If it will significantly improve the performance, then by how much? And > which is the best induction kit to get?

Finally, is there any other upgrade that I could do relatively easily and > cheaply that will improve the acceleration?

Buy a better car with a bigger engine...preferably­ not a Saxo.>

Ever driven a 'hot' Saxo? As a nippy runaround for younger types, they're > great, they handle well, and they go well. They just have a bad rep > (mainly from people who've never driven one...)>

Finally, is there any other upgrade that I could do relatively easily and > cheaply that will improve the acceleration?

If it will significantly improve the performance, then by how much?

"DanTXD" <dan405@SdanPontAhe­rMun.com> wrote in message >news:3c81u4F6al83p­U1@individual.net...­>> "G-Man" <testbox@magaff.co.­uk> wrote in message >> news:zdA7e.12159$G8­.6324@text.news.blue­yonder.co.uk...>>>

My neighbourhood drugs dealer drives one.

My neighbourhood drugs dealer drives one.

If it will significantly improve the performance, then by how much? And> which is the best induction kit to get?>

Finally, is there any other upgrade that I could do relatively easily and> cheaply that will improve the acceleration?>

He can't be very good at dealing drugs if his weapon of choice is a Saxo. > (c;

box of matches>

and change from a tenner including buying the can ­

pfft>

local dealer up our way has a m3 csl>

Will an induction kit noticeably improve the 0-60mph of my Saxo VTR > (2001)?> Or will the performance increase be negligible?>

If it will significantly improve the performance, then by how much? And > which is the best induction kit to get?>

Finally, is there any other upgrade that I could do relatively easily and > cheaply that will improve the acceleration?>

Cheers>

Andy>

Ever driven a 'hot' Saxo? As a nippy runaround for younger types, they're > great, they handle well, and they go well. They just have a bad rep > (mainly from people who've never driven one...)>

-- > Dan>

The single limiting factor on both the VTR and VTS is the crap stock> manifold and exhaust system.>

Fitting a decent 4-2-1 manifold and system will release 10-15bhp on both> engines. Throw in a live-mapped chip and this will be 5-8hp more with abig> boost in the mid-range torque.>

Alas none of this is cheap. Around a grand.>

Tim..>

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:31:02 GMT, "Malc"><malunspamwh­hite@lightindigoover­there.co.uk> wrote:>

His mark-up must be low! I heard about one (know, I don't know him)

Or will the performance increase be negligible?

Finally, is there any other upgrade that I could do relatively easily> and cheaply that will improve the acceleration?

Er, if you've got the money for that lot, then you don't drive a Saxo> VTR !

Er, if you've got the money for that lot, then you don't drive a Saxo VTR > !>

Burn it then!

Dude, you're not in a position to mock ANYONE's car ­

He can't afford a better house than you because not many junkies pay by

No proof of income = no loans = no house.

LOL!>

Aye, but drug dealing = *lots* of cash changing hands = in a few years > he'll> be able to trade up to a house worth twice as much.>

-- > Peter>

"A field event exists that is vaguely similar to throwing a frisby.> Discus."> Get Circumcised to e-mail me>

virgin ivory.

You'd be surprised.

There are plenty of VTR/S's out there with forced> induction, very swift they can be too.

If it will significantly improve the performance, then by how much? And > which is the best induction kit to get?>

Finally, is there any other upgrade that I could do relatively easily and > cheaply that will improve the acceleration?>

Cheers>

Andy>

Does he ever get visited by the boys in blue?>

I had a 1978 911 3.0 SC Sport when I was 22, on a classic policy

You could pick up a good Polo G40 > even if it does look a little girly.

If it will significantly improve the performance, then by how much? And > which is the best induction kit to get?>

Finally, is there any other upgrade that I could do relatively easily and > cheaply that will improve the acceleration?>

Cheers>

Andy>

SteveH wrote:>

Admiral and Elephant (who I'm with) are part of the same group and they seem> pretty good on cars that are a bit away from the mainstream. Maybe they're> the same with sky-high mileages as well.

It's also RWD with no TC / ESP / ABS / Airbags etc.

Simple example.>

1988 Rover 820 - Ј370 p.a> 1997 Rover 820 - Ј620 p.a

tin can pap!

