Ignore the bonnet...

Wayn0r · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:03

[TW]Fox;12753764 said:
So becuase people post they dont like it you draw that conclusion?

i refer to the people that have posted things such as "they should buy decent cars" etc.

Perhaps, they like the 106? And perhaps they, god forbid, like doing what they have done OMGATSO.

Scottland · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:03

Not keen on the overall look, it's not something that lends itself particularly well to the 106 IMO. I do, however, love the bonnet.

Cuchulain · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:05

[TW]Fox;12753758 said:
It takes 13 seconds, the same amount of time it took you to post that. Just found it hard to beleive Penski that somebody would transplant a diesel engine into a 106 GTi, so I had a quick look. And shock, they've not.

Not only anal enough to check but you timed how long too? Take the shame Rainman.

[TW]Fox · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:07

Cuchulain said:
Not only anal enough to check but you timed how long too? Take the shame Rainman.

No, I guessed how long it took. Truthfully I've no idea how long it took. Certainly far less time than its now taking you to argue the toss about it in an awesome display of hyporcricy

[TW]Fox · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:09

Wayn0r said:
i refer to the people that have posted things such as "they should buy decent cars" etc.

Perhaps, they like the 106? And perhaps they, god forbid, like doing what they have done OMGATSO.

Is it beyond your understanding that people might be asking why they like it?

Personally I've nothing against the 106 GTi. Cracking little cars.

But this is a bit like buying a Golf R32, ripping the R32 engine out and putting a 1.9 SDI engine in. Then lowering it onto the deck so far you cant use it.

Are you honestly telling me that if you saw a slammed R32 to SDI conversion posted you wouldnt think to yourself 'Why'?

Cuchulain · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:12

[TW]Fox;12753809 said:
No, I guessed how long it took. Truthfully I've no idea how long it took. Certainly far less time than its now taking you to argue the toss about it in an awesome display of hyporcricy

Ok, when you've looked up how to spell that, look up it's meaning too.

[TW]Fox · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:14

I'm aware of what it means but the spelling is dreadful, I agree. I've shocked even myself.

It perfectly describes the action of a person who criticises somebody for doing something trivial yet expends even more time and effort in doing so than the original person did in the act that was apparently so sad.

The DVLA have a public website making it easy to check things. Get over it.

Firestar_3x · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:16

I can understand why the car is so low and the fact you could use it everyday so no issues with that.

Bonnet looked better black and i'm guessing this never had a GTI engine in, odds are the owner got it with a blown lump, a petrol to derv engine swap much be quite hard to do.

[TW]Fox · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:18

But that aside the diesel lump from the 106 is an example of one of the absolutely worst engines of the last 20 years, ever, without any redeeming features. It's terrible.

Firestar_3x · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:20

Do we know if he's used the 106 derv lump, i used to know someone who transplanted a newer derv unit out of a smaller citroen into a Saxo without too many problems and this was about 5 years ago.

Muffin` · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:21

The 1.4 HDI in the C1/107?

Cuchulain · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:22

[TW]Fox;12753854 said:
I'm aware of what it means but the spelling is dreadful, I agree. I've shocked even myself.

Hypocrisy in this instance would have involved me telling you that I've pulled my dictionary out to confirm your poor spelling and that I timed how long it took me to retrieve it from the shelf and look up the relevant word.

[TW]Fox · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:23

You've gone way beyond putting a reg into the DVLA vehicle inquiry in terms of anorakism now. Congratulations.

Cuchulain · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:23

[TW]Fox;12753892 said:
But that aside the diesel lump from the 106 is an example of one of the absolutely worst engines of the last 20 years, ever, without any redeeming features. It's terrible.

Why is it terrible? Nobody buys a 106 diesel for performance, with minor regular maintenance you could easily clock over 200K on one.

Cuchulain · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:24

[TW]Fox;12753926 said:
You've gone way beyond putting a reg into the DVLA vehicle inquiry in terms of anorakism now. Congratulations.

I know, I'm such a hypocric ....

Firestar_3x · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:24

Muffin` said:
The 1.4 HDI in the C1/107?

Saxo conversion guy was a 100bhp 1.5dci engine iirc, no idea what this is.

Still a strange conversion when you could stick a VTR / VTS engine in with less trouble and prolly cheaper.

[TW]Fox · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:24

Cuchulain said:
Why is it terrible? Nobody buys a 106 diesel for performance, with minor regular maintenance you could easily clock over 200K on one.

It is very unrefined, it is a mechanical indirect injection engine, it offers very poor levels of performance, it isn't particularly reliable and can have head gasket issues, it offers unimpressive fuel economy compared to similar turbocharged engines, its just... bad.

[TW]Fox · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:25

Cuchulain said:
I know, I'm such a hypocric ....

Now we are endlessly going around in circles over spelling. Even better!

Do you genuinelly beleive you hold the moral highground over a chap who put a reg into a website with your recent posts?

Muffin` · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:25

Cuchulain said:
I know, I'm such a hypocric ....

You also come across as a bit of a plank, where are you going with this, infact, why are you arguing of what some resigned up troll posted :confused:

Muffin` · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:27

Firestar_3x said:
Saxo conversion guy was a 100bhp 1.5dci engine iirc, no idea what this is.

Still a strange conversion when you could stick a VTR / VTS engine in with less trouble and prolly cheaper.

Exactly, also it's not the lightest lump in the range, so would have cost more in the suspension department :confused:

I always rag the **** out of mine to actually get anywhere so the MPG is dismal.