In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

I'm rather suspicious of seller's websites with reviews, since these
reviews are always anonymous. Just check out any site selling snake oil to
see what I mean.



Point of pedancy ... sellers'



--
geoff

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No synchro on first in a Metro. It *will* go in if you push hard
enough.

Really? My first Mini (circa 1965) had no synchro on first but I thought
they fixed that a few years later. Odd that this still persisted all the
way to the Metro - 15 years later or so.

I *thought* the all synchro A series 'box came in with the Austin 1100.
Long before the Metro, which used pretty well the same power unit. But I
could be wrong. BL certainly converted the B Series 'box to all synchro
for the Austin 1800.

Later Metros source the box from a different maker. Probably to go 5 speed.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 22/07/2011 15:06, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

snip

My parents have subscribed pretty much since it started.
I would say 30+ years ago, it was good.

snip

My parents took Which when it first came out. I could be wrong (it is
after all a long time ago) but I would have put the start of Which some
time in the late 50s with Motoring Which not later than the early 60s.

I was put off Motoring Which by its first choice of best Buy - VW
Beetle. If I remember the timeline correctly that would have been the
1200 model with a reputation for poor handling and poisoning its
occupants with exhaust gases from the heater if it couldn't kill its
occupants in a more conventional manner. A car widely advertised at the
time as being reliable enough to be driven flat out (70mph) all day
which is not exactly surprising given the puny 34 bhp available.



--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 22/07/2011 15:06, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

snip

My parents have subscribed pretty much since it started.
I would say 30+ years ago, it was good.

snip

My parents took Which when it first came out. I could be wrong (it is
after all a long time ago) but I would have put the start of Which
some time in the late 50s with Motoring Which not later than the
early 60s.
I was put off Motoring Which by its first choice of best Buy - VW
Beetle. If I remember the timeline correctly that would have been the
1200 model with a reputation for poor handling


and poisoning its
occupants with exhaust gases


I do not believe that a German manufacturer could think of such a thing

--
Adam

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
I was put off Motoring Which by its first choice of best Buy - VW
Beetle. If I remember the timeline correctly that would have been the
1200 model with a reputation for poor handling and poisoning its
occupants with exhaust gases from the heater if it couldn't kill its
occupants in a more conventional manner. A car widely advertised at the
time as being reliable enough to be driven flat out (70mph) all day
which is not exactly surprising given the puny 34 bhp available.

William Boddy - the editor of Motor Sport for many years and a very
respected and knowledgeable motoring journalist - also very much liked the
Beetle in the '50s, and owned one. Most small UK designed cars of that
time would not survive being driven flat out for long - it was before
motorways. 34 bhp was about average for a small car in those days.
For such a dreadful car as you seem to think it remained in production for
a very long time and of course has a modern lookalike. Where is the UK
equivalent? The Mini came some 10 years after the Beetle.

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/07/2011 12:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:


No synchro on first in a Metro. It *will* go in if you push hard enough.

Really? My first Mini (circa 1965) had no synchro on first but I thought
they fixed that a few years later. Odd that this still persisted all the
way to the Metro - 15 years later or so.


My first car was a 1976 Mini, and had synchro on all 4 gears. That's
older than any Metro.

Andy

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
On 23/07/2011 12:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:


No synchro on first in a Metro. It *will* go in if you push hard
enough.

Really? My first Mini (circa 1965) had no synchro on first but I
thought they fixed that a few years later. Odd that this still
persisted all the way to the Metro - 15 years later or so.


My first car was a 1976 Mini, and had synchro on all 4 gears. That's
older than any Metro.

That's what I thought. So if Which did try and change down into 1st at the
maximum speed it could do in that gear and it broke, it's a fault. As you
should be able to. As you can too into a crash gear by double declutching.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/07/2011 17:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:
I was put off Motoring Which by its first choice of best Buy - VW
Beetle. If I remember the timeline correctly that would have been the
1200 model with a reputation for poor handling and poisoning its
occupants with exhaust gases from the heater if it couldn't kill its
occupants in a more conventional manner. A car widely advertised at the
time as being reliable enough to be driven flat out (70mph) all day
which is not exactly surprising given the puny 34 bhp available.