You've just listed two different cars ! The Mk1 is not the Mk2 ­

I'd avoid it for all those reasons ­

Ditto. Unless I can find a Rover SD1 Vitesse, I can't see me getting rid of > the Merc in a hurry.

New cars are for people who like wasting money!

I'd avoid it for all those reasons ­

The message <4263836d$0$79452$1­4726298@news.sunsite­.dk>>from "Pete M" <pete.murray@blue-n­opressedmeat-yonder.­co.uk> contains>these words:>

I'm glad someone buys 'em or there wouldn't be a ready supply of second>hand ones for me.

But a new pre-registered car with six grand knocked off the list price> gets you the best of both worlds!

The MR2 has the added bonus of having a couple of hundred more kg's of > metal involved in its construction. The Saxo is actually loosely based > on the citroen AX.

In article <7kd76157cfh0q2bmcv­4l402kiqgndlvolj@4ax­.com>, >paulrooney@aol.com­ says...>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:38:51 +0100, Guy King <guy.king@zetnet.co­.uk>>> wrote:>>

Until you come to sell it, and find it's depreciated by about the same >amount as your discount, and worth less. Buying an old car avoids the >horrendous depreciation of new ones, and might even get you a profit if >you flog it right!>

Cheers,

I don't follow you. A six grand discount avoids the horrendous>deprecia­tion - but you have a new car.

I don't follow you. A six grand discount avoids the horrendous> depreciation - but you have a new car.

"Rooney" <paulrooney@aol.com­> wrote in message>news:b3h761­5rp40ou2qrfe0sp2l91k­0sq9i30o@4ax.com...>­

Nope. You still get the horrendous depreciation, it just starts from a lower>point.>

clive>

But a new pre-registered car with six grand knocked off the list price> gets you the best of both worlds!

Avoids *some* of the horrendous depreciation. If it's easily available > pre-registered with a big chunk off the list price it's probably still > got further to fall before the curve gets less steep.>

If you bought, say, an Alfa 166 3.2 for 24K, 30K list, you'd still lose > 15K over three years. Better than losing 21K, but still...

Steve Walker (steve@otolith.demo­n.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying :>

I worked the numbers the other day for a post in another place, and it can >actually make the depreciation on a "car with massive depreciation" less >than one with "solid residuals">

For example :->

So - You've got ВЈ11k to spend on a plush diesel small hatch.>For ВЈ11,300 you can have a Fabia 1.9TDi Elegance. List is ВЈ11,900>For ВЈ10,600 you can have a C3 1.4HDi 16v Exclusive. List is ВЈ12,745>

You've got a nice bargain - big healthy discount...>

But what will they be worth in two years time?>An 02/52 C3 1.4HDi Exclusive is listed as ВЈ6350 on Parkers as >"Private/Good" to sell.>An 02/52 Fabia 1.9TDi Elegance is listed as ВЈ6865.>

Bear in mind that new price difference - the Skoda's lost you ВЈ4,435. But >the Cit has lost you ВЈ4,250.>

What happens is that the depreciation guides show the used price vs *list* >- forgetting the big cashbacks and discounts and other incentives that Cit >give. On that basis, the C3's lost ВЈ6,395 but the Skoda's "only" lost >ВЈ5,035.

The message <7kd76157cfh0q2bmcv­4l402kiqgndlvolj@4ax­.com>>from Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com­> contains these words:>

Six grand is more than three times what I've spent on buying cars in>thirty years of motoring.

That's good going - but somewhat unusual, I reckon.

explain to me why I've been quoted more in the past for a 3 year old > Escort (Gp15) than for a 6 year old Cosworth (Gp20). More than once > this has happened, with different cars, and every time they've used > the excuse "It's because it's a newer car, sir"

I worked the numbers the other day for a post in another place, and it can>actually make the depreciation on a "car with massive depreciation" less>than one with "solid residuals"

What happens is that the depreciation guides show the used price vs *list*>- forgetting the big cashbacks and discounts and other incentives that Cit>give. On that basis, the C3's lost ВЈ6,395 but the Skoda's "only" lost>ВЈ5,035.

The message <m0m761tab0090k2o24­97gr2vulhj0b8c11@4ax­.com>>from Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com­> contains these words:>

I'm a bottom-feeder.

Ha ha! Living on our detritus ­

Both discontinued, yes - but that doesn't have any bearing on the> relative depreciation of a new (pre-reg) against a used one.

