1 series coupe ?
Printed From: Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: General BMW & Bavarian-Board Chat
Forum Discription: Chat to other members about BMWs and other matters.
Newbies introduce yourselves here!!!
URL: http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=36922
Printed Date: 02-June-2024 at 11:35
Topic: 1 series coupe ?
Posted By: Nigel
Subject: 1 series coupe ?
Date Posted: 21-April-2007 at 23:42
|
http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?p=1970062&posted=1#post1970062 - http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?p=1970062&post ed=1#post1970062 ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Replies:
Posted By: The blue bullet
Date Posted: 23-April-2007 at 18:43
front 3/4s are fine but after that???
|
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 23-April-2007 at 23:06
I was going to object to a link to the "old-mans-car-'over" site, but if they are talking about BMW's - even a 1 series - that's OK  ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 09:12
|
Not sure about the 1 series coupe. Looks ok from some angles. I didn't like the signature of one of the posters though... The ZT/ZTT-not for chavs ,unlike a 318i........ ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: flyingalexf68
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 19:24
|
How much rear leg room will there be in that? ------------- 1995 e36 3.0 M3 Coupe, Daytona Violet, AP Racing BBK, CCFL Angel Eyes, M3 Spoiler, M-Tec 3 Steering Wheel. 2000 530d Steptronic, Poverty Spec, 18" Alloys. |
Posted By: AndyS
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 22:03
Well they have to try and get a dig of some sort. I mean, fancy having to go through life with a millstone like a ZT round your neck! Rubbish design + Rubbish quality + Rubbish build = Rubbish car. The fact is, any BMW with any size engine is infinitely more desirable than a pimped up Rover with tacky MG badges. That's why BMW sell lots of cars & MG Rover didn't, period. ------------- AndyS Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be. http://www.photostick.co.uk/view-933_BaurSig1.jpg" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Peter Fenwick wrote:Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 22:22
|
Feel free to pop over and tell them lol. I'm afraid those 75 thingies are rather good value for money at the moment, and like here, the forum is largely made up of motoring enthusiasts. There are the odd one or two that are rather twitter and bisted about bmw, I even started a thread on it, but most, even those that don't like the bmw image like the cars. I'll get you links to to threads that may entertain you , but if you pop over to reply, please try not to be rude, on the rwd one there is a chap that insists his zt estate outhandles an E34 ! http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188636 - http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188636 http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188017 - http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=188017
------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 22:46
|
isn't that a contradiction in terms? ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 22:51
|
Naw you pink puff, remember BMW's first car ? ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 22:56
|
Eh? No, sorry - I'm not as old as you! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 23:09
|
I take it you've been to Gaydon ?, especially as it was named for you....their first car was an austin built under licence, bmw called it a Dixie I think. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 24-April-2007 at 23:21
|
nearly...... Licensed from Britain, the first BMW carA German version of the British Austin Seven, the European counterpart of the Ford Model T
not a Real BMW though A bit like claiming that a MG Mousetro is a real MG! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
||||
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 25-April-2007 at 08:39
|
The "02" models weren't real BMW's either, they were made by a company called glass I think. The BMW history is very interesting and shows the Germans at their best, and the British at their worst. Same story with the japs versus us in the motorbike industry. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: BeemaBoy
Date Posted: 25-April-2007 at 09:59
thePits vs Nigel  ------------- 87 E30 320I 95 E34 525I Auto, Executive Package, Arctic Silver 98 E38 740I Steptronic, Silver |
Posted By: dryle
Date Posted: 25-April-2007 at 10:09
Nigel i have been reading some of the posts and u seem to be extremley rude to them. keep up the good work ------------- Dave Ryle  "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 25-April-2007 at 13:30
|
You'll never become a mod if you keep that up! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 25-April-2007 at 23:03
|
I didn't think I presented myself in a rude manner ! I like motoring, two wheels & four, I like all makes of cars & bikes. BMW's are very good cars, but amongst others I'd still like to own a landrover discovery, and an S type jag. Bikewise I'd like another guzzi to remind me of my youth, and I've always fancied owning a bonnie
------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: AndyS
Date Posted: 26-April-2007 at 00:51
|
I've just had a read of those two threads & can't believe what a bunch of mis-informed blinkered numpty's there are on there. They bang on about how great fwd is - it's great if you want a shopping car and/or you're not really bothered about the driving experience. They either don't know or choose to forget but the Rover 75 was based on a modified E34 floor pan with a modified Z-axle without drive shafts. Turning the 75 back into rwd wasn't that hard. BMW bought Rover for several reasons, one of which was to gain fwd expertise. Only after buying the company did they find Rover didn't have any - it all came from Honda. Rover's demise was inevitable. Poorly designed, badly built and saddled with an image that nobody wanted it was only a matter of time despite the investments that BMW made. After 3 Honda's I bought a Rover in 1991 after believing all the hype in the motoring press including CAR. It turned out to be the most disappointing car I've ever owned with the exception of my first car, a 5 year old '71 Mini that was rotten to the core. My brother also bought a Rover & was disappointed too. He went back to German cars & I moved over to Audis which gave me a taste of Teutonic. Once I'd tried a BMW there was no going back. Despite all the claims by proud owners, an MG Z-whatever isn't a very good car at all even if you do try & justify it on a cost basis. After all, you can't polish a turd. ------------- AndyS Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be. http://www.photostick.co.uk/view-933_BaurSig1.jpg" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: dryle
Date Posted: 26-April-2007 at 08:59
only winding you up. there were quite a few throwing their rattle out of the "cage" ------------- Dave Ryle "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 26-April-2007 at 09:21
|
Well I had registered on that forum quite a while ago but when I logged in again to try an contribute I am not allowed to post for some reson. Still they sound like a bunch of dead heads anyway. AndyS. The MG ZT isn't a bad car, it might not be in the same league as a 5 series but that doesn't make it bad. Be careful, your BMW blinkers might just be as bad as their MG Rover ones :D ------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: dryle
Date Posted: 26-April-2007 at 10:21
|
Father Inlaw has a rover 600 and he said it is the best car he has had, he had a fuego as well. He felt that you had to really push the accelerator to get it down he may have been pushing at the base of the pedal rather than the top. it really is peoples personal opinions and people shouldnt knock them for it as we have people here who feel other fwd cars are better than bmw (volvo's) i have also heard that rwd is easier to work on than fwd as well from non mechanics, dont know how true that is. ------------- Dave Ryle "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 26-April-2007 at 20:20
|
The Rover 75 wasn't a modified 5 series floor pan, or so I read,but it could have been, it also wan't intended to be rear wheel drive, which seem to be another myth. This is a great site : http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/ - http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/ It seems to put those myths to bed ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 26-April-2007 at 21:53
|
Your youth? Then surely you mean one of these?
