On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:34:31 +0000, TheChief wrote:

Hi all

Having a diesel Ford Focus I have been following the negative
press about diesels in general with a vested interest.

Does anyone have a diesel car on one of these personal finance deals?

As I understand these deals, you make a down payment and then pay
monthly for a given period. Then if you want to trade up after say 2
years, your existing car becomes the down payment for the new model.

So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially sign
up for this type of deal?

There's usually something called the Guaranteed Future Value. Ifs and
buts are mainly round mileage - you sign up for a maximum mileage before
handback, and if you exceed that you pay aper-mile fee. But you can pick
different 'targets' at the start. Clearly your choice will affect the GFV.

So, once signed up, they are locked in. Of course, they are probably
already reducing the GFV for future contracts....

I wanted petrol this time round (about 15 months ago). But they only did
a really gutless one, or the expensive 4WD one...



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 26/02/2017 21:34, TheChief wrote:
Hi all

Having a diesel Ford Focus I have been following the negative
press about diesels in general with a vested interest.

Does anyone have a diesel car on one of these personal finance deals?

As I understand these deals, you make a down payment and then pay
monthly for a given period. Then if you want to trade up after
say 2 years, your existing car becomes the down payment for the
new model.

So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially
sign up for this type of deal?
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Phil

Dunno - guess it depends on the terms of the leasing deal.

My Volvo V70 diesel, which I bought new, is nearing it's tenth birthday
so isn't now worth that much anyway. I've no particular desire to get
rid of it unless it becomes ridiculously expensive to run. I rarely
drive it into any cities, anyway. I suppose I might be tempted to swap
it for something else if the government came up with a generous
scrappage scheme.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
....
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4, which lost a
lot of value when I traded that in for the then flavour of the month - a
2 litre diesel car. Now that is the spawn of the devil.

--
--

Colin Bignell

Hi all

Having a diesel Ford Focus I have been following the negative
press about diesels in general with a vested interest.

Does anyone have a diesel car on one of these personal finance deals?

As I understand these deals, you make a down payment and then pay
monthly for a given period. Then if you want to trade up after
say 2 years, your existing car becomes the down payment for the
new model.

So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially
sign up for this type of deal?
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Phil
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Bob Eager Wrote in message:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:34:31 +0000, TheChief wrote:

Hi all

Having a diesel Ford Focus I have been following the negative
press about diesels in general with a vested interest.

Does anyone have a diesel car on one of these personal finance deals?

As I understand these deals, you make a down payment and then pay
monthly for a given period. Then if you want to trade up after say 2
years, your existing car becomes the down payment for the new model.

So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially sign
up for this type of deal?

There's usually something called the Guaranteed Future Value. Ifs and
buts are mainly round mileage - you sign up for a maximum mileage before
handback, and if you exceed that you pay aper-mile fee. But you can pick
different 'targets' at the start. Clearly your choice will affect the GFV.

So, once signed up, they are locked in. Of course, they are probably
already reducing the GFV for future contracts....

I wanted petrol this time round (about 15 months ago). But they only did
a really gutless one, or the expensive 4WD one...



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor


I was looking at replacing my Focus and was inclined to go petrol,
but it seems around 3/4 of 2 year old cars are diesel or these 1
litre overclocked turbo jobbies.

Maybe I should stick with diesel as there are likely to be some
good deals on the way

Phil
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Roger Mills Wrote in message:
On 26/02/2017 21:34, TheChief wrote:
Hi all

Having a diesel Ford Focus I have been following the negative
press about diesels in general with a vested interest.

Does anyone have a diesel car on one of these personal finance deals?

As I understand these deals, you make a down payment and then pay
monthly for a given period. Then if you want to trade up after
say 2 years, your existing car becomes the down payment for the
new model.

So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially
sign up for this type of deal?
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Phil

Dunno - guess it depends on the terms of the leasing deal.