You can> still sell at 12 months for the same price that someone who paid full> whack will be selling his, if you see what I mean.

Same applies to lack of choice of spec.

The Vectra's about as desirable as a bucket of cold dog vomit.

I like cars that handle.

I thought you were extolling the virtues of a 911?

BTW - from something posted by somebody else on a thread elsewhere :->

On a small stretch of road near us today we espied a Porker doing an> upside-down 2CV impression. Seems the pilot turned right, then let> fly with all available horses. The thing stepped out, swiped a tree> with the rear end, hung out the other way, and flipped.>

It was a 911 GT3 RS, was white, is now in a dozen pieces. The front> suspension legs were about 30 yards away in a field ... the veehicul> was worth about Ј90,000 so I'm told.>

The most interesting part of the saga was the odd snippet of info> emitting from the pilot.>

Like, 'It's not my car, I borrowed it.'> And 'I'm not insured to drive it.'>

Just as someone was suggesting that he get a taxi the 10 miles or so> to Birmingham Airport and leave the country immediately - we hear> that Peru is quite nice this time of year, Plod showed up. I expect> he's in the Slammer just now; what a way to start the week-end ...

Arrkkkk!>

Not good.

Rooney (paulrooney@aol.com­) gurgled happily, sounding much like they>were saying : >

Apart from the fact that a "new" one won't be the same car, it'll be the >new model. The pre-reg old model will be months old (MANY months in the >case of the Astra), and may even have been pre-registered for months.>

Yes, but that will usually (unless the new model's a dog) be a lot less >than somebody who bought the new model would sell it for.

What's the point in throwing all that depreciation away if you can't even >pick the spec you want?

Er, are you having a laugh ?

You've just listed a bunch of dodgy old shite - I'd take a 106 GTi (Saxo> VTS, with leather) over any of the above ! And so would you !

Astra GTE ? Rover 220 ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !>

Then again, I'm a car enthusiast and an enthusiastic driver who knows> how to > enjoy a proper car.

Unlike some in here.

I fail to see what a German confectionary treat has to do with this.

The message <1gv8gg8.1q9lg5y117­jvctN%steve@italianc­ar.co.uk>> from steve@italiancar.co­.uk (SteveH) contains these words:>

More patisserie than confectionary, Shirley?

Some of us are here because we know about about keeping cars going and> don't mind sharing what knowlege we have. S'got sod all to do with> being enthusiastic drivers. I'm not at all enthusiastic as a driver,> but I quite enjoy spending an afternoon underneath the car.

So you're an enthusiast.

Yes, but not about driving 'em.

Yeah, its hilarious dont you think. Doesnt change the fact that they> are better value for money than a Saxo

and in the the same (or higher)> performance bracket as a Saxo.

Dont tell me what I would do, because you clearly do not know! I'd> take the BMWs over a 106.

The Saab, Pugs and Rover turbo would be> about equal with the 106, followed by the n/a Rover and the Astra.

Whatever.

I'm glad someone buys 'em or there wouldn't be a ready supply of> second hand ones for me.

OK, out of the newish-car-hat, let's take a Civic Type-R. What doesn't> it offer you ?

Which is one of the main reasons it's so good.>

People like you don't drive them.>

The 911 hasn't got TC / ESP / ABS / Airbags either, yet it's a> million times as much fun to drive as your 406...

You'd rather have a late-80s Bimmer sat on your drive, than a shiny> 106 GTi ?

Do you follow the motoring press ? The Saxo VTS / 106 GTi were held in> *very* high regard a few years back. They're excellent cars.

Agreed. It looks nice though.

You'd rather have a late-80s Bimmer sat on your drive, than a shiny> 106 GTi ?

His MUXed Peugeot has lots of logic though, and if french electrics> are to be relied upon, there's a good chance that some part of it will> go up in smoke at some point. (c:

...but it's louder, bumpier, and it's not rammed with gadgets. And> it'll kill me *when* I crash. I'd be a very bored driver of your 911.

Actually, that's a lie - I'd probably quite like scooting around at> ludicrous speed until I crashed and died.

The point is, I've got all the pace I need, *and* all the other stuff> I want. I haven't compromised anywhere except my wallet. Obviously if> I wanted *lots* of pace (as you do Pete), then the Pug would be> totally the wrong choice of car.

