Conference terri::cars_uk

    P.S. My number is 7849 3209
    

    > This Sunday I tried to remove the sunroof
    > (with the instruction book)
    
    Try using your hands.
    
    Jeff :-)

    Ha, ha, very funny :-)
    
    Actually the instruction book says:
    
    1. Tilt the roof
    2. Remove restraining catch
    3. Store under bonnet like so......
    
    The problem is the missing things to do between steps 2 & 3 - like
    how to actually remove it.....

    
    Nicola,
    
    There are some instructions on the back of the drivers sun visor,
    which may help more than the instructions that follow...
    
    1. Open the roof to the tilted position.
    2. Push in the bars on either side of the main (central) sunroof catch,
       this unclips the main restraining catch.
    3. Lifting the sunroof again, unclip the restraining catch situated on
       the drivers side of the roof.
    4. Lift the sunroof out (it just slides in to two notches at the
       front).
    
    
    Hope this helps,
    Bill.

Yeah, I managed to do it on a borrowed MR2 (old type), give me a ring on 3386
at home time, if you need a hand.

Mark.

    Just have to press the button on the XJS .... it just dissappears!
    Paul

There are two types of 'old' MR2. The T Bar and the standard version. A 
'tilt and slide' type whas on the standard type not the T Bar. I think the last 
note was refering to the T Bar. 

The missing steps in your instructions probably involve purchasing a special
tool from Toyota, or using an allen key from your toolbox. Like all manuals the 
steps that are missing are the important ones.....


									G.P

How can it be tilt and slide, when there is nowhere to slide to!!

It's easy, and you don't need special tools.

Mark.

    ....and it can't be the T-Bar, 'cos that comes off in two pieces !!!

    This seems as good a place as any to put this ...
    
    I want to test drive a new-shape MR2 *AUTOMATIC*, but neither my local
    dealer or Toyota themselves can help me.
    
    I need to test drive before I order because I am very tall and may not
    be able to *physically* drive the thing .... !
    
    Do you know of anyone who has one on the lease scheme or privately,
    that would allow me to try it for size?
    
    Cheers,
     John
    

    
    Wouldn't the height problem be the same in the manual or the automatic?
    
    Mark

    No.  The manual doesn't have enough leg room.
    

    I don't understand , does one less peddle give you that much more leg
    room ?
    
    
    
                              KR

    Yep!  You've met me Kevin, you know how tall I am!!!!  The MR2 manual
    version simply doesn't have enough leg room for me to de-clutch, but an
    automatic version wouldn't need me to be able to do that .....
    

how can you press brake/accelorator if you can't declutch?

    No problem!  The catch (no pun intended) is that one's knee catches on
    the handbrake/steering wheel in the manual version when de-clutching
    (or at least, attempting to de-clutch).
    

Basically, if you're a 6' 6" lurch - as Mr. Fox appears to be - you have
"special" problems driving a car.

Headroom is the first consideration - rules many cars out; though electricallyu
adjustable seats sometimes help.

Legroom? On many cars, you have real problems - and I don't just mean Mini's!
With the majority of cars, you have to offset yourself in the seat to get
your legs around the steering wheel (there is very little chance of being
able to touch your knees together under the wheel). So, maybe you sit slightly
to the left so that your right leg is a bit further from the accelerator and
brake pedals - however this messes up gear changes (where you shuffle across
the seat, to give your left leg and the gear change a chance of happening
smoothly)

I've not sat in an MR2 - by the sound of it, I don't want to either! However, I
can imagine that the problems in there could be pretty significant - you'd
definitely want to have a try before buying the car.

BTW, The old Celica is excellent for tall people - great leg and headroom. 
However, it becomes strictly a three seater - no chance of anyone sitting
behind you.

Steve - another 6' 6" lurch :-)

    
    Is the TBAR better or worse for head-room ?  
    
    I would have thought that 6' 6" was a mite big for a comfortable ride
    in the new hard top that i drove.  Or are you a leg person with
    averagish sort of trunk size ?
    
    Nigel

    Re .19
    
    No, I'm above-average leg and back size, at just under 6' 8" :-)
    
    Perhaps the MR2 is a bit of a pipe dream, but I am now in a position
    where I can get rid of my mortgage completely, don't have to drive a car
    that my disabled mother (recently deceased) could get into, and only
    very rarely carry more than one passenger ...
    
    My BMW at the moment is far and away the best car for leg and headroom
    and most likely I shall be boring and have the same again for my
    leasemobile, but the MR2 and an MX5 (not so likely) are under initial
    consideration.
    
    As .18 mentioned with regard to his VW, why does my BMW not have a
    sunroof?  Simply because the average sunroof decreases the headroom by
    about 2" - important when headroom is at a premium.  With regard to the
    MR2 T-bar - this is out purely on economic grounds.
    

