My Ideal car...

mann.jpg


My ideal car.

280bhp twin-turbo V6. 4wd with AYC (out of the EVO). Estate (still practical). Looks damn fine...

They're even cheap to buy, but I can't afford insurance, fuel or maintenance...
 
This motor was good for tail out action:
2.jpg

Future classic!!!
And my series 3 landy is very easy to slide the back if it's in 2 wheel drive..
 
I worked at Volvo for a time and the 5 pot petrol engines were hit and miss. The standard turbo'd 2.4 was okay, the S60 T5 was pants. The D5's made it look like a old chugger!
 
My mother had a Daf33 with variomatic. Just loved the "underdrive" switch.

Still, it did have a claim to fame, in that it was one of the few cars that was as fast backwards as forwards.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Strangely, I hardly know anyone who likes the look of the M Coupe but me. Most people think of it as an ugly bread van version of hairdressers car using a rear suspension from an E30.

Me, I see it as a reliable TVR.
Click to expand...

Its absolutely nothing like a TVR in any respect. In fact, it may be fast, but its an absolute abomination.
 
Isaac Sibson said:
mann.jpg


My ideal car.

280bhp twin-turbo V6. 4wd with AYC (out of the EVO). Estate (still practical). Looks damn fine...

They're even cheap to buy, but I can't afford insurance, fuel or maintenance...
Click to expand...

Nice. And I bet you could afford to get one, you might have to give up a certain other expensive hobby, however ;)
 
PBirkett said:
Its absolutely nothing like a TVR in any respect. In fact, it may be fast, but its an absolute abomination.
Click to expand...

???
Have you tried comparing the two, at least from a spec sheet:
Both are:
- RWD
- Front engined
- 6 cylinders (we're only talking about present production TVRs)
- Similar cost when new (around £40k)
- Over 300hp
- 2 seats
- Relatively light (I know the TVR has the edge on weight, but it's not enourmous)
- Both are something of a handful to drive well

So excluding the above, what have I missed?
Don't tell me looks, as that is all a case of personal preference.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
???
Have you tried comparing the two, at least from a spec sheet:
Both are:
- RWD
- Front engined
- 6 cylinders (we're only talking about present production TVRs)
- Similar cost when new (around £40k)
- Over 300hp
- 2 seats
- Relatively light (I know the TVR has the edge on weight, but it's not enourmous)
- Both are something of a handful to drive well

So excluding the above, what have I missed?
Don't tell me looks, as that is all a case of personal preference.
Click to expand...

RWD, yes, ok, i'll give you that one.

Front engined, well i'm not sure they all are, but i cant be bothered to look it up.

Most TVRs are V8's.

Relatively light, the Z3M? Dont make me laugh... its about 1.5 tonnes!! TVR's are much lighter.

The TVR looks loads better, sounds loads better, and will be far more entertaining to drive. The BMW is just a refined cruiser with questionable tail happy handling, and even more questionable styling. I can't believe anyone looking for pure driving thrills or adrenaline would choose one of those ugly heaps over a TVR.
 
Have you actually driven either car?

Ref your comments:
- Nope, all production TVRs are now straight sixes
- All production TVRs are front engined
- The Z3M weighs 1350kg, the TVR 350c weights 1100kg. Quite clearly there is a difference, but the Z3M doesn't weight 1500kg

So on specs, you don't appear to be doing so well.

One of my friends has a Tuscan S, sounds like an angry demon with PMT, completely awesome. IMO the Z3M is simply different.
 
actually to be pedantic most tvrs are 'front mid' with the engine actually behind the front wheels. they do use a 6 though - i much prefer their sound to the sound of the bmw though. that said if you want a proper car noise go for an old 420 seac - pre cat and emmissions rubbish - truly awesome - the cerbera and griffith weren;t too shabby either.
the bmw romps home for reliability though everyone i know who's had a tvr has sold it within a year cos it broke down too much (except for one guy with an old s2).
 
BMW has the driver aids an dthe TVR doesn't, the BW will be easier to drive hold its money better but I wouldn't have one its one fugly mother IMO. Tvrs are things of beauty and awsome machines both.
 
angi73 said:
Colour aside, i think this will be a truly awsome hatch.
CLICK HERE

Prices start at £17,500. I have got my heart set on one of these in a few years down the line. Should be practical everyday car, swift with good handling,and great value. Most of all I love 5 cylinder engines.

Golf GTI eat your heart out! :D

What do you think guys?
Click to expand...
For fun, value, performance and practicality (alright its not as big) the Clio 182 is difficult to beat. 0-62 6.3, avg 36 mpg. I realise your love for the Focus isnt all about hot hatch credebility, but I get tired of these bloated family runarounds being sold as if they're a hot hatch. As far as I'm concerned that story goes:
Golf Mk1 (1.8) -> 205 (1.9) -> Clio 182 -> ?
end of story (so far) :)
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Have you actually driven either car?

Ref your comments:
- Nope, all production TVRs are now straight sixes
- All production TVRs are front engined
- The Z3M weighs 1350kg, the TVR 350c weights 1100kg. Quite clearly there is a difference, but the Z3M doesn't weight 1500kg

So on specs, you don't appear to be doing so well.

One of my friends has a Tuscan S, sounds like an angry demon with PMT, completely awesome. IMO the Z3M is simply different.
Click to expand...
Paul, I'm with Mike on this one. I remember the rave reviews the Z3M received for handling when it came out. No one (until last year) has ever praised the TVR for handling. For speed, styling etc. yes, but handling?

Oh and it was quick as well.
 
dev - it wasn't quite money no object. If that was the case there'd be several garages full... Audi RS6, AM DB9 Volante, Lexus LS430, Overfinch 630R, Caterham RST V8, Dodge RAM SRT-10, Ford GT, etc...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top