Worst drivers are BMW drivers

Dev said:
Know the feeling well. I have driven Mercedes and Audis and owned an Audi 90 in the past. I could live happily with any of them but the BMW is something else. Can't quite describe it, it's a combination of build quality, agility, a sweet free revving and growling straight six etc. I suppose this is what addiction must be like.
Click to expand...

me too. audis are nice inside but do not provide anywhere near the level of all-round driver involvement of a bmw. the rs4 comes very close. maybe the r8 is the "one."
 
Before buying my current BMW I went into an Audi dealership to checkout an A4, but found it a bit cramped in the rear, so I thought I'd look at an A6 instead. I simply could not get the dealer to give me the time of day. I thought such arrogance existed in HiFi circles only :D. Anyway if that's their attitude why would I want to own an Audi?, regardless of how good it is at taking the piss out of the M3. Besides there is a new M3 out soon with a V8.
 
I've heard the same about VAG's other main player VW. Very arrogant, totally disinterested in customer service. In which case fair enough Dev.
 
greg said:
I've heard the same about VAG's other main player VW. Very arrogant, totally disinterested in customer service. In which case fair enough Dev.
Click to expand...

VW might be arrogant and disinterested, but these days they're also purveyors of really poorly made vehicles too, if my dads 2 Passats were anything to go by! Before you ask, the only reason he had a second was that after a few letters were exchanged between VW UK, the dealer and my dads solicitor, it was agreed they'd replace the car with a brand new identical spec car for no additional cost.

The second one was only slightly better mind, and suffered more serious problems such as water filling up both rear passenger doors owing to poor seals, doors that wouldn't always or close open properly (you'd think it'd be impossible to bugger up a door mechanism :rolleyes: and it had the potential to be dangerous, were there an accident and we had to escape!), as well as similar electrical gremlims as the first car. It was only 3 years old when he traded it in - he has a Subaru Legacy now.

If only everything in life was a Volkswagen - we'd all be ****ed!
 
Many years ago, I had an original-shape Golf GTI 1.8. It was great, but coming into contact with various VAG dealers put me off both brands for life. I think the Audis are admirable cars, but I completely agree with Dev about the straight six BMW engines. There's nothing quite like them. And the handling is very satisfying.
 
The Devil said:
No I don't have arthritis. I do, however, know how unrefined the Subaru experience is, in terms of both noise and ride quality, not to mention the cheap plastickyness of the whole thing. 100 miles in one would be pushing one's general well-being & sanity, IMO.
Click to expand...

Its a trimmed back performance car, there's nothing luxury about it, quite why you think saying the car is uncomfortable is some sort of revelation I don't know.

These types of cars are lacking refinement because they're built to let you feel the road and what the car is doing. The same is true of many cars.

If I want comfort and a car that bores the hell out of me then I go in the Omega, if I want fun I jump in the Subaru - best of both worlds.
 
The Devil said:
No, the Caterham is a far better choice (for a second car) than the Subaru. Much more pure, faster, and none of that poncy four-wheel drive nonsense, "practical" boot, etc.

Or one of those little firecracker Lotus whatsits would be good. Or even a fast Z4, at a push.
Click to expand...

One thing about 'poncy' four wheel drive is that the levels of grip it gives you make it an easy car to drive fast, especially in the wet. For some this is appealing!

A Caterham or Elise may well be faster around a track, and even more rewarding, but driving in the usually less than ideal conditions like the public road on an average wet British day, an Impreza or Evo is probably quicker in the hands of most drivers and far less effort (and far less scary!) to drive quickly.

Since you've already described AWD as 'poncy' I can tell you're something of a purist who will deride the relative ease at which you can make very rapid progress in such a car as testament to the drivers own inadequcies, rather than the car actually being really rather good, providing a decent driving experience thats far more accessible (and thus, more enjoyable, more of the time) to most drivers on the public road than either the Lotus or the Caterham.
 
Well, taking an aeroplane is faster than any car, particularly if it's raining, but where's the fun in that?