My Volvo V70 diesel, which I bought new, is nearing it's tenth birthday
so isn't now worth that much anyway. I've no particular desire to get
rid of it unless it becomes ridiculously expensive to run. I rarely
drive it into any cities, anyway. I suppose I might be tempted to swap
it for something else if the government came up with a generous
scrappage scheme.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.


Aren't the scrappage schemes limited to purchase of new cars only?
I don't like paying the initial depreciation hit and buy 2 year
old vehicles as a rule.

Phil
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 26/02/2017 22:09, TheChief wrote:
Roger Wrote in message:
On 26/02/2017 21:34, TheChief wrote:
Hi all

Having a diesel Ford Focus I have been following the negative
press about diesels in general with a vested interest.

Does anyone have a diesel car on one of these personal finance deals?

As I understand these deals, you make a down payment and then pay
monthly for a given period. Then if you want to trade up after
say 2 years, your existing car becomes the down payment for the
new model.

So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially
sign up for this type of deal?
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Phil

Dunno - guess it depends on the terms of the leasing deal.

My Volvo V70 diesel, which I bought new, is nearing it's tenth birthday
so isn't now worth that much anyway. I've no particular desire to get
rid of it unless it becomes ridiculously expensive to run. I rarely
drive it into any cities, anyway. I suppose I might be tempted to swap
it for something else if the government came up with a generous
scrappage scheme.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.


Aren't the scrappage schemes limited to purchase of new cars only?
I don't like paying the initial depreciation hit and buy 2 year
old vehicles as a rule.

Phil

Probably. But I prefer to buy new cars and keep them for a long time.
[My next car will probably be my last, seeing as I'm 74.]
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 27-Feb-17 10:06 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
...
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4 ...

Why?


Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 27/02/2017 12:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 10:06 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
...
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4 ...

Why?


Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.


You can cross muddy fields with a lot less than 5 litres!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:00:48 +0000, Roger Mills wrote:

On 27/02/2017 12:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 10:06 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
...
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4 ...

Why?


Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.


You can cross muddy fields with a lot less than 5 litres!

Depends on what you are towing behind you I guess!

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.


You can cross muddy fields with a lot less than 5 litres!

How big was the first Land Rover? 1.6 litres?

--
*I did a theatrical performance about puns. It was a play on words.*

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

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially sign
up for this type of deal?

There's usually something called the Guaranteed Future Value. Ifs and
buts are mainly round mileage - you sign up for a maximum mileage before
handback, and if you exceed that you pay aper-mile fee. But you can pick
different 'targets' at the start. Clearly your choice will affect the GFV.

So, once signed up, they are locked in. Of course, they are probably
already reducing the GFV for future contracts....

I keep on seeing the headline monthly rental costs in TV ads for a new
car, and thinking 'that's too good to be true'...

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

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

On 27/02/2017 13:54, Mark Allread wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:00:48 +0000, Roger Mills wrote:

On 27/02/2017 12:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 10:06 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Nightjar
wrote:

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
...
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4 ...

Why?


Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.


You can cross muddy fields with a lot less than 5 litres!

Depends on what you are towing behind you I guess!


If you were towing something heavy enough to need 5 litres worth of
torque, you almost certainly wouldn't have sufficient adhesion - even
with 4-wheel drive,.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 27/02/2017 14:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Bob wrote:
So the question is, does the original car provider guarantee a
certain value for your car at 2 year trade in when you initially sign
up for this type of deal?

There's usually something called the Guaranteed Future Value. Ifs and
buts are mainly round mileage - you sign up for a maximum mileage before
handback, and if you exceed that you pay aper-mile fee. But you can pick
different 'targets' at the start. Clearly your choice will affect the GFV.

So, once signed up, they are locked in. Of course, they are probably
already reducing the GFV for future contracts....

I keep on seeing the headline monthly rental costs in TV ads for a new
car, and thinking 'that's too good to be true'...


