinion of the car and it's actual dynamic capability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2004 16:52:21 GMT
|
Its all opinion really. I don't like Etype Jags I find them boring and an un original choice of classic car but thousands would disagree with me.
|
|
BS Nymph Singer Chamois Coupe Series 3 Landy
|
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2004 17:05:43 GMT
|
Its all opinion really. I don't like Etype Jags I find them boring and an un original choice of classic car but thousands would disagree with me. Funnilly enough I'm with you on that. I'd go further I think the styling is out of proportion and the way the wheels don't fill the arches reminds me of a Commer van. Dynamically there is no doubt that the XJS is a better car, but E Types are more sought after and command better prices. Takes all sorts and it would be a boring world if we were all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2004 18:00:47 GMT
|
It would be a boring world if we were all the same.
don't compare Commer vans to E types as I like Commer vans ;D
|
|
BS Nymph Singer Chamois Coupe Series 3 Landy
|
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2004 19:07:50 GMT
|
I think it makes the classic car scene more interesting when we all think different things about some cars. I mean, the modern car scene as seen in car mags is either about naff bodykits and big but not neccisarily effective stereos (eg there might well be 15 speakers in there but it still doesn't sound any good! ) or is about unnatainable supercars, even more powerful Imprezas and Evos with a lorrylike 400bhp instead of "only" a rally car like 300, which again for most of us are irrelevant, or dull hatchbacks that are about as exciting as cutting your toenails. What we have here is real variety, I mean in the past month or so we've all been drooling over everything from Trabants to big V8 Mercs, and the cars we all own are just as interesting, I mean, we have Datsuns, Mercs, VWs, Minis, Imps, Skodas, BMWs, and a fair few other marques and in just about any state of tune imaginable, besides, as a lot of you have said, many of our cars did leave something to be desired when they were new, I mean the out of the cars I like, Imps didn't just leave the factory as racewinners (well, most of them anyway! ), and need careful attention if they're to stay in good working order, Volvo 740s are great but few people like their looks, and they're not going to leave anyone behind on the track without a little tinkering, and without a bit of tuning a Lada will impress nobody in a rally, but a bit of hard work and you've got the makings of a great car in all of the above, and just about any retro car. Most people buy performance cars. We don't. We make our own!
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people buy performance cars. We don't. We make our own! Excellent quote!!!! I fully agree with the rest of your post too
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2004 15:59:54 GMT
|
Just so you know where I stand on the whole styling thing. I can't be doing with any of these styles anyway, the way I look at it cars a tools and if I was going to modify a tool it would be to make it do it's job better. I wouldn't paint my angle grinder pink or fit alloys to my trolley jack.
Likewise if I'm going to modify a car then I will only do it if it makes the car do it's job better. My rules are as follows:
1. If a modification doesn't improve performance, handling, braking or safety don't do it.
2. If it doesn't contribute to performance, handling, braking or safety and it isn't a legal requirement then bin it.
3. If it works right it will look right.
OK so there's a caveat on #2, you generally need seats and door handles and the like, but binning all the excess curse word inside and out not only makes the car perform better (you'd be amazed how much weight you can shed), but it generally makes a car look better too. This is where car (and bike) customising started anyway.
Styling a car in any way at all has never appealled to me, to me it's extra work and/or cost to no useful effect. I don't remember which mag it was but I saw a company advertising original 70s and 80s body kits. I just don't see the difference between that and a body kit on a modern car. If you're going to follow that route then you are no different than some spotty Kev with a body kitted Corsa.
It's odd the way people talk about all the Max Power crowd as if it were a new phenomenon. When I was a spotty teenager back in the early eighties the general boy race thing was to fit a body kit, noisy exhaust, K&N and alloys. Nothing's changed in the last twenty years, but I never saw the point then and I don't get it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2004 16:16:27 GMT
|
Ive just been in a boy racer shop in Banbury. don't ask why. It had a chav with his chavette and chav jnr serving! Great fun!
|
|
BS Nymph Singer Chamois Coupe Series 3 Landy
|
|