Rover 75 - got one :-)
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 27 May 2010 05:42 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> No, please go on... > Obviously...airbags Again - secondary safety. B'sides, I wear glasses and am tall enough to be unlikely to headbutt the wheel, whilst 'erself is short enough that she'd be more likely to have injuries exacerbated by an airbag. > also the newer 'crumplezone' technology? Do you ever read the posts you reply to? Anyway, you may like to investigate which manufacturer was one of the real pioneers in impact testing and many of the modern safety concepts.
From: Mike P on 27 May 2010 05:46 On 27 May, 10:35, Dave Plowman <d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: > In article <866ra5Fs3c...(a)mid.individual.net>, > Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Got a private plate on your 75 to hide the fact it's six years old? No? > > Well, to many people that IS an "ancient banger". > > How would a private plate cover up the fact a car is six years old? How > many remain unchanged in that time? Rover 75s do ... Mike P
From: Clive George on 27 May 2010 06:32 On 27/05/2010 09:53, Ret. wrote: > Adrian wrote: >> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> were saying: >> >>>>> I would class most cars as 'mediocre'. If the person likes an >>>>> average car, that' all that matters. We can't all afford >>>>> Ferraris. >> >>>> Do you really think that the kind of teenage-boy stats better >>>> suited to a game of "Top Trumps" are the only difference between a >>>> mediocre car and a good one? >> >>> No. >> >> So it was a bit of a silly and irrelevant post, then, wasn't it? > > As is your comment that the 75 is mediocre when there is a mass of > evidence in the form of awards won, and glowing professional reviews, to > thoroughly contradict your claim. > > The motoring press are not backward in criticising cars when they are > deserving of criticism. Why do you think that virtually all the reviews > are so positive? You're _so_ predictable. "I'm not going to get drawn in." - yeah, right.
From: Clive George on 27 May 2010 06:38 On 27/05/2010 10:45, Mike P wrote: > Not sure where you are coming from there... however, to answer your > question - yes, I'd gladly use a 125 or 250cc go-kart as my everyday > "get you to work" transport if it were legal. And the roads were smooth :-)
From: Ret. on 27 May 2010 07:24
Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > >>> No, please go on... > >> Obviously...airbags > > Again - secondary safety. B'sides, I wear glasses and am tall enough > to be unlikely to headbutt the wheel, whilst 'erself is short enough > that she'd be more likely to have injuries exacerbated by an airbag. > >> also the newer 'crumplezone' technology? > > Do you ever read the posts you reply to? > > Anyway, you may like to investigate which manufacturer was one of the > real pioneers in impact testing and many of the modern safety > concepts. So was Volvo - but in that crash test that I referred to, where a large Volvo estate (probably similar age to your Saab) was crashed in an off-set head-on into into a Renault Berlingo (a much smaller but newer car), the 'driver' in the Volvo came off significantly worse than the Berlingo 'driver'. The Volvo driver would have been trapped and unable to get out because the door could barely be forced open, even by someone on the outside of the car, his lower limbs would have suffered significant injury because of the engine forcing the bulkhead and pedals back into the cockpit, despite having a supposed collapsible steering column - it was forced a long way into the cockpit. There is no getting away from it Adrian - a 20 year old car is dramatically less safe in a crash than a newer car. -- Kev |