Probably because it is! There is invariably a hefty up-front payment in
addition to the monthly installments - and you never get to own it, of
course.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 27-Feb-17 1:00 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 27/02/2017 12:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 10:06 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
...
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4 ...

Why?


Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.


You can cross muddy fields with a lot less than 5 litres!

I wouldn't disagree; I had a Land Rover Defender when I had more than
an occasional need to go off road. However, that was only one factor in
my choice of vehicle and the others didn't change when I needed to
replace it. I still need good acceleration (it minimises the time you
spend in potentially dangerous situations, like turning right), an
ability to cover long distances in comfort and the capacity to tow a
1400kg box trailer effortlessly.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 27/02/2017 17:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 1:00 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 27/02/2017 12:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 10:06 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
...
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4 ...

Why?


Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.


You can cross muddy fields with a lot less than 5 litres!

I wouldn't disagree; I had a Land Rover Defender when I had more than an
occasional need to go off road. However, that was only one factor in my
choice of vehicle and the others didn't change when I needed to replace
it. I still need good acceleration (it minimises the time you spend in
potentially dangerous situations, like turning right), an ability to
cover long distances in comfort and the capacity to tow a 1400kg box
trailer effortlessly.


Presumably your current 2-litre diesel vehicle meets all of those needs?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:23:44 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

2 litre diesel car. Now that is the spawn of the devil.

So diesels are bad because they produce more PM2.5 and NOx, is this
falling out of favour an admission that diesel particulate filters
don't work (I saw a paper that they reduce PM2.5 by 85% over the same
engine with no filter) and neither does adblue?

AJH

On 27-Feb-17 5:29 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 27/02/2017 17:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 1:00 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 27/02/2017 12:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 10:06 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 26-Feb-17 9:34 PM, TheChief wrote:
...
I am thinking that the value of these cars is going to drop like a
stone with the government telling everyone how diabolical they
are.

Tell me about it. My previous motor was a 5 litre V8 4x4 ...

Why?


Because it suited my needs at the time I bought it. The need to cross
muddy fields was no longer relevant when I replaced it.


You can cross muddy fields with a lot less than 5 litres!

I wouldn't disagree; I had a Land Rover Defender when I had more than an
occasional need to go off road. However, that was only one factor in my
choice of vehicle and the others didn't change when I needed to replace
it. I still need good acceleration (it minimises the time you spend in
potentially dangerous situations, like turning right), an ability to
cover long distances in comfort and the capacity to tow a 1400kg box
trailer effortlessly.


Presumably your current 2-litre diesel vehicle meets all of those needs?

It does, although I had to have an extended test drive before being
convinced that 0-62mph in 7.8 seconds was still fast enough.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Monday, 27 February 2017 18:03:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 5:29 PM, Roger Mills wrote:

Presumably your current 2-litre diesel vehicle meets all of those needs?

It does, although I had to have an extended test drive before being
convinced that 0-62mph in 7.8 seconds was still fast enough.

How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to reach 62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill motorway.

Over & over I've seen quick acceleration result in people getting into situations they wouldn't in a slower car. It's more a hazard feature really, and insurance premium prices only confirm that.


NT

In message ,
writes
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:23:44 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

2 litre diesel car. Now that is the spawn of the devil.

So diesels are bad because they produce more PM2.5 and NOx, is this
falling out of favour an admission that diesel particulate filters
don't work (I saw a paper that they reduce PM2.5 by 85% over the same
engine with no filter) and neither does adblue?

I don't know. The previous thread about diesel emissions seemed to
indicate that no-one actually knows, or are hiding the data if they do.

My impression, via what I read there, was that particulates and NOx
could be reduced to similar levels as in petrol engines by either
changing the tuning of the diesel or applying various tricks such as
adblue. But that particulates from tyres exceed those from most engines
by a substantial factor anyway.
--
Bill

On 27-Feb-17 6:48 PM, wrote:
On Monday, 27 February 2017 18:03:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 5:29 PM, Roger Mills wrote:

Presumably your current 2-litre diesel vehicle meets all of those needs?

