Retro Vs New

KizZ · 3 Jul 2006 at 12:36

Acolyte said:
Retro for win

Yep

kaiowas · 3 Jul 2006 at 16:58

I'm sure a read a piece about the filming of that segment and the whole thing was a total sham with the Top Gear boys repeatedly reshooting some of the races until they got the results they wanted.

EDIT - found a link:

http://www.mr2mk1club.com/TopGear.html

[TW]Fox · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:04

MNuTz said:
A future classic, and a hell of a lot better than the majority of newer cars.

This is the sort of thing which annoys me about classic car enthusiasts.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with preffering classics to new stuff. Personal preference is a wonderful thing.

But to come out with statements that they are 'better' than the 'majority' of modern cars is just blatantly stupid. Ignoring its classic status for a second, the Mk1 MR2 is, compared to the 'majority of newer cars', a rusty, old banger with an unrefined, dated engine, a cheap, poorly built and dated interior, out of date construction techniques and a fondness for rot.

It's not until you start to put peoples opinions and prefernces in the mix that it becomes a decent classic - but the fact of the matter is you simply cannot say such sweeping statements as its better than the majority of newer cars, becuase it simply isnt.

I prefer the Mk2 Ford Mondeo to the Mk3. I like it more, I prefer the way it looks, I prefer the way it drives. Does this make it a better car than the Mk3? No, of course not, such a statement would be ridiculous.

About as a ridiculous as the constant suggestion that old cars from decades past are 'better' than most stuff on sale today.

You might prefer it, but that doesnt make it a better car.

Mind you, its an affliction which seems to mostly be found amongst fans of the, shall we say, bottom end of the classic market - the stuff where the line between rusty banger and classic is somewhat blurred. The sub £2k stuff.

You won't find, for example, an Aston Martin DB5 collector arguing until he is blue in the face that his car is better than a DB9. He'll probably prefer it, but he'll accept the fact the DB9 is better.

Zip · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:14

[TW]Fox said:
the Mk1 MR2 is, compared to the 'majority of newer cars',
a rusty: Have you seen some of the ones down here

old banger: Only if its been treated badly. Every car can be a banger if its not looked after

with an unrefined, dated engine: So unrefined and dated that they still have a majorish racing series in the US that use them. And if they dont give you enough power you can always swap them with something with more power

a cheap, poorly built and dated interior: You get that with most 80s cars i would think. Its the driving experience not how soft the chairs are on your arse(unless its made for that sort of thing)

out of date construction techniques: Well its from the 80s but it still handles extremely well compared to a lot of cars

and a fondness for rot: If looked after well im sure you can prevent rot.

[TW]Fox · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:15

Congrats for totally missing my point.

MNuTz · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:16

[TW]Fox said:
This is the sort of thing which annoys me about classic car enthusiasts.

But to come out with statements that they are 'better' than the 'majority' of modern cars is just blatantly stupid. Ignoring its classic status for a second, the Mk1 MR2 is, compared to the 'majority of newer cars', a rusty, old banger with an unrefined, dated engine, a cheap, poorly built and dated interior, out of date construction techniques and a fondness for rot.

It's not until you start to put peoples opinions and prefernces in the mix that it becomes a decent classic - but the fact of the matter is you simply cannot say such sweeping statements as its better than the majority of newer cars, becuase it simply isnt.

I prefer the Mk2 Ford Mondeo to the Mk3. I like it more, I prefer the way it looks, I prefer the way it drives. Does this make it a better car than the Mk3? No, of course not, such a statement would be ridiculous.

About as a ridiculous as the constant suggestion that old cars from decades past are 'better' than most stuff on sale today.

The MR2 wasnt a great comparison, but some of the older cars are better spec'd than some of the newer ones and have better performance. If you had a top of the range MK2 mondeo, it would still be a better car then the majority of the mk3 models until you started getting upto the higher spec'd mk3's.

I suppose that the reason we are not seeing eye to eye is that unless we really look at specific models and specs then the generalising brings in the problems.

The E39 for instance will have a better engine and spec the a lot of newer cars coming out up until the higher end of the market.

Mind you, its an affliction which seems to mostly be found amongst fans of the, shall we say, bottom end of the classic market - the stuff where the line between rusty banger and classic is somewhat blurred. The sub £2k stuff.

