Search results

1 is the classic, i saw it 8 times in the cinema, i think my sister saw it about 12 times

your right about the repair costs, turbos are much more likely to lunch themselves too. Ive always been tempted to go out and get a new car (which would involve fwd and probably n/a) because of all the stuff you get as standard in new cars, the reliability, the warranty and peace of mind and so...

I guess it might be that i havent driven any of the latest fwd fast stuff ill admit, but for me i like to be able to put my foot down coming out of a corner and get oversteer rather than understeer. Dont take this the wrong way, im not trying to upset just about everyone on this forum, but my...

I dont think youll get a very un-biased opinion on here mate;) Ive not driven either car, so take what i say with a pinch of salt, but id have a rear drive turbo over an N/A fwd, but i must admit, 172s look cool, and theyre fast, and theyre probably alot easier to chuck about than a 200sx...

I like em they definately make a case for themselves, but im not into buying cars new, id probably try and get a second hand tvr or mitsi evo for that sort of money.

how?

1 is the classic, i saw it 8 times in the cinema, i think my sister saw it about 12 times

your right about the repair costs, turbos are much more likely to lunch themselves too. Ive always been tempted to go out and get a new car (which would involve fwd and probably n/a) because of all the stuff you get as standard in new cars, the reliability, the warranty and peace of mind and so...

thats the newer one.

im sure it is, i think you can even make out the cliosport sticker in the rear window.

I think they said the lada had 180bhp, and im not sure but wasnt it an alfa engine?

possibly the older one, theyre all two litre turbos though i think, not in a very high state of tune in standard form (i think the early ones are about 180bhp) Theyre pretty quick though, theyre not very heavy (compared to most modern stuff), the newer ones are supposed to be great to drive, but...

I guess it might be that i havent driven any of the latest fwd fast stuff ill admit, but for me i like to be able to put my foot down coming out of a corner and get oversteer rather than understeer. Dont take this the wrong way, im not trying to upset just about everyone on this forum, but my...

maybe 16s then? I looked up the weights on the oz site a while back and i think they were about 5kgs for 15s, 6kgs for 16s and 7kgs for 17s, but im not sure if thats right.

I dont think youll get a very un-biased opinion on here mate;) Ive not driven either car, so take what i say with a pinch of salt, but id have a rear drive turbo over an N/A fwd, but i must admit, 172s look cool, and theyre fast, and theyre probably alot easier to chuck about than a 200sx...

looks like a rover badge to me

how?

Your right about rwds being expensive, its something that annoys me a bit cos if you want a decent affordable quickish car, it has to be fwd, or at a push 4wd, why dont they make cars like that lotus sunbeam thing anymore? well, i know why actually, its cost.

was it an old pop up headlights one or a new skyliney shape (ish) one?

thats the newer one.

im sure it is, i think you can even make out the cliosport sticker in the rear window.

I think they said the lada had 180bhp, and im not sure but wasnt it an alfa engine?

possibly the older one, theyre all two litre turbos though i think, not in a very high state of tune in standard form (i think the early ones are about 180bhp) Theyre pretty quick though, theyre not very heavy (compared to most modern stuff), the newer ones are supposed to be great to drive, but...

2 kgs sounds like quite alot. im assuming thats per wheel. Im tempted to get 15" super ls next time i need tyres, but would they look titchy?

Have you ever tried anything thats not front wheel drive? I dont mean to sound condecending (ive probably spelt that wrong), but ive got a real thing for non fwd cars, i really want my next car to be rwd, but ill settle for four.

looks like a rover badge to me

Your right about rwds being expensive, its something that annoys me a bit cos if you want a decent affordable quickish car, it has to be fwd, or at a push 4wd, why dont they make cars like that lotus sunbeam thing anymore? well, i know why actually, its cost.

was it an old pop up headlights one or a new skyliney shape (ish) one?

Have you ever tried anything thats not front wheel drive? I dont mean to sound condecending (ive probably spelt that wrong), but ive got a real thing for non fwd cars, i really want my next car to be rwd, but ill settle for four.

tom, do you mean mk2 or mk3 rx-7? jon, if you get a pulsar, make DAMN sure its a good one. They are really expensive to fix, and they dont do many mpg.