It does, although I had to have an extended test drive before being
convinced that 0-62mph in 7.8 seconds was still fast enough.

How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to reach 62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill motorway.

In 1955, the Mercedes 300SL was the fastest production car in the world.
It did 0-62mph in 8.8 seconds, with a top speed of 135mph, as compared
to the 7.8 seconds and 150mph of my diesel estate car.


Over & over I've seen quick acceleration result in people getting into situations they wouldn't in a slower car. It's more a hazard feature really, and insurance premium prices only confirm that.

It is only a hazard if you don't allow for other drivers not expecting
you to be travelling as quickly as you are (a particular hazard with a
4x4 that does 0-62 in 6 seconds), or drive like an idiot, which you can
do in any car. As I said earlier, it allows you to minimise the time you
spend in potentially hazardous situations, such as turning right.




--
--

Colin Bignell

On 27/02/17 18:48, wrote:
Over & over I've seen quick acceleration result in people getting
into situations they wouldn't in a slower car. It's more a hazard
feature really, and insurance premium prices only confirm that.

What ********


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 27/02/17 19:08, Bill wrote:
In message ,
writes
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:23:44 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

2 litre diesel car. Now that is the spawn of the devil.

So diesels are bad because they produce more PM2.5 and NOx, is this
falling out of favour an admission that diesel particulate filters
don't work (I saw a paper that they reduce PM2.5 by 85% over the same
engine with no filter) and neither does adblue?

I don't know. The previous thread about diesel emissions seemed to
indicate that no-one actually knows, or are hiding the data if they do.

My impression, via what I read there, was that particulates and NOx
could be reduced to similar levels as in petrol engines by either
changing the tuning of the diesel or applying various tricks such as
adblue. But that particulates from tyres exceed those from most engines
by a substantial factor anyway.

And brakes. Major source of nasty dust, Used to be asbestos...


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

In article ,
wrote:
How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to reach
62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill motorway.

Don't think I've ever seen a road test with an 0-60mph figure of 72
seconds quoted. They'd quote the 0-50 only. If it takes well over a minute
to reach that speed it's more likely to be the maximum speed.

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

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

wrote:

and insurance premium prices only confirm that.


NT


Insurance premiums in the US are not IME related to engine size, but
repair costs. The UK seems the other way.

On 27/02/2017 19:39, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 6:48 PM, wrote:
On Monday, 27 February 2017 18:03:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 5:29 PM, Roger Mills wrote:

Presumably your current 2-litre diesel vehicle meets all of those
needs?

It does, although I had to have an extended test drive before being
convinced that 0-62mph in 7.8 seconds was still fast enough.

How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to
reach 62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill
motorway.

In 1955, the Mercedes 300SL was the fastest production car in the world.
It did 0-62mph in 8.8 seconds, with a top speed of 135mph, as compared
to the 7.8 seconds and 150mph of my diesel estate car.


Over & over I've seen quick acceleration result in people getting into
situations they wouldn't in a slower car. It's more a hazard feature
really, and insurance premium prices only confirm that.

It is only a hazard if you don't allow for other drivers not expecting
you to be travelling as quickly as you are (a particular hazard with a
4x4 that does 0-62 in 6 seconds), or drive like an idiot, which you can
do in any car. As I said earlier, it allows you to minimise the time you
spend in potentially hazardous situations, such as turning right.





It's also a hazard because over-enthusiastic[1] drivers can spin the
wheels and lose directional control too easily.

[1] Boy racers, and others whose ambition exceeds their ability.

--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 28/02/2017 00:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to reach
62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill motorway.

Don't think I've ever seen a road test with an 0-60mph figure of 72
seconds quoted. They'd quote the 0-50 only. If it takes well over a minute
to reach that speed it's more likely to be the maximum speed.