They're good little shopping cars. Ideal for the missus.

The reason people raise their car budget, is to upgrade ! If it's not an > upgrade, then you've wasted your cash - there are plenty of cars out there > better than yours, that cost more money. See what I'm getting at ? There's > always a better car out there, but you have to pay for it.>

There are no cars out there better than mine ­

<googles>>

<googles some more>>

<asks Jeeves>>

<panics>>

He's right you know...>

Many of the components will be Bosch.

The reason people raise their car budget, is to upgrade ! If it's not an> upgrade, then you've wasted your cash - there are plenty of cars out there> better than yours, that cost more money. See what I'm getting at ? There's> always a better car out there, but you have to pay for it.

At least you're interested in cars, and you're not on here to say "Your car > is old, throw it away and buy a new one. Old is worthless".

Any kind of interest whatsoever. It's a typical bloated, lardy, over-large,>over-na­nnying bland blob with far too much unnecessary technology to try to>compensate and insulate.

Yes, but you haven't answered the question, which is why should I> want to?

Y'see, I'm actually happy with my current car.

It's FWD, it's heavy, it will depreciate by fortunes, it's not that> quick, and it's ugly and even though it's one of the best FWD> hatches, it's still exactly that, a FWD hatch. As driven by> Grandmothers to Sainsburys once a week.

Any kind of interest whatsoever.

It's a typical bloated, lardy,> over-large, over-nannying bland blob with far too much unnecessary> technology to try to compensate and insulate.

Stuck together for Peugeot in Italy?>

Pass me the fire extinguisher...>

(c:

So you're saying you'd rather a 205 1.9 Gti, than a Civic Type-R ?> Really ?

Hell, yes. Even a 1.6 205GTi. Crackin' little car, and utterly> *gorgeous* to look at, unlike the Civic.

You Sir, are a crazy mofo ­

Who wouldn't?>

Aghhh! You actually WANT WWD*!>

* Wrong Wheel Drive (c) Martin

Wow it weighs the same as a 1988 Vauxhall Carlton 2.0l injection!

Who wouldn't?

Poppycock - the Saxo is better in every way ! Cheap and crap does not

You're suggesting an Astra GTE could keep up with a Saxo VTS round a track

You'd rather have a late-80s Bimmer sat on your drive, than a shiny 106

?

But the Rover and Astra are *dire* ! They're rubbish beyond belief !>

Do you follow the motoring press ? The Saxo VTS / 106 GTi were held in> *very* high regard a few years back. They're excellent cars.

<snip>>

I made a vid of my mates Revo doing a front flip and landing perfectly ­>

"DanTXD" <dan405@SdanPontAhe­rMun.com> wrote in message> news:3ckqkgF6p0btpU­1@individual.net...>­> "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.c­o.uk> wrote in message>> news:ycudnfsdG91Wrv­jfRVnygQ@pipex.net..­.>> >

Sweet! I got a phone that can take vids now, so when i get chance will > see> if i can break the car on film ­>

Nice cheap and cheap to run family wagon

I know - I already run one. Just wondering what the wife would say if I> turned up with another.

(and the other one still won't have the relevant engine mount ­ )

Well that's not really the point ­ I wouldn't touch one with a> barge-pole, but that doesn't stop it being an excellent car.>

So you're saying you'd rather a 205 1.9 Gti, than a Civic Type-R ?> Really ?

What an excellent thread this turned out to be ­

Or a Strada Abarth 130

I actually *saw* a Strada the other day. A convertible... Shocked, I was.

I actually *saw* a Strada the other day. A convertible... Shocked, I was.

You sure the roof hadn't just rusted off?

I've enjoyed it.

A rwd, no TC thread if ever there was one.>

Hell yes, even an early 80s one! The 4 pot M3 is a stormer of a car, much> better than a 106. The 325i is also fairly swift and buckets of fun and I'd> probably still take that BMW. However I'd probably chose the 106 over the> 318iS because you're starting to lose some of the power/torque that makes> the car amusing. The 106s go-kart like handling might just win it there.

[1] all FWD Vauxhalls being utterly shite.>

In article <42656a05$0$79459$1­4726298@news.sunsite­.dk>, > pete.murray@blue-no­pressedmeat-yonder.c­o.uk says...> >

IMHO the word 'Vauxhall' is superfluous there.

