306 XSI

Adz · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:23

I'd just like to comment that the model you want is the S16 not the cruddy XSI

. I had a ZX 16v with the same engine and damn it was good. Sounded great and the power delivery... for a cheap french hatchback it was a lot of fun.

Having driven 306 (1.4 and 1.6), ZX (16v) and 405 (SRI) I can say that they're certainly not 'deathtraps'. They have inherent handling characteristics as all cars do - you shouldn't be pushing it until you're comfortable with the car in which case you'll know what to do. If you've got rubbish/worn tyres, you should be driving like a nun!

Enfield · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:25

[TW]Fox said:
Make your mind up.

I was waiting for you to respond.

What conflicts in the two quotes there then?

GT3 · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:29

Enfield said:
I was waiting for you to respond.

What conflicts in the two quotes there then?

You originally stated that all 306's must be deathtraps due to their handling characteristics. Now you are changing to "My car must have been a deathtrap" in light of everyone telling you, you were wrong.

Tell me, how old was your 306 when you bought it, and how long you had owned it before you crashed.

James_N · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:30

I loved my 306. wasnt remotly dangerous, hell on the right roads, i used to try and provoke lift off oversteer, but i never managed it, maybe i wasnt trying hard enough, i dont know, but i never had a problem with it at all.

Branding all 306's deathtraps is a little silly considering how many there are on the roads, not all of the owners are dead

Enfield · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:31

GT3 said:
You originally stated that all 306's must be deathtraps due to their handling characteristics. Now you are changing to "My car must have been a deathtrap" in light of everyone telling you, you were wrong.

Tell me, how old was your 306 when you bought it, and how long you had owned it before you crashed.

Erm, N reg which is 96 I think. I had it since March and I crashed it in May in the same year. Did 10k miles in it in the two months and got bored of it.

GT3 · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:33

Enfield said:
Erm, N reg which is 96 I think. I had it since March and I crashed it in May in the same year. Did 10k miles in it in the two months and got bored of it.

So in 9 years the previous owner(s) managed to not stack it, you got your hands on it and it lasted 2 months

When most people get bored of a car, they sell it - not crash it

L0rdMike · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:34

Enfield said:
I'm saying 306's in general are dangerous because the back steps out when coming off the throttle.

Dont ever try and drive an MR2 then.

Enfield · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:35

GT3 said:
So in 9 years the previous owner(s) managed to not stack it, you got your hands on it and it lasted 2 months

When most people get bored of a car, they sell it - not crash it

The previous owner must have experienced lift-off oversteer himself, hence it having a wheel with it's negative camber way out.

Ultra_Extreme · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:35

306 feels a lot safer than my escort ever did, but i suppose its the all round discs that are helping when i brake late (escort = spangly sports brakes on the front and rustey drums on the back = crashy)

GT3 · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:36

Enfield said:
The previous owner must have experienced lift-off oversteer himself, hence it having a wheel with it's negative camber way out.

Ha, you like coming out with hilariously daft statements don't you! The camber could have been out due to a large number of reasons.

James_N · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:37

what happened to the 205 anyway?

Enfield · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:39

GT3 said:
Ha, you like coming out with hilariously daft statements don't you! The camber could have been out due to a large number of reasons.

Trust me, it had been knocked. The wheel was rubbing badly on the wheel arch, and the wheel was kurbed.

Enfield · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:40

James_N said:
what happened to the 205 anyway?

A van smashed into the back of me whilst I was waiting at some traffic lights.

GT3 · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:41

Enfield said:
Trust me, it had been knocked. The wheel was rubbing badly on the wheel arch, and the wheel was kurbed.

Granted, but how are you certain this was anything to do with lift-off oversteer?

Enfield · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:43

GT3 said:
Granted, but how are you certain this was anything to do with lift-off oversteer?

Can't think of any other reason to be honest. There's no panel damage any where else, plus 306's do lift-off oversteer so it's probably quite safe to say that is what happened.

tb2000 · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:43

Enfield said:
The previous owner must have experienced lift-off oversteer himself, hence it having a wheel with it's negative camber way out.

The rear beams sometimes seize up on the "swinging" parts. We had one at work where the rear beam had seized up on one side and on that same side the top of the wheel was almost hitting the inner wheel arch panel.
Got a good beam and put on it (lot easier and cheaper than mucking about with bushes and things) - problem solved.

L0rdMike · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:44

Enfield said:
Can't think of any other reason to be honest. There's no panel damage any where else, plus 306's do lift-off oversteer so it's probably quite safe to say that is what happened.

a lot of cars can do lift off oversteer. Doesnt mean its happened to every car.

James_N · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:44

Enfield said:
Trust me, it had been knocked. The wheel was rubbing badly on the wheel arch, and the wheel was kurbed.

it strikes me (and forgive me if ive missed anything here) as odd that you would replace the 2 front tyres, and leave the back ones, knowing you had a pretty major problem with one of the tyres at the back.

had that been me, id of replaced all of them, changed the back ones, or not driven the car at all.

Enfield · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:45

James_N said:
it strikes me (and forgive me if ive missed anything here) as odd that you would replace the 2 front tyres, and leave the back ones, knowing you had a pretty major problem with one of the tyres at the back.

had that been me, id of replaced all of them, changed the back ones, or not driven the car at all.

Yeah, I said I didn't have enough money to replace them all mate.

GT3 · 25 Jan 2006 at 23:46

Enfield said:
Can't think of any other reason to be honest. There's no panel damage any where else, plus 306's do lift-off oversteer so it's probably quite safe to say that is what happened.

How can even think about using this to try and back up your argument? Could have been down to anything slid on ice, pothole in the road etc etc.