    At 5'17" I find that Vauxhalls are better than most at head room... and
    the new Calibra's have sun-roofs that slide over the top of the roof,
    rather than under it - so they don't reduce the headroom by too much.
    
    Vauxhall seat height adjusters seem to move the seats down as well as
    up.
    
    Fords (among MANY others) just seem to tip the seat, without gaining
    any extra height.
    
    I tried a new-style Orion - I could arrnage things so that I  didn't
    bump knees or head - but only in an uncomfortable driving position.
    (Seat right back, tipped right back, back rest lowered - then pull the
    steering wheel towards you so that you can still reach it - and just
    hope you don't need to reach the dash board for anything.
    
    Cheers, Chris

RE: -.2

Which model of BMW can you fit in - my worst ever experience was hunching into
the back of an old 3 series? Geneva-Dijon and back to watch the old Group 5/6
cars racing - horrendous. The current 3-series isn't too hot for headroom
either. however, I recently went in a new 5 series; that had good headroom - 
legroom was nothing to shout about though.

As Chris says in -.1, Vauxhalls are generally very good - I believe that
they're generally the best mass manufactured make for potential second-row
rugby players. The tiltable steering wheel comes in very useful as well.

Cheers

Steve

    FWIW, my 6'8" husband drives my MG Metro Turbo without any headroom
    trouble, but does drive with seat back quite a way back.  
    Unfortunately we couldn't get longer seat-runners fitted (supplying 
    garage in Antwerp refused to on "safety grounds"). 
    
    Husband's current car is Rover 800 series Vitesse - no leg room
    problems, but surprisingly enough, less headroom than the Metro (!) -
    thank heavens for sunshine roof.
    
    (He hates me driving his car and not putting the seat back - it's quite
    comical to see him trying to concentena himself into the car).
    
    Jacquie

    Re .22 (Which BMW?)
    
    3 Series.  I have the seat right back on the runners and set at its
    lowest position.  This results in 1" (literally) of leg room for
    potential passengers behind the driver's seat, but as I previously
    explained, that is not an issue for me.
    
    
    

    I recently drove a BMW 316. I am 6' 3" and it was the most
    uncomfortable drive I have ever had. The steering wheel was just about
    touching my thighs and the peddles are so close together that I had to
    be careful not to accelerate and brake at the same time. Yet again
    BMW`s go right down in my top 100 cars.
      
    Ian.

    I'm a midget 6'3" compared to these chaps. That 6'8" in a metro must
    be a funny sight - does his head stick out of the sunroof? :-)

    I sat in a new-shape mr2 in the showroom several months ago, and although
    the seats and steering wheel were very adjustable, it still felt cramped.
    My head brushed the edge of the sunroof hole, which was most annoying. I
    also took a Celica out when Toyota were here last week. Again, I felt
    cramped, and the seats gave very little support.

    I agree with the consensus that Vauxhalls give good headroom. I'd like to
    try a Calibra! My current car is a Golf GTI which is very roomy compared
    to most other hatchbacks - it's especially good for tall passengers in the
    back seat. I sat in a Pug GTI, and it seemed soooooo tiny!

    So many cars nowadays are designed by midgets and made by midgets!!
    I spent some time in the 'States where I had a Pontiac Fiero - mid-engined
    car, like a cheap mr2. Americans design their cars for taller (and bigger
    and fatter) people, it had lots of headroom and a very comfortable driving
    position; though dont ask me about it's handling characteristics...that's
    another note!

    Cheers,

        d:){=| Dave.    

    Re 1188.25
    
    That's amazing.  My car is soooo comfortable, and my knees don't come
    anywhere near the steering wheel - I can just about stretch my legs
    straight out.   I don't have a problem with the pedals either, but that
    could be explained by it being an automatic.
    

.21>    At 5'17" 

What you mean 6' 5"!!!!!


Ian

    I'm sorry, what was the question.  ;-)

    
    It must be better for headroom, take off the top and the sky's the
    limit.
    
    Tony

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 1296.0             Former MR2 drivers please respond             No replies
SCARP::BRIGHT "Just the facts ma'am"                  9 lines  19-NOV-1990 09:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I destroyed my old-shape MR2 last week and am now faced with getting a
replacement car. 

I'd be really grateful if people who have at some time driven MR2's
on a long-term basis could reply here with details of their subsequent
cars and how they compare with the MR2.

Steve

Re .31

Is there really no one who can offer an opinion on this? Maybe all you
noters who drive MR2's have been so content with them that you've never
changed cars ;^)

These are the cars on my short (!) list at the moment in rough order:

VW Corrado 16V
Toyota Celica (new shape)
Toyota Celica (old shape)
Toyota MR2 (old shape)
VW Scirroco GTX/Scala inj
Toyota MR2 (new shape)
VW Golf GTI (8 or 16v)

The list isn't finalised and I've yet to test drive any.

