Monday, February 01, 2016

Monday Forum - favourite cars

Production of the long-running Land Rover Defender has finally come to an end. It wasn't called that originally, it didn't have a specific name, but it's the same car. This is Winston Churchill with his version.

I have many fond memories of that car, especially on history digs. It was cold, rattly but fun!

This got me wondering. So for this Monday Forum, what's your favourite car and why?

17 comments:

2 tanners said...

My supercharged, turbocharged, Mercedes SLK which I have now bent beyond salvage. Such a pretty, powerful car car, with a retractable metal roof and (relatively) cheap into the bargain. And yet it was originally a parts-bin effort, built during the nadir of Mercedes quality and quality control.

Apologies, it's Monday and I appear to be on topic.

2 tanners said...

Completely off topic, they are about to ban smoking in this country to under 17's (half of whom already smoke) illegal cigarette sales, packets without warnings, electronic cigarettes, smoking in taxis and microbuses and smoking in government offices. suspect they'll succeed with that last one. I doubt that smoking in and around bars and restaurants is covered, but I'm not sure. The Ministers in question were very grim faced about it all.

Jim Belshaw said...

On topic had to happen at some point, 2t. Had to look that car up, Very pretty. Its harder to find a really distinctive car today. Their styling is all so very similar! Interesting on the anti-smoking stuff.

Anonymous said...

Previously, a Mazda RX7 Series I - the only car I happily drove over 100 mph one time on the freeway north of the 'Gong just for the sheer pleasure of it; the motor was still winding out when I eased off at 109. Presently, if I could fully retire and go on a road trip, I'd buy an Audi TT.

Boys and toys :)

kvd

2 tanners said...

If I had the maintenance money, I'd buy a Lotus Exige. Dainty, beautiful and the steering and gears are a total pleasure. The days are over, but not distant, when Lotus stood for Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious. I'd be worried about upkeep.

Cheaper to stick with my computer addiction :)

Jim Belshaw said...

Interesting to see the wild streak coming out in both of you. I would still like to buy a jaguar

2 tanners said...

I love driving. It's why I would never want a Ferrari or Lamborghini. They are difficult to drive, and require great skill just to keep on the road normally. Their vision angles are terrible and they are hugely ucomfortable beasts. The SLK, Exige and RX-7 are all drivers' cars. They all have their faults, but are very satisfying when you sit behind the wheel.

The jag is all-round comfort. It's the automotive equivalent of a smoking jacket :). But having The Leaper on the front of your car would be pretty nice anyway.

Anonymous said...

"smoking jacket" - yeah, hey ... :)

tanners, must say I envy your easy familiarity with those marques. Closest I've been is walking past - salivating - but never seen an Exige. Does it go ok underwater?

kvd

2 tanners said...

Yes, kvd, it does, until it stops. 2 seconds later. Drive it off a pier and it will sink like a stone.

Did I mention Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious? Once you try to cross a river, it changes. It is Lotus (Ours) Terminal, Underwater, Stuffed.

Where I alternatively live (Canberra) there are a couple of Exiges near me. It took me FIVE YEARS (snarl) to find out that one of them belonged to an acquaintance who would willingly let a competent driver take it out (with him in the passenger seat). I took him in my SLK and showed him I could drive and then we took his Exige onto the highway, my son following in the SLK. Out of curiosity, we did a legal drag. The highway limit is 110, and we waited in a high visibility spot until there was no car within a kilometre in either direction. We took off, and the first to 110 was the winner. Predictably the manual Exige beat the SLK, but not by much. The differential was probably the difference, in fact. It was about 6 seconds well spent.

I've slowly driven exhibition Lambos and Ferraris. Don't waste your time. They aren't cars, they are masculinity compensation devices. You can't see, you can't manoeuvre and you can't relax. Porsches are different, usually, but ugly, really ugly. None of them, in my tremendously humble opinion, stands up to the guts of a driving car nor the looks of sleek lower market marques. They are not competitors for the luxury of a Bentley, Jag or Roller (none of which I have driven, and only one of which I have ridden in).

Did I mention I love driving? I have a medical condition which has left me not-driving for more years than driving since I first became age eligible for a licence several decades ago. I cram every second of driving experience in, as and how I can. It's a passion, but not a cheap one.

2 tanners said...

Sorry, forgot to mention kvd's love for the Audi TT. Mmmmm, nice.

Anonymous said...

tanners my Lotus underwater reference was a hat tip to James Bond: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_Nellie

Was just entering into the espirit of the discussion :)

kvd

Anonymous said...

Further on James Bond, this is why I love browsing Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_vehicles

kvd

Anonymous said...

In other news on a slow Monday, AP reports Washington DC is considering (as in 'voted unanimously for) a BNPUOPM* whereby they will pay 200 at risk individuals $9000 per year to not commit crime:

http://bigstory.ap.org/6cfa926b5596419ab2bfa47a2f36b43f

Perhaps Mr Baird might consider this approach for NSW instead of spending huge amounts on more prisons?

kvd
* Bold New Plan Using Other Peoples' Money

2 tanners said...

Gosh, I'd always thought the underwater car was the Toyota S2000. Thanks, kvd, for your elite contribution :)

Jim Belshaw said...

Like the smoking jacket analogy, 2t! While I would like to own a sports car, the Ferrari et al would be so far beyond my skills as to be any fun! Now one of the early Bentleys!I will try to find a photo.

Anonymous said...

Totally not cars:

A week or so ago I read this NZ article - http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/76143162/environment-court-judge-rules-on-objectionable-wellington-viewblocking-fence - and was left with the feeling that I would not wish to have such a neighbour.

Now yesterday I came upon a term I hadn't heard before - "spite house" - which you can read about here - http://hyperallergic.com/264750/the-spite-house-an-architectural-phenomenon-built-on-rage-and-revenge/

So, (forgetting about endless tree and fence disputes) I'm wondering if anyone knows of an Australian example of a "spite house"?

kvd

Jim Belshaw said...

Fascinating stuff, kvd. The only one I have found at the moment is in the wikipedia article on the topic. But spite over trees and gardens is definitely a Sydney phenomenon. Refusal to sell is included in the article, but that's really a different category. There is a famous Armidale example here.