William Boddy - the editor of Motor Sport for many years and a very
respected and knowledgeable motoring journalist - also very much liked the
Beetle in the '50s, and owned one. Most small UK designed cars of that
time would not survive being driven flat out for long - it was before
motorways. 34 bhp was about average for a small car in those days.
For such a dreadful car as you seem to think it remained in production for
a very long time and of course has a modern lookalike. Where is the UK
equivalent? The Mini came some 10 years after the Beetle.


There is no accounting for taste and I have no recollection of Bill
Boddy and Motorsport even though I read the magazine for many years.
However every dog has its day and the Beetle might well have been a
reasonable choice when the only practical alternative to a bubble car at
the bottom end of the market for new cars was a Morris 8 (E), A30 or sit
up and beg Ford but if my memory serves me correctly the Beetle was the
Which best Buy in the early 60s by which time the Mini and the 105E
Anglia (both introduced in 1959) were well established in the market and
even in the 50s a Morris Minor would have been a better choice for the
discerning motorist.

The Beetles antecedents are rooted in the late 30s even if the British
public didn't get the chance to own one until 1946 and the power output
of the early examples was even worse - somewhere in the low 20s IIRC.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
On 23/07/2011 17:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:
I was put off Motoring Which by its first choice of best Buy - VW
Beetle. If I remember the timeline correctly that would have been the
1200 model with a reputation for poor handling and poisoning its
occupants with exhaust gases from the heater if it couldn't kill its
occupants in a more conventional manner. A car widely advertised at the
time as being reliable enough to be driven flat out (70mph) all day
which is not exactly surprising given the puny 34 bhp available.

William Boddy - the editor of Motor Sport for many years and a very
respected and knowledgeable motoring journalist - also very much liked the
Beetle in the '50s, and owned one. Most small UK designed cars of that
time would not survive being driven flat out for long - it was before
motorways. 34 bhp was about average for a small car in those days.
For such a dreadful car as you seem to think it remained in production for
a very long time and of course has a modern lookalike. Where is the UK
equivalent? The Mini came some 10 years after the Beetle.


There is no accounting for taste and I have no recollection of Bill
Boddy and Motorsport even though I read the magazine for many years.
However every dog has its day and the Beetle might well have been a
reasonable choice when the only practical alternative to a bubble car
at the bottom end of the market for new cars was a Morris 8 (E), A30 or
sit up and beg Ford but if my memory serves me correctly the Beetle was
the Which best Buy in the early 60s by which time the Mini and the 105E
Anglia (both introduced in 1959) were well established in the market
and even in the 50s a Morris Minor would have been a better choice for
the discerning motorist.

The Beetles antecedents are rooted in the late 30s even if the British
public didn't get the chance to own one until 1946 and the power output
of the early examples was even worse - somewhere in the low 20s IIRC.

ISTR there was a program on TV ages ago about how the Royal Engineers
set about the KDF wagen after the war to turn it into a saleable product
to help kick-start german industry

--
geoff

On 23/07/2011 21:48, Tim Streater wrote:

The Beetles antecedents are rooted in the late 30s even if the
British public didn't get the chance to own one until 1946 and the
power output of the early examples was even worse - somewhere in the
low 20s IIRC.

ISTR there was a program on TV ages ago about how the Royal Engineers
set about the KDF wagen after the war to turn it into a saleable
product to help kick-start german industry

Worse than that. There was a British Army major in charge in some way
who had the chance to turn Volkswagen into a British company. He decided
the Beetle would never catch on and turned the chance down.

I seem to remember the tale was that it was one (or more of the major
British car manufacturers) who said that the Beetle wasn't a commercial
prospect and declined to take it on.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
There is no accounting for taste and I have no recollection of Bill
Boddy and Motorsport even though I read the magazine for many years.

I can't believe you read Motor Sport and don't know of William Boddy. I
haven't read it for ages, but believe he was still a contributor right up
to his death at age 98 a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.google.co.uk/news?q=Bill+Boddy&hl=en

--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I seem to remember the tale was that it was one (or more of the major
British car manufacturers) who said that the Beetle wasn't a
commercial prospect and declined to take it on.

You're more than likely correct - my memory of the story was a bit vague.

But either way, eh! Oops!

BMC repeated it with the Mini. Seems they lost money on every one sold.