4WD doesn't increase "grip", btw. A tyre is a tyre. It may increase traction, in certain conditions, but only if you drive like a "hoon", or a rally-driver.
 
The Devil said:
Well, taking an aeroplane is faster than any car, particularly if it's raining, but where's the fun in that?
Click to expand...

Its fun if you've got only got 10 minutes of fuel and nearest airport is 15minutes away.

Some folks never will understand that your only really ever alive when taking risks, falling in love, have adrenaline racing through the body and so on. These types of folks are usually boring twats. Of course I wouldn't include yourself in that stereotype despite your instance that I'm a 20 year old degenerate with a massive hard on for A&E, you do remember what a hard-on is, right?

4WD doesn't increase "grip", btw. A tyre is a tyre. It may increase traction, in certain conditions, but only if you drive like a "hoon", or a rally-driver.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really know your stuff :rolleyes: Didn't ask or mention about 4wd but you brought it up anyway...
 
The Devil said:
No, the Caterham is a far better choice (for a second car) than the Subaru. Much more pure, faster, and none of that poncy four-wheel drive nonsense, "practical" boot, etc.

Or one of those little firecracker Lotus whatsits would be good. Or even a fast Z4, at a push.

You've bought a pup. Neither one thing, nor the other.
Click to expand...

You might as well try telling me ATC actually makes decent speakers. I'd take a fraction more notice.
 
The Devil said:
4WD doesn't increase "grip", btw. A tyre is a tyre. It may increase traction, in certain conditions, but only if you drive like a "hoon".
Click to expand...

Now you're talking. "Hoons" weren't too sure about the 4wd drivetrains at first as they were concerned about diminished 'donut' potential (apparently not as I've seen WRX's do some blinders).

Talking of 'donuts', I used to live a mile from where Neighbours was filmed and a favourite "hoon" passtime was laying down some rubber on the tarmac in "Ramsay Street"** so they could show their mates on the telly a few weeks later...

** Not actually called that in real life (sorry fans :eek: )
 
The Devil said:
4WD doesn't increase "grip", btw. A tyre is a tyre. It may increase traction, in certain conditions, but only if you drive like a "hoon", or a rally-driver.
Click to expand...
It indeed does increase traction, I don't think anyone mentioned grip [edit: ah they did]. There's a reason the Sierra Cosworth was the last rear wheel drive rally car (I can recall anyway). Using power to maintain direction isn't exactly radical, I've never found 4WD anything other than helpful in this regard, whilst I've never come off the road on three occasions I've almost lost rear control of rear wheel drive motors in the wet and I wasn't really doing anything extreme.
 
And I'd like to see anyone get up our hill when it's icy in a 2wd car! I've towed Volvos up it in my 4wd Skoda - no one has BMs round here as it's a townies car...
 
leonard smalls said:
And I'd like to see anyone get up our hill when it's icy in a 2wd car! I've towed Volvos up it in my 4wd Skoda - no one has BMs round here as it's a townies car...
Click to expand...

:D
 
Now this is a proper Volvo:
buyers_guide_volvo.jpg
 
The Devil said:
Good grief.

Give us some real-world figures, or, as Clarkson so rightly said, shut up.
Click to expand...

Ok fine. The same logic being applied here dictates that cars will stop quicker than bikes. ie fatter tyres/larger brakes etc etc

So then compare these "real-world" figures..

Cars (various) 70-0 mph :

Between 145ft (Porche 911) and 194ft (2003 BMW
330i ) Most falling between 160 and 180ft.

Source : http://www.automobilemag.com/test_data//index1.html

Bikes 70-0 mph :

BMW F800S : 183 ft
Suzuki SV650S : 161 ft
Yamaha TDM900 : 157 ft
Kawasaki Er-6F : 183 ft
Honda CBF600S : 198 ft

Source : Bike Magazine November 06 issue Page 190.

Not much to write home about difference wise I would say. It should also be noted that the bikes are all the motorcycle equivilent of a 1.4 Toyota Corolla.

GTM
 

Latest posts

Back
Top