What about the MG ZR Diesel? The 2.0 100 HP Diesel gets 50-mpg...

It's still a Rover in a dress

Quote from Jakg :

What about the MG ZR Diesel? The 2.0 100 HP Diesel gets 50-mpg...

It is a Rover 25 with a bodykit and a big heavy diesel engine. If you really want one get a petrol Rover 25 and then upgrade to the ZR the suspension yourself. What do you want from this car? Do you just want it too be fast or have you completely missed the point that being fast and fun and involving to drive are completely different things, and in front wheel drive cars the trend tends to be that more power produces a worse drivers car in chassis that aren't properly sorted (ie. Rovers and VWs).

I think we may be wasting our time here. It's turning into a harjun-esque thread of "try this, don't try that" "lalalala"

You can't get sporty and super economical, it just doesn't happen. And the more sporty a car you look at, the more horses the engine puts out, the higher your insurance quote is going to be. I went older to find a car that was economical enough for my needs while still looking pretty good and being fairly cheap to tax and insure. It's plenty fast enough. Right now I just like being able to go places at my own pace, in my own time. I don't feel the need to tell everyone how (un)powerful it is, so who knows and cares as long as it goes from A to B?

But I fear that anyone who isn't saying "yes get the most powerfulest car you can find in the world" is going to be ignored.

I still like my Cinqueteno sporting idea.

Small engine, but lots of power for the weight of the car, dirt cheap to insure, dirt cheap to tax, dirt cheap to run, and a HEAP of fun to drive.

I had one a number of years back and it was a total blast to drive!!!

Did it look like this?

No, thank god.

Quote from ajp71 :

It is a Rover 25 with a bodykit and a big heavy diesel engine. If you really want one get a petrol Rover 25 and then upgrade to the ZR the suspension yourself. What do you want from this car? Do you just want it too be fast or have you completely missed the point that being fast and fun and involving to drive are completely different things, and in front wheel drive cars the trend tends to be that more power produces a worse drivers car in chassis that aren't properly sorted (ie. Rovers and VWs).

It's based of the 45.

I'm looking at a car that doesn't seem that expensive, looks ok, seems cheap to run and is more involving to drive than what I have atm...

Quote from danowat :

I still like my Cinqueteno sporting idea.

Small engine, but lots of power for the weight of the car, dirt cheap to insure, dirt cheap to tax, dirt cheap to run, and a HEAP of fun to drive.

I had one a number of years back and it was a total blast to drive!!!

I like those. My dad had one years ago, but now we have grown out of them BY FAR. It is a really neat car, though and recently we bought one for autograss racing, it was 50quid with a damaged rear, but on it's journey home we topped 100mph downhill, so it's very fast, jakg

Seriously though, if i were Jakg, i would buy the cheapest car, cheapest to insure and a fairly good MPG. I wouldn't care about looks, speed, or anything of the like. If it's money you're worried about go for something like what i described.

Bloody bargain

Miles of fun on the cheap , insurance group 3, leccy windows, cheap tax, 50+mpg if you don't thrash it

Quote from danowat :

Bloody bargain

Miles of fun on the cheap , insurance group 3, leccy windows, cheap tax, 50+mpg if you don't thrash it

What a beast!!

Jack, that's what you want, seriously.

I wouldn't have any of these cars you guys keep listing for free.

Buckets of crap :|

Quote from Klutch :

I wouldn't have any of these cars you guys keep listing for free.

Buckets of crap :|

Nice constructive post from someone who comes from a place where a pickup is seen as acceptable transport

Quote from danowat :

Bloody bargain

Miles of fun on the cheap , insurance group 3, leccy windows, cheap tax, 50+mpg if you don't thrash it

And a 1 star saftey rating should you crash it.

And lol @ pickup comment.

Safety ratings? You don't probably get good ratings with hardly any money anyway, at least it would keep Jacqui on his toes to not go silly and crash it.

I say safety ratings are BS, BS peddled by eurobox manufacturers that appeal to joan and john 2.4 kids, who drive around completely oblivous to anyone else around them because they are safe in their 5 * NCAP piece of shit.

I say every car should have a sharp 8 inch spike protruding from the centre of the steering colomn, and no seatbelts, bet ya people would drive bloody safe and aware then.

Aren't part of the modern day safety ratings made up of 'How safe is it for a person to be hit by this car' ?