--
*I pretend to work. - they pretend to pay me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:12:07 +0100 Roger Chapman wrote :
I seem to remember the tale was that it was one (or more of the major
British car manufacturers) who said that the Beetle wasn't a commercial
prospect and declined to take it on.

Rootes, http://www.ltv-vwc.org.uk/wheelspin/...and_rootes.htm

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On 23/07/2011 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

There is no accounting for taste and I have no recollection of Bill
Boddy and Motorsport even though I read the magazine for many years.

I can't believe you read Motor Sport and don't know of William Boddy. I
haven't read it for ages, but believe he was still a contributor right up
to his death at age 98 a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.google.co.uk/news?q=Bill+Boddy&hl=en


Well I remembered the name but I missed his obituary which might have
reminded me of the Motor Sport connection.

I have been admitting to short term memory loss for years now but it
take an event like this to remind me that there are huge chunks of
missing memory that doesn't fit the description "short term".

--
Roger Chapman

On 24/07/2011 05:37, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:12:07 +0100 Roger Chapman wrote :
I seem to remember the tale was that it was one (or more of the major
British car manufacturers) who said that the Beetle wasn't a commercial
prospect and declined to take it on.

Rootes, http://www.ltv-vwc.org.uk/wheelspin/...and_rootes.htm


Apparently an extract from Classic Car which is possibly where my
information originally came from as I have been taking that magazine
since it started. I don't always get round to reading it these days but
I have never got round to cancelling the subscription so it still pops
through the letter plate every month.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
The Beetles antecedents are rooted in the late 30s even if the British
public didn't get the chance to own one until 1946 and the power output
of the early examples was even worse - somewhere in the low 20s IIRC.

You make it sound like the Beetle remained unchanged throughout its life.
It didn't - it was constantly being improved.

If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by
date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged
right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first
designed...

--
*How's my driving? Call 999*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24/07/2011 09:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The Beetles antecedents are rooted in the late 30s even if the British
public didn't get the chance to own one until 1946 and the power output
of the early examples was even worse - somewhere in the low 20s IIRC.

You make it sound like the Beetle remained unchanged throughout its life.
It didn't - it was constantly being improved.

As far as I am concerned we have been talking about the early 60s Beetle
but I did refer to the power output of the earlier Beetle just above
your unjustified comment.

If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by
date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged
right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first
designed...

If Wikipedia is to be believed you are wrong on several counts
including, crucially, the date 103E production ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Popular

The 103E of course had a flat windscreen and poor visibility (but not as
poor as the Beetle) and I presume the Popular at least had a fuel gauge,
unlike the Beetle.
--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
The Beetles antecedents are rooted in the late 30s even if the
British public didn't get the chance to own one until 1946 and the
power output of the early examples was even worse - somewhere in the
low 20s IIRC.

You make it sound like the Beetle remained unchanged throughout its
life. It didn't - it was constantly being improved.

As far as I am concerned we have been talking about the early 60s Beetle
but I did refer to the power output of the earlier Beetle just above
your unjustified comment.

Why are you so concerned about power output? It means very little taken
out of context. But no matter.

If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by
date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged
right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first
designed...

If Wikipedia is to be believed you are wrong on several counts
including, crucially, the date 103E production ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Popular

Enjoy your quibble over a year. ;-)

The 103E of course had a flat windscreen and poor visibility (but not as
poor as the Beetle) and I presume the Popular at least had a fuel gauge,
unlike the Beetle.

Think most would prefer hydraulic brakes to cable ones, independent
suspension, overhead valve engine, 4 speed gearbox and a top speed rather
better than 60 MPH - and acceration that could be measured on a stopwatch,
not calender. Oh - and windscreen wipers that actually worked.

And if you actually read the site you've given, you'd discover the Popular
was basically a pre-war Anglia.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
The Beetles antecedents are rooted in the late 30s even if the
British public didn't get the chance to own one until 1946 and the
power output of the early examples was even worse - somewhere in the
low 20s IIRC.

You make it sound like the Beetle remained unchanged throughout its
life. It didn't - it was constantly being improved.

As far as I am concerned we have been talking about the early 60s Beetle
but I did refer to the power output of the earlier Beetle just above
your unjustified comment.