I can't remember what the actual figures were but when I worked for
Rover and we produced the first rather gutless 3-speed automatic version
of the P6-2000, our chief tester said that he needed a calendar rather
than a stopwatch to measure the 0-60 time!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 28-Feb-17 11:04 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 27/02/2017 19:39, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 6:48 PM, wrote:
On Monday, 27 February 2017 18:03:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 27-Feb-17 5:29 PM, Roger Mills wrote:

Presumably your current 2-litre diesel vehicle meets all of those
needs?

It does, although I had to have an extended test drive before being
convinced that 0-62mph in 7.8 seconds was still fast enough.

How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to
reach 62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill
motorway.

In 1955, the Mercedes 300SL was the fastest production car in the world.
It did 0-62mph in 8.8 seconds, with a top speed of 135mph, as compared
to the 7.8 seconds and 150mph of my diesel estate car.


Over & over I've seen quick acceleration result in people getting into
situations they wouldn't in a slower car. It's more a hazard feature
really, and insurance premium prices only confirm that.

It is only a hazard if you don't allow for other drivers not expecting
you to be travelling as quickly as you are (a particular hazard with a
4x4 that does 0-62 in 6 seconds), or drive like an idiot, which you can
do in any car. As I said earlier, it allows you to minimise the time you
spend in potentially hazardous situations, such as turning right.





It's also a hazard because over-enthusiastic[1] drivers can spin the
wheels and lose directional control too easily.

[1] Boy racers, and others whose ambition exceeds their ability.

That comes under 'drive like an idiot'.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
It's also a hazard because over-enthusiastic[1] drivers can spin the
wheels and lose directional control too easily.

Most powerful cars have had traction control for ages.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
On 28/02/2017 00:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to
reach 62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill
motorway.

Don't think I've ever seen a road test with an 0-60mph figure of 72
seconds quoted. They'd quote the 0-50 only. If it takes well over a
minute to reach that speed it's more likely to be the maximum speed.


I can't remember what the actual figures were but when I worked for
Rover and we produced the first rather gutless 3-speed automatic version
of the P6-2000, our chief tester said that he needed a calendar rather
than a stopwatch to measure the 0-60 time!

Yes. A very badly matched engine/auto. But still under 20 seconds 0-60.

It's no wonder that engine died with the P6. The SD1 2000 auto with the
same auto box (near enough) was quite lively. Or rather not the
embarrassment the P6 was. Even the 2200 auto was a dog.

Odd, really, as the manual P6 2000 was reasonably lively - provided you
used the revs.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

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

On 28/02/2017 14:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:


I can't remember what the actual figures were but when I worked for
Rover and we produced the first rather gutless 3-speed automatic version
of the P6-2000, our chief tester said that he needed a calendar rather
than a stopwatch to measure the 0-60 time!

Yes. A very badly matched engine/auto. But still under 20 seconds 0-60.

It's no wonder that engine died with the P6. The SD1 2000 auto with the
same auto box (near enough) was quite lively. Or rather not the
embarrassment the P6 was. Even the 2200 auto was a dog.


That wasn't the Rover P6 engine, though - it was an O-series.

The P6(B) went a lot better with the V8 engine in it.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 2017-02-27 14:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I keep on seeing the headline monthly rental costs in TV ads for a new
car, and thinking 'that's too good to be true'...

You're only buying (say) half the car, so the repayments are only half what
you would otherwise expect. At the end of the contract period you either have
to stump up the remaining half or return the car. The garage is hoping you'll
do the latter and start a new contract.

--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
On 28/02/2017 14:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:


I can't remember what the actual figures were but when I worked for
Rover and we produced the first rather gutless 3-speed automatic version
of the P6-2000, our chief tester said that he needed a calendar rather
than a stopwatch to measure the 0-60 time!

Yes. A very badly matched engine/auto. But still under 20 seconds 0-60.

It's no wonder that engine died with the P6. The SD1 2000 auto with the
same auto box (near enough) was quite lively. Or rather not the
embarrassment the P6 was. Even the 2200 auto was a dog.