I know this is a personal dig at me and my motor, but by the time its finished being restored it will be worth £4-5K, with some of the VR6 Storms going for £8-10K

vanpeebles · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:17

Gilly said:
Doesn't the old mini have bags full of character?

your car must have bags of character too, lots of rattles and vital parts that like to give way

vanpeebles · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:19

[TW]Fox said:
But to come out with statements that they are 'better' than the 'majority' of modern cars is just blatantly stupid. Ignoring its classic status for a second, the Mk1 MR2 is, compared to the 'majority of newer cars', a rusty, old banger with an unrefined, dated engine, a cheap, poorly built and dated interior, out of date construction techniques and a fondness for rot.

how is a 1.6 engine with over 120 bhp dated?

[TW]Fox · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:20

MNuTz said:
The MR2 wasnt a great comparison, but some of the older cars are better spec'd than some of the newer ones and have better performance. If you had a top of the range MK2 mondeo, it would still be a better car then the majority of the mk3 models until you started getting upto the higher spec'd mk3's.

But trim aside, the Mk3 is a fundamentally better car. Doesn't stop me preffering the Mk2, but at least I can accept the fact it's not as good as a Mk3.

The E39 for instance will have a better engine and spec the a lot of newer cars coming out up until the higher end of the market.

Not if we compare like with like, though. The E60 530i Sport has 260bhp, whereas the E39 only has 231bhp, etc etc..

I know this is a personal dig at me and my motor

It's not, actually, its a dig at the Mk1 MR2 owners. I can't remember the last time I saw one which didnt look it a banger. They might be great cars, and I respect peoples love for them, thats cool, but they dont age well

MNuTz · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:24

thats where we having trouble, i wasnt comparing like for like, just old to new.

kaiowas · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:25

[TW]Fox said:
It's not, actually, its a dig at the Mk1 MR2 owners. I can't remember the last time I saw one which didnt look it a banger.

Mines on the drive, feel free to come and have a look.

[TW]Fox · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:26

MNuTz said:
thats where we having trouble, i wasnt comparing like for like, just old to new.

Well thats totally daft. It would be like me saying your Corrado is rubbish becuase a BMW M6 is totally better. True, but so irrelevent I might as well not have said it..

[TW]Fox · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:27

kaiowas said:
Mines on the drive, feel free to come and have a look.

Reading my quote I came across as overly aggresive - that wasnt my intention, sorry if it came across that way

Zip · 3 Jul 2006 at 17:41

[TW]Fox said:
Reading my quote I came across as overly aggresive - that wasnt my intention, sorry if it came across that way

Just like i said, like any car there will be bangers about but then you will be able to find some really good ones aswell

Down here most Mk1 MR2s are in pretty good condition but thats down here so i suppose you wont let that count

Edit: Pokes fox
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1986-TOYOTA-MR2-mk1_W0QQitemZ140001558172QQihZ004QQcategoryZ18290QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

See they are out there :cool:

commited · 3 Jul 2006 at 18:39

Do we really need to fill all these threads with trolls?

Everytime something interesting is posted the usual suspects come on and say the same thing over and over and over. Then the replies are the same too.

It's just getting boring.

Enfield · 3 Jul 2006 at 18:50

axe said:
the 205 gets hammered

That's because it's racing a 206 with 180 bhp!

ZG002 · 3 Jul 2006 at 18:52

Enfield said:
That's because it's racing a 206 with 180 bhp!

Yep that wernt no orginal 206gti i think you will find

L0rdMike · 3 Jul 2006 at 19:13

[TW]Fox said:
It's not, actually, its a dig at the Mk1 MR2 owners. I can't remember the last time I saw one which didnt look it a banger.

My old one at the last RR.

Oakesy2001uk · 3 Jul 2006 at 19:48

nuttn wrong with old motors, my RS turbo is the most fun Ive had in a car since I borrowed an elise. it does start first time (so far) and stops quite well thanks! plus the money left over from the corsa will let me get a GSXR 600 as well! get in!

Just to add - Escort cossie for the win!

Jonny69 · 3 Jul 2006 at 21:45

[TW]Fox said:
This is why the whole OMG OLD CARS WIN is so funny, in 15 years time you'll all be swooning over the stuff you scoff at today.

Not everyone. I never liked hatchbacks from the start and I still don't like them. Any of them, just no interest to me at all. Driving my dad's Kompressor feels no different to my girlfriend's Scenic to me, a bit faster but it's just as dull. It's just a metal box that makes me silently go backwards or forwards.

Give me the hotrod or my Anglia on the other hand and every moment is a hoot. Even sitting in traffic is fun! I end up talking to people every day I'm out and it brightens up their afternoon as well as mine. Everyone wins.

I'm not trying to say it's a better car but I genuinely have no interest in modern vehicles with no smell of petrol, no oily mess, no tinkering, no raw man and machine feel and I don't think I ever will.

Retro Vs New

Man of Honour