Why are you so concerned about power output? It means very little taken
out of context. But no matter.

If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by
date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged
right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first
designed...

If Wikipedia is to be believed you are wrong on several counts
including, crucially, the date 103E production ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Popular

Enjoy your quibble over a year. ;-)

The 103E of course had a flat windscreen and poor visibility (but not as
poor as the Beetle) and I presume the Popular at least had a fuel gauge,
unlike the Beetle.

Think most would prefer hydraulic brakes to cable ones, independent
suspension, overhead valve engine, 4 speed gearbox and a top speed rather
better than 60 MPH - and acceration that could be measured on a stopwatch,
not calender. Oh - and windscreen wipers that actually worked.

And if you actually read the site you've given, you'd discover the Popular
was basically a pre-war Anglia.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW

----------------
The early beetle (before 1960) was pretty lethal with cable brakes and a
petrol tank in the front so any increase in power left a lot to be desired.
I was in the Army in Germany and the Army had a fleet of them. We had
several visits to the factory because we used to patrol the East/West German
border which was not far away. We were told that VW felt a debt of gratitude
to the British Army for rebuilding the factory and provided a new VW to the
major in charge right up to his death. Also VW supplied vehicles to the REME
for their part in rebuilding the factory.
Robbie Ex-REME and Golf Owner!

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I seem to remember the tale was that it was one (or more of the major
British car manufacturers) who said that the Beetle wasn't a
commercial prospect and declined to take it on.

You're more than likely correct - my memory of the story was a bit vague.

But either way, eh! Oops!

BMC repeated it with the Mini. Seems they lost money on every one sold.


And then for an encore delayed the introduction of the Metro in favour
of the Marina allowing VW to launch the first hatchback.
--
hugh

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
And if you actually read the site you've given, you'd discover the
Popular was basically a pre-war Anglia.

Based on, not was.

So name the important differences.

At 30 bhp even this bargain basement sidevalve was as
powerful as the Beetle.

Heh heh. From an engine which was lucky to do 30,000 miles before a major
overhaul.

*In the text of the article it actually says "brakes were hydraulic
drums except on standard model 1200s which stayed mechanical until 1964".

The E103 Popular only ever had the one size engine. And never gained
hydraulic brakes.

I have no idea what the quote above refers to. The later 100E Popular had
hydraulic brakes.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24 Jul,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by
date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged
right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first
designed...

It was hardly unchanged. It was always the bottom end of the smallest car in
the Ford range, but it did change significantly as the smallest car (anglia)
did. I think it ceased when the 105E anglia came out, or did it carry on a
little longer as a copy of the 100E?

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 24/07/2011 22:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And if you actually read the site you've given, you'd discover the
Popular was basically a pre-war Anglia.

Based on, not was.

So name the important differences.

The 103E is not a car I have ever had any affinity for but the body
appears significantly different to me.

At 30 bhp even this bargain basement sidevalve was as
powerful as the Beetle.

Heh heh. From an engine which was lucky to do 30,000 miles before a major
overhaul.

What makes you think the Beetle of the same era was any different. And,
unlike Ford with a host of new models in addition to this very cheap
offering, VW had just the one in 1953. ISTR the VWs were by no means cheap.

*In the text of the article it actually says "brakes were hydraulic
drums except on standard model 1200s which stayed mechanical until 1964".

The E103 Popular only ever had the one size engine. And never gained
hydraulic brakes.

I have no idea what the quote above refers to. The later 100E Popular had
hydraulic brakes.

If you hadn't been so keen to delete the long list of improvements to
the Beetle you would have been able to relate that asterisk back to the
line that said the Beetle didn't get hydraulic brakes until 1964.

FWIW I still have not seen the original of the message Dave has now
replied to so Dave's butchering of that is doubly unfortunate as far as
I am concerned as I can't recall exactly what I wrote.


--
Roger Chapman

On 22/07/2011 17:21, Invisible Man wrote:

Problem with Which Local is that there is no facility to do anything but
recommend someone. Which will not allow negative reviews. So someone can
get their mate to highly recommend them and nobody can say they were
completely useless. This has been aired in Which forums but they are
scared of being sued and don't see a problem.