Steve

get a Renault 5 GT turbo


far better than these Mr2 thingies...



...art				:-)

re: .32

Having driven 2 MR2s over the last 3 years, I maybe qualify as too content
to change. Prior to this, I used to change cars on a 12-18 month cycle, so 
either the MR2 is hard to follow, or I'm getting less fickle :-) In truth, the 
current car is a leasemobile so sticking with it has been an enforced decision,
but hardly a sentence. However, I am looking at alternatives for when the lease
expires in 6 months. I have a similar list - as broad because I am open to both
staying in the scheme and returning to the world of private motoring. More
alternatives - I would consider a second-hand 944 (currently good value, low 
deprecation - the major cost of running most 'sports' cars, and massive 
service bills if you stick to the authorised dealers). I would also look at a 
recent Honda CRX. But wouldn't even contemplate an R5/205 thing... :-) I might
consider a Clio 16V, but Renaults do seem a little tinny. I suppose an MX5 is a
contender, but they seem expensive for what they are and all that 'retro' stuff
is a bit of a turn off. Perhaps an Elan is the real upgrade path, but the thing
is way too expensive - a great shame.

On the list, having owned a Scirroco GTI and driven Golfs, I think they are 
'heavy' to drive compared to the MR, but more stable on motorways, the Scirroco
especially. I like the look of the Corrado, but can't believe the 16V 1800 can 
haul all that mass around very convincingly. They have dropped in value a lot on
the secondhand market, so the first owners took a beating, you have to wonder if
they have further to fall. Not many on the road, so exclusivity may prop them 
up. I never liked the look of the old Celica, and its interior seemed very tacky
- the new one just doesn't appeal. I've seen good photos, but in the metal it
just doesn't work. The old one was pleasant to drive, and experience with the 
MR2 suggests that Toyota reliability means you can budget for routine servicing 
costs only. But then, all the cars on your list are known for reliability 
(maybe the Corrado excepted).

Having said all that, I think the Golf is the most sensible choice assuming 
4 seats and some more space is a goal. If not, the *only* choice (!) is between
an old MR2 or taking a deep breath and plumping for a new one. Anything else 
would leave me missing the MR2 I suspect. I think the new one is a better car
and a brief drive convinced me it fixed some of the things I don't like about 
the old one. Mainly, I like the slightly 'bigger car' feel, and the extra room
inside and in the boot would help. The build quality keeps getting better, the
MPG is still better than average for its capacity/performance. Mostly it
feels like more of the same good stuff. 

Have fun looking.

- Scott

PS. The above reference to R5/205s was very much in jest! I know they are 
very good cars - hence my interest in the Clio. 

PPS I have to ask - how did you destroy your old MR2?

re: R5

You'd probably do better by substituting the R5 on the list by the well-accepted
upgrade path...

               a shopping trolley with a Briggs and Stratton....

If you're willing to go as low as a Golf GTi, then have a look at the Rover
216 GTi. The performance is comparable to the 8V or 16V, the engine
beautifully smooth (and I also REALLY like the MR2's engine), and the handling
spot on.

Still not as much fun as my Renault!

Mark.

Ok guys, thanks for the suggestions, keep them coming.

.33 >> get a Renault 5 GT turbo

I'm sure that they're blisteringly fast and tremendous fun, but I just
don't like them. I'm a contractor and am therefore not eligible for the
leasing scheme so I have to consider such mundane things as depreciation.
The R5 GTT is not good for this. I also don't think that a small car with
a bonnet crammed full of engine makes effective crumple zones. If I'd
pranged an R5 in the same way as my MR2 I think I'd have suffered more
than a bruised finger.

.36 >> If you're willing to go as low as a Golf GTi, then have a look at the Rover
.36 >> 216 GTi. The performance is comparable to the 8V or 16V, the engine

I am not considering any Austin/Rover/Morris/BMC/whatever they're called now
cars because of depreciation.

The need for a more practical yet decent car has been removed to an extent
by my grilfiend who bought a Scirocco GTX at the weekend. This means that
the Golf GTI (too common) and the Scirocco (can't have the same car as my
grilfiend, can I?) are off the list.

I like the look of the Mazda MX5 and the Lotus Elan. But am not considering
those because of the lack of roll bar: ever been in a car that's slid along
the road upside-down? (That wasn't the MR2).

.34 >> consider a Clio 16V, but Renaults do seem a little tinny. I suppose an MX5 is a

What's a Clio 16V? Never heard of it.