"a vintage bike" ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: AndyS
Date Posted: 27-April-2007 at 01:29
Don't get me wrong, I have a soft spot for the older cars, Triumphs in particular. You're partly right in that the basic 75 was a good car. However, the MG versions were a cynical attempt to cash in on a name that had already been devalued by previous attempts. They were also at odds with the original design aims of the 75. My main derision is aimed, not at the 75 but the 400 series and it's MG derivatives. The 400 was based on a rather poor version of the Honda Civic line & sticking a crass body kit on it only made it worse. As for the K-series engine, this never lived up to the hype. True, I was coming down a bit from the little beaut that powered my CRX but I expected more from the design. It was no better than anything from Ford or Vauxhall and not a patch on Hondas designs. Having owned a Rover I feel qualified to comment on them. How many of the Rover owners have owned a BMW? ------------- AndyS Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be. http://www.photostick.co.uk/view-933_BaurSig1.jpg" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: dryle
Date Posted: 27-April-2007 at 08:54
|
@andys i had a rover 200se, great little car but of course it is no comparison for the 5er as they are completely different cars and marketed as such. the zr, zs, zt are really just looking as though they have sporty bits stuck on. you can get away with come cars looking sportier by hanging bits onto them but a rover 75 aint one of them, zs maybe, zr yes. There are people with blinkers on all forums including here and "some" of them bang on about other cars being better than the cars the forum represent and can get quite stroppy about it. ------------- Dave Ryle "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw |
Posted By: AndyS
Date Posted: 28-April-2007 at 12:52
You're right of course & I've been guilty of it myself though I do try & base my comments & opinions on facts (well, most of the time  ).For years I ignored the good points of the 3-series (E30) & Golf Mk 2 because of their yuppy image. It was because of that obstinate streak I ended up with a new Rover rather than a second hand Golf. Trust me, I paid the price. I only ended up with an E30 when I was offered a low mileage Touring at a very good price allowing me to retire the Six to gentler duties. After 2 1/2 years & 19k miles all I've replaced is one ball joint & 2 or 3 bulbs. I've come to respect the E30 for it's simple, robust nature & enjoy it for it's eager nature on back roads. Sure, a 2.5 six cylinder would be better but this is my daily commuter car after all. I wish I could have praised the Rover in the same way but sadly I can't. Maybe it was just too much of a come down from my '88 CRX. ------------- AndyS Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be. http://www.photostick.co.uk/view-933_BaurSig1.jpg" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: 635CSi
Date Posted: 28-April-2007 at 13:36
Are you sure?? I honestly never heard that, it's very surprising I would have never thought that it was. Considering it was based on the E34 you would've thought it would have been better to drive. ------------- |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 28-April-2007 at 23:01
|
It isn't based on the E34, although according to the unofficial site info, the E34 stuff was offered. Why do you think its not nice to drive ?, mine seems ok ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: AndyS
Date Posted: 29-April-2007 at 08:36
|
According to Autocar's big spread on the development of the car it was based on the E34 in order to speed up development & cut costs. It's standard practice in the motoring world, eg. Chrysler Crossfire based on the old SLK, 300C based on the old E-Class platform etc. Of course, Autocar could have been wrong but you would have thought Rover would have put them straight, especially as they provided all the info for the article. The guy on the website could be wrong too. If you read what he says, he avoids being absolutely definite about it. There was never any doubt about the 75 being a good drive, it just wasn't a sporty drive (as intended). ------------- AndyS Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be. http://www.photostick.co.uk/view-933_BaurSig1.jpg" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: 635CSi
Date Posted: 30-April-2007 at 19:56
I mean it's not a sporty drive as AndyS said, it was engineered to be more of a cruiser. Although the MG ZT 260 is supposed to be bags of fun! I always quite liked the 75 though. ------------- |