[snipping]

Just give a lowish rating: it's easy enough to see...

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:44:53 +0100, Steve wrote:

On 22/07/2011 09:31, Invisible Man wrote:
On 22/07/2011 08:40, Scion wrote:
PeterC wrote:
- still don't knw what to get :-(

Philishave.

The top of the range Philishaves are good but expensive

As are the replacement heads when they need replacing.

As much as a brand new shaver in some cases. My shaver cost me £50,
reduced from £100. Replacement heads cost £50.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:38:21 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I seem to remember the tale was that it was one (or more of the major
British car manufacturers) who said that the Beetle wasn't a
commercial prospect and declined to take it on.

You're more than likely correct - my memory of the story was a bit vague.

But either way, eh! Oops!

BMC repeated it with the Mini. Seems they lost money on every one sold.


And then for an encore delayed the introduction of the Metro in favour
of the Marina allowing VW to launch the first hatchback.

Both the Marina and the Metro were truely awful cars.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article ,
wrote:
On 24 Jul,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by
date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged
right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first
designed...

It was hardly unchanged. It was always the bottom end of the smallest
car in the Ford range, but it did change significantly as the smallest
car (anglia) did. I think it ceased when the 105E anglia came out, or
did it carry on a little longer as a copy of the 100E?

Be interested to know just how the Popular changed - apart from a few
cosmetics. Smaller headlamps was one - to save even more money. I can't
think of any improvements over the pre-war car, let alone the post war
Anglia.

The next generation Popular based on the 100E was a totally different
proposition.

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:01:22 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Alan wrote:
For some reason
Which produces irrational reactions from some.

The overall view in this thread seems to suggest that Which? lost its
way many years ago.

I also agree with a lot of comments on this thread. I don't think
Which is as good as it used to be but ....

I'd agree with that. However, the explanation is they need additional
income to that from subscription.

Which are pretty much the only organisation that do what they do. I
can't think of anyone else that gives independent reviews. I keep
subscribing partly to support their consumer campaigns.

They used to have major problems identifying "identical" goods from the
same factory but with different badges/branding. These days I suspect
that that may have even more of a problem where some items may have a
dozen or more badges depending on which outlet is selling the equipment.

There's certainly one instance of this quoted frequently in the newsgroups
whenever Which comes up. ;-)

I also think Which's job is harder than it used to be. There are many
more products on the market nowadays and they are replaced with new
models more frequently.

At one time the reviews by Which? may have been one of the few sources
of independent information but these days you can probably find a better
spread of real customer reviews from well known web sites.

I'm rather suspicious of seller's websites with reviews, since these
reviews are always anonymous. Just check out any site selling snake oil to
see what I mean.

+1
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
I'd agree with that. However, the explanation is they need additional
income to that from subscription.

Which are pretty much the only organisation that do what they do. I
can't think of anyone else that gives independent reviews. I keep
subscribing partly to support their consumer campaigns.

I did too until fairly recently.

They may not be perfect, but are certainly better than any alternative,
and as such deserve support if you can afford to.

I do wonder about the motives of those who do nothing but knock them.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:13:55 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:44:53 +0100, Steve wrote:

On 22/07/2011 09:31, Invisible Man wrote:
On 22/07/2011 08:40, Scion wrote:
PeterC wrote:
- still don't knw what to get :-(

Philishave.

The top of the range Philishaves are good but expensive

As are the replacement heads when they need replacing.

As much as a brand new shaver in some cases. My shaver cost me £50,
reduced from £100. Replacement heads cost £50.

I've never bought any but have looked at the prices - frightening!
The electric toothbrush bought a month ago was half-price at £23; half a
dozen heads will equal that :-(
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

In article ,
PeterC wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:13:55 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:44:53 +0100, Steve wrote:

On 22/07/2011 09:31, Invisible Man wrote:
On 22/07/2011 08:40, Scion wrote:
PeterC wrote:
- still don't knw what to get :-(

Philishave.

The top of the range Philishaves are good but expensive

As are the replacement heads when they need replacing.

As much as a brand new shaver in some cases. My shaver cost me £50,
reduced from £100. Replacement heads cost £50.