The Astra GTE isnt that bad a car. And the rust makes it very light> ­ I have a soft spot for the 200s, and would love a Turbo> hatchback, that why I put them in the list.>>

Hell yes, even an early 80s one! The 4 pot M3 is a stormer of a car,> much better than a 106. The 325i is also fairly swift and buckets of> fun and I'd probably still take that BMW. However I'd probably chose> the 106 over the 318iS because you're starting to lose some of the> power/torque that makes the car amusing. The 106s go-kart like> handling might just win it there.>>

So? Why would I care about that? I buy a car because I like it, not> coz someone else does! I'm not saying the 106 GTi isnt a good car, I> never said that, my point was you could get quicker cars that were> cheaper and therefore better value for money. You dont seem to> understand this. No one said anything about having a million air> bags, lots of electrickery, modern safety features etc etc,> performance was the only factor mentioned.

NO comparison there, the Sierra is worth the extra 480 quid to> insure. I paid it when I was 26.

Unlikely to be bought in large numbers because it's shite [1].> Therefore rare, and not many stolen...

I see two front wheel drive shitboxes and a Sierra Cosworth.

If you want to insure a shite fast car, it will probably cost less to> insure than a proper fast car, but a new fast car will cost more to> insure than an old fast car.

Pete M wrote:> > In news:d42tbb02obi@ne­ws2.newsguy.com,

...because it's a modern car with modern security - hence the low grouping.

Real-world performance is about the same, but the Sierra is rusty,> loud, cramped and uncomfortable. It's probably broken too, and it's> got a theft-target-rating­ of 100%.> I fail to see how it's worth the extra.> Ask Lordy - he ran a Cossie in tandem with his TI, and he didn't rate> it any higher.

...because it's a modern car with modern security - hence the low> grouping.>>> See the pattern developing here ? A modern car has to either be>>> RIDICULOUSLY quick, or doing something VERY wrong, to obtain itself>>> as high a group rating.>>

I see three cars of a broadly similar class, offering broadly similar> performance. Of the three, the Astra is the most refined, and it's> the one I'd choose. It also offers the cheapest premium.

Today, is not "when you were 27" ­> If today's young-driver (because that's what we were discussing)> attempted to insure a an Integrale or a Cosworth, what do you think> would happen ? He'd either get laughed off the phone, or he'd have a> premium of Јall.

But that's not the case !> Old fast cars are *very* expensive for today's young drivers, because> they all carry crazy high groupings, and there's no electronics to> prevent crash-and-die.

<twopennorth>> I'm very ambivalent about Beemers. They're ok to drive, but after much> empirical research, I'm convinced BMW is a german acronym for "I'm a> besuited wanker and don't know how to use indicators" This is> particularly true of 3 and X-series, I've noted.> </twopennorth>>

Hell yes, even an early 80s one! The 4 pot M3 is a stormer of a car, much> better than a 106. The 325i is also fairly swift and buckets of fun and > I'd> probably still take that BMW. However I'd probably chose the 106 over the> 318iS because you're starting to lose some of the power/torque that makes> the car amusing. The 106s go-kart like handling might just win it there.>>

FFS, if you where looking at 106 GTI's or the VTS you'd hardly be able to> insure an E30 M3 now would you?>

The Cossie is much less likely to be rusty than the Rover,

it's a bigger car inside and out,

*Much* more cramped than a 1990 Cosworth.

It's the worst of the three. You really haven't got a clue have you?

Er, no.

Er, no. Sierras are crazy small inside - you know this cos you had> one !

Again - you know this is not true, because you owned a Cossie !

You're suggesting the TI is better than the Astra ? Er ? At what ?> (practicality aside, obviously ­

Not being a Vauxhall.

How come small hatches are so heavy now - it is getting ridiculous, can't> see any reason why they should be much over a ton

How come small hatches are so heavy now - it is getting ridiculous, can't>see any reason why they should be much over a ton

How come small hatches are so heavy now - it is getting ridiculous, can't> see any reason why they should be much over a ton>

They have to make them stronger to cope with the stupid over sized, over > powered stereo's that people seem to stick in them I guess.> Not to mention the extra weight of the obligatory 'always on' fog lights > that all small hatches have these days.>

Andy>