Quote from Bean0 :

Aren't part of the modern day safety ratings made up of 'How safe is it for a person to be hit by this car' ?

Yes, the only way to get full 5 is to be safe also for pedestrians. Don't know if that 1 start rating for the Fiat is by the original or now day standards then.

Quote from ussbeethoven :

And please don't forget, even if you are a good and safe driver, you cannot control everyone else on the road or know what's around the bend.

Exactly, it's people who waft around in a complete daze in their 5*NCAP safety bubble that are the problem, I have suffered at the hand of these clueless dolts too many times to mention.

People are far too complacent about driving, and all this publicized NCAP stuff only makes it worse.

Personally, I think we should have compulsary driving retests at least every 5 years, because the standard of driving on our roads is frankly appalling.

The problem with any cars that are vaguely 'sporty' is that the insurance on them is astronomical, never mind the crappy mileage they get.

I finally saw the light and got the most unsporty car I've ever had, a Fiat Panda Multijet (Diesel). Probably the cheapest car I've ever owned, £4k for the car, £35 a year on tax, and Group 2 on insurance (which for me means £140), plus 60+ MPG - currently 62.3 on the trip computer.

Sod performance, save yourself a packet and get a Fiesta TDCi or something. Must be loads around for ~£2k.

Oh and my Panda still does 60 in 13.00 seconds. (70 BHP/935KG)

My two cents.

Heh, almost the same specs as my 1994 Toyota Tercel (82HP 1.5L petrol, 910kg). And it tows my motorcycle. :eye-poppi

(although not comfortably... hills on the interstate are typically taken at around 50mph in third gear when towing the bike on a single-rail open trailer)

Quote from Joe_Keaveney :

The problem with any cars that are vaguely 'sporty' is that the insurance on them is astronomical, never mind the crappy mileage they get.

I finally saw the light and got the most unsporty car I've ever had, a Fiat Panda Multijet (Diesel). Probably the cheapest car I've ever owned, £4k for the car, £35 a year on tax, and Group 2 on insurance (which for me means £140), plus 60+ MPG - currently 62.3 on the trip computer.

Sod performance, save yourself a packet and get a Fiesta TDCi or something. Must be loads around for ~£2k.

Oh and my Panda still does 60 in 13.00 seconds. (70 BHP/935KG)

My two cents.

This man speaks the truth. (and common sense in todays credit-crunch madness!) I'm gunna get a Panda when I pass my driving test... deciding between the 100HP and the little Multijet diesel.

Quote from Joe_Keaveney :

Sod performance, save yourself a packet and get a Fiesta TDCi or something. Must be loads around for ~£2k.

Except Fiesta's are the most boring to drive car in the world - I had to learn in one and it just felt like i was pulling levers and the car was doing it's own thing - I felt no "connection" to the road at all (and not in a sporty way).

Quote from Jakg :

FWIW just done a "run". Its used 27.5 litres of fuel to drive 219.4 miles (figures gained from a full tank, then seeing how much fuel it took to fill up again). That means i'm running at 36.2 MPG - which, again, is better than what the manufacturers state (so far both stats about the car i've checked myself have been BS so Proton suck it seems), and i've been driving a little faster than usual this week - will try and see what granny driving does this week, then will see what cheaper fuel does the week after (atm running on Tesco Ultimate 99 - no idea if thats a good idea, though). Also put a shot o' Redex in the other day...

Granny Driving + 2 "Lead Foot" runs (late for work / film and drove more aggresively than usual) = 219.4 miles on 27.62 L of fuel.

aka 36.1 MPG. So Granny driving in my car is no more effecient (really) than driving normally, but ragging it DRINKS fuel.

Now gone from Tesco Ultimate 99 to "basic" Tesco petrol. Will then move onto BP, Shell & Morrissons petrol later :P

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

A 106 is fast? Since when!!?!?

enough of the generalising, 106's are amazing handling and the 1.6 16v is fairly rapid, 8.5 ish to 60, makes it a warm hatch, at the very least. pity i cant actually drive them.

and why are people recommending diesels? fair enough they do more MPG, but its at least 12p a litre more expensive than petrol, so you have do to well over 10k PA to get a saving, and i doubt jakg does. and anyway, driving about in a tractor which hits the limiter at 4k, id rather have a less economical petrol.

jakg, dont bother running any kinda super unleaded, totally pointless unless the manafacturer specifically states that you should run it, otherwise your paying more for absolutely nothing.