I've never bought any but have looked at the prices - frightening!
The electric toothbrush bought a month ago was half-price at £23; half a
dozen heads will equal that :-(

I pay a fiver every few months for 5 or 10 moulded blades (like the
woodman's axe, it's on its 2nd handle and about its 500th set of blades)
and I begrudge that !

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Roger Chapman wrote:


That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire
syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year.
For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power
increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space,
1962 a fuel gauge.
Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.*
12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes from
1950.
i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that time again and buy
a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that i had available it would
be another Beetle.
unmercifully threshed (no speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but
totally reliable.
What were you driving in the early 60s ?


-

In article ,
Mark wrote:
That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire
syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year.
For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power
increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space,
1962 a fuel gauge.
Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.*
12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes
from 1950. i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that
time again and buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that
i had available it would be another Beetle. unmercifully threshed (no
speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but totally reliable.
What were you driving in the early 60s ?

Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see the
appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25 Jul,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On 24 Jul,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by
date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged
right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first
designed...

It was hardly unchanged. It was always the bottom end of the smallest
car in the Ford range, but it did change significantly as the smallest
car (anglia) did. I think it ceased when the 105E anglia came out, or
did it carry on a little longer as a copy of the 100E?

Be interested to know just how the Popular changed - apart from a few
cosmetics. Smaller headlamps was one - to save even more money. I can't
think of any improvements over the pre-war car, let alone the post war
Anglia.

The next generation Popular based on the 100E was a totally different
proposition.

Quite a big change then? It did evolve.


--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Mark wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:


That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire
syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year.
For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power
increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space,
1962 a fuel gauge.
Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.*
12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes from
1950.
i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that time again and buy
a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that i had available it would
be another Beetle.
unmercifully threshed (no speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but
totally reliable.
What were you driving in the early 60s ?


-
A small bicycle.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire
syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year.
For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power
increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space,
1962 a fuel gauge.
Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.*
12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes
from 1950. i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that
time again and buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that
i had available it would be another Beetle. unmercifully threshed (no
speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but totally reliable.
What were you driving in the early 60s ?

Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see the
appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

Hired em enough in Mexico and S Africa.

dont last.

engines never properly cooled and tend to be of the 50k mile variety as
a result.

OTOH almost anyone can fix one.

Nick Leverton wrote:

PeterC wrote:

The electric toothbrush bought a month ago was half-price at £23

I pay a fiver every few months for 5 or 10 moulded blades

You *shave* your teeth? :-P

In article ,
wrote:
Be interested to know just how the Popular changed - apart from a few
cosmetics. Smaller headlamps was one - to save even more money. I can't
think of any improvements over the pre-war car, let alone the post war
Anglia.

The next generation Popular based on the 100E was a totally different
proposition.

Quite a big change then? It did evolve.

Only in the same way as the current Beetle evolved from the original. It
shared the same name.

--
*Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see
the appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

Hired em enough in Mexico and S Africa.

dont last.

I've no idea how well those were built.

engines never properly cooled and tend to be of the 50k mile variety as
a result.

Or serviced.

The reason the Beetle was popular in the US in the '50-60s was its
reliability and long life compared to other small cars. Until the Japanese
came along.

--
*Cover me. I'm changing lanes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/07/2011 23:21, Mark wrote:

That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire
syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year.
For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power
increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space,
1962 a fuel gauge.
Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.*
12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes from
1950.

You sure about that. Up thread there is a reference to cable braked
Beetles and the article I cited certainly states that Beetles didn't
have hydraulic brakes until 1964 before muddying the waters with that
reference to 'standard models' without explaining the distinction.

I moved into a shared flat in 1964 and one of my flatmates had a Beetle.
All I can remember from then is that it was very tail happy in the wet.
It couldn't have been completely gutless as he towed a glider trailer
with it.

i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that time again and buy
a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that i had available it would
be another Beetle.
unmercifully threshed (no speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but
totally reliable.

Since the Beetles of that era couldn't reach 70 mph the lack of a
national speed limit is irrelevant.

What were you driving in the early 60s ?

From 1962 - 1939 Rover 12 (IIRC that cost me £14)
1963 - 1955 Vauxhall Cresta
1964 - 1952 Riley 2.5

All would (and regularly did) exceed 70 mph.

--
Roger Chapman