That wasn't the Rover P6 engine, though - it was an O-series.

That's why I said the P6 one died with the P6. Very usual to have an
engine range only ever used in one model.

The P6(B) went a lot better with the V8 engine in it.

Quite. I've had 3 P6 4 cylinders and 3 P6 V-8s.

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

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

In article ,
Graham Nye wrote:
On 2017-02-27 14:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I keep on seeing the headline monthly rental costs in TV ads for a new
car, and thinking 'that's too good to be true'...

You're only buying (say) half the car, so the repayments are only half
what you would otherwise expect. At the end of the contract period you
either have to stump up the remaining half or return the car. The garage
is hoping you'll do the latter and start a new contract.

Even so, the 'headline' rental monthly costs you see in TV ads looks very
attractive. So I looked up the rental costs for the car I currently have.
Which were way more than I'd ever pay.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
That wasn't the Rover P6 engine, though - it was an O-series.

That's why I said the P6 one died with the P6. Very usual to have an
^^^^^
That should have been unusual, if anyone cares. ;-)

engine range only ever used in one model.

The P6(B) went a lot better with the V8 engine in it.

Quite. I've had 3 P6 4 cylinders and 3 P6 V-8s.

--
*I'm not a paranoid, deranged millionaire. Dammit, I'm a billionaire.

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

On 01/03/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


That's why I said the P6 one died with the P6. Very (un)usual to have an
engine range only ever used in one model.


There was a 6-cylinder version of it which was fitted to a few P7
prototypes, but that was abandoned in favour of the V8.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In article ,
Roger Mills wrote:
On 01/03/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


That's why I said the P6 one died with the P6. Very (un)usual to have an
engine range only ever used in one model.


There was a 6-cylinder version of it which was fitted to a few P7
prototypes, but that was abandoned in favour of the V8.

Didn't they try a 5 cylinder too?

Dunno why BL dropped that unit in favour of some of the other 4 cylinder
engines in their existing range, for later models. Probably internal
politics.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

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

On 01/03/2017 13:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Roger wrote:
On 01/03/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


That's why I said the P6 one died with the P6. Very (un)usual to have an
engine range only ever used in one model.


There was a 6-cylinder version of it which was fitted to a few P7
prototypes, but that was abandoned in favour of the V8.

Didn't they try a 5 cylinder too?


They did - but it was before the days of fuel injection for petrol
engines, and having anything other than 1 or 5 carburettors presented a
bit of a challenge.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:39:31 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to reach
62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill motorway.

Don't think I've ever seen a road test with an 0-60mph figure of 72
seconds quoted. They'd quote the 0-50 only. If it takes well over a minute
to reach that speed it's more likely to be the maximum speed.

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

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

0-60 time isn't everything. One of the magasines used to publish 50-70 (overtaking) times but really when you get past 60 the bigger engines will demonstarte their prowess, Most small vans can do 0-60 fairly good but after that they fall way back in the mirror

In article ,
fred wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:39:31 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
How the world has changed. My first car took nearer 78 seconds to
reach 62. Its replacement only saw 62 once on a very long downhill
motorway.

Don't think I've ever seen a road test with an 0-60mph figure of 72
seconds quoted. They'd quote the 0-50 only. If it takes well over a
minute to reach that speed it's more likely to be the maximum speed.

0-60 time isn't everything.

Merely a bench mark for bar room boasting. Same as peak BHP.


One of the magasines used to publish 50-70 (overtaking) times

A decent magazine like Autocar used to publish all the 10 mph increments
for acceleration. The 50-70 figure was in top gear. From the days when
autos were rare. For maximum economy and relaxed cruising, a taller gear
than gives the best 50-70 acceleration can be an advantage.


but really when you get past 60 the bigger engines will demonstarte
their prowess, Most small vans can do 0-60 fairly good but after that
they fall way back in the mirror

More to do with the power to weight ratio of the vehicle. And any drag at
higher speeds.

--
*Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

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