Help me decide please
- Thread starter ElRazur
- Start date
Scottland said:
That looks cool but i still dont like the estate look, it would be better is it is high riding if you see what i mean. Nice one though i must admit. I wonder what one can do with the amount of BHP on a school run.
Mic said:
It is a mpv, but with a difference! It looks better than the forrester by miles, triptronic gear box, a sliding door, four wheel drive and it looks much more uptodate. This is the 2000 version as opposed to the one posted earlier on http://www.cars-directory.net/specs/mitsubishi/rvr/2000_12/picture/
Now tell me the forrester stands a chance
Check out the others as well. That's what i plan on getting not what fox posted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,607
how about a YRV turbo?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,607
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,607
its got a turbo version of the 1.3 used in a number of daihatsus and the yaris
ElRazur said:
Looks better than the forester? Yeah perhaps if you have the eyesight of Stevie Wonder!
Tiptronic gearbox? Wow, that must settle it then, flappy paddles in a squishy riding POS, that must make it good, no? NO!
A sliding door? Wow, I must remember that next time i'm buying a car, it must have a single sliding door. [sarcasm=1] I don't know why, but now you come to mention it, pointless garbage on a garbage car makes it much more appealing! [/sarcasm]
Four-wheel drive? So does the forester, infact it has the same rally-winning 4wd of the Impreza, and I know which i'd rather entrust to putting power down.
Looks more up to date? No, it looks like a rehash of a 1980's attempt at making a space-age looking car. Its ******* hideous!
paradigm said:
Relax man, (dunno why every convo has to go down this way) the things i did highlighted on the RVR is what i prefer. Due to the fto triptronic gear box, i think i will be more than happy to embrace another gear box like that. I am not saying the forrester is rubbish but im saying, i prefer the Rvr and the rest i listed over it.
As others have said those alternatives are, without exception, completely drab. You ask whether or not the HRV is feminine looking....for some time my own personal pet name for them has been HRTs and thats because the drivers I see are all middle aged women.
As for the Kia...well that companys new found 'success' seems to be based on people on a tight budget buying these cheap soft roaders and that amuses me for all the reasons Fox has previously stated.
The Mitsi seems quite an unusual choice but I know nothing about it other than that it looks deeply weird with that front end. Wow! - just looked at the additional pictures you've linked to - you really think thats a good looking vehicle? It still looks very very silly to me but each to their own!
Like another poster I am quite surprised that you think a Forrester is a bad looking car next to the ones you've shortlisted but thats the nature of subjective taste I guess. Personally I think all soft roaders and 4x4s look rank
so its much of a muchness but at least the Subarus utilitarian looks are in keeping with the (supposed) point of this type of vehicle so for that reason (and the performance and noise) I'd definitely choose the Subaru. Actually though I'm not sure you could get an S-Turbo for 5k so maybe thats a moot point?
As others have said I really really implore you to consider buying a car rather than any of these vehicles for a multitude of reasons: handling, performance, economy to name but three. Unless your need for the soft roader look outweighs all of these factors I just cannot see why anyone would choose one over a similarly priced car.
Ok so back to your list - if you are dead set on having one of those three then I'd go for the Honda...at least it shouldn't break and... erm, well that's all I can think of really!
As for the Kia...well that companys new found 'success' seems to be based on people on a tight budget buying these cheap soft roaders and that amuses me for all the reasons Fox has previously stated.
The Mitsi seems quite an unusual choice but I know nothing about it other than that it looks deeply weird with that front end. Wow! - just looked at the additional pictures you've linked to - you really think thats a good looking vehicle? It still looks very very silly to me but each to their own!
Like another poster I am quite surprised that you think a Forrester is a bad looking car next to the ones you've shortlisted but thats the nature of subjective taste I guess. Personally I think all soft roaders and 4x4s look rank
so its much of a muchness but at least the Subarus utilitarian looks are in keeping with the (supposed) point of this type of vehicle so for that reason (and the performance and noise) I'd definitely choose the Subaru. Actually though I'm not sure you could get an S-Turbo for 5k so maybe thats a moot point?
As others have said I really really implore you to consider buying a car rather than any of these vehicles for a multitude of reasons: handling, performance, economy to name but three. Unless your need for the soft roader look outweighs all of these factors I just cannot see why anyone would choose one over a similarly priced car.
Ok so back to your list - if you are dead set on having one of those three then I'd go for the Honda...at least it shouldn't break and... erm, well that's all I can think of really!