.34 >> especially. I like the look of the Corrado, but can't believe the 16V 1800 can 
.34 >> haul all that mass around very convincingly. They have dropped in value a lot on
.34 >> the secondhand market, so the first owners took a beating, you have to wonder if
.34 >> they have further to fall. Not many on the road, so exclusivity may prop them 

I worked out first year depreciation rates for a lot of cars recently and
the Corrado was the same as the old shape MR2 and a little worse than a
Golf GTI, but much better than a Scirocco.

.34 >> costs only. But then, all the cars on your list are known for reliability 
.34 >> (maybe the Corrado excepted).

Does this mean that the Corrado is unreliable? Or is it an unknown quantity?

I've not driven a new-shape MR2 and am a bit dubious. I don't like it's
looks (much) and definitely think it's far too long to be a two seater: it's
longer than a Scirocco (if that's a benchmark).

.34 >> PPS I have to ask - how did you destroy your old MR2?

I was driving into Reading from Hook on the morning of the 14th. I know the
road very well. There's a straight stretch of road 600m long. I was behind
a Granada, all was clear ahead so I decided to overtake. When I was in the
outside lane and not quite alongside him he started speeding up, so did I.
It took me a *long* time to get past him. By the time I pulled in I was
approaching the bend rather more rapidly than I would have liked and dumped
some speed by braking hard, releasing the brakes before entering the bend.
I lost the back end on the corner and tried to control it. I thought I'd
recovered, but must have over-corrected and the car shot off the other side
of the road and buried itself in a tree, which it hit head-on at the right
headlamp.

Knowing how to control a skid is one thing. Putting it into practice is
another. I think I hit some leaves; the road surface was damp.

I climbed out suffering only a bruised finger (don't ask me how it happened
I was too busy to notice), and minor shoulder pains from the seat belt.

The front right of the car collapsed up to the suspension point. The left
front of the car is intact apart from the bonnet. Everything from the
windscreen backwards is just like it always was except the driver's door
is pushed back slightly. The right front wheel bracket thingies are a bit
broken. The steering seems to work ok though. All electrics work ok (even
the right front headlamp). Damage is estimated at 6500-7000 pounds and
the garage have said it's uneconomical to repair. The insurance engineers
visit on Wednesday to cast their eye over it.

Steve

P.S. The short list is now:

VW Corrado 16V
Toyota Celica (new shape)
Toyota MR2 (old shape)
Any car made entirely from rubber
An ambulance (cuts out waiting at scene of accident)
Toyota MR2 (new shape)

>>a bonnet crammed full of engine makes effective crumple zones. If I'd
>>pranged an R5 in the same way as my MR2 I think I'd have suffered more
>>than a bruised finger.


you probably wouldn't have pranged a front-engine front drive car in the same
way as a mid-engined car

...art

	Steve,

	just as a matter of interest why isn't the 200SX included in your short
	list ?

	Well ok, as I have one it's also of personal interest as well !

	Gordon 

re: .37

Glad to hear you came out of your accident with little more than bruises. 

The Clio is Renault's more upmarket 'replacement' for the R5. On the basis
that the R5 Turbo is a good car, the 16V version looks like it could be 
interesting. Still a bit sensible tho'. See notes 1051, and 1192.

My comment on Corrado reliability was only prompted by its comparitive 
newness to the market, the lack of many on the road (I mean, are they all 
away being fixed?) and vaguely remembered comments from a German friend.
I think there was some trouble with early G60s (the supercharged version) in 
Germany (oil temperature/pressure?) - I may even have read that in this 
conference. Given it is a Golf 16V under the skin you would expect little 
problem. 

- Scott 

.39 >> just as a matter of interest why isn't the 200SX included in your short

I don't know anything about them. I said the short list isn't complete yet;
if you reckon they're ok then I'll give it serious consideration.

.41 >> Did you lift in the middle of the corner?

Probably. But if I had, wouldn't I have spun round?

.41 >> Never never never NEVER NEVER lift in a corner with MEC=MR2+23

What is 'MEC=MR2+23'?

Steve

    Re: .37
    
    Did you learn anything from your prang? If so, please put it in the
    <Defensive Driving Note> 1287. Without wishing to be selfrighteous, I would
    say that your mistake was to "race" the Granada so causing you to enter
    the bend too fast not only jeopardizing your own safety but also that
    of others! The GRANADA driver was gilty of dangerous driving in my view
    but the only thing you could have done about that is to have slowed
    down and pulled back in behind. You survived to tell the tale and I am
    fully aware that it is easier after the event, but, if we fail to learn
    from our own or other peoples mistakes then safety on the roads will
    not improve.
    
    Ian.
    

What about a 20v Audi Coupe? Why isn't that on your shortlist?




Ian

    If you're paying that much, get a FAST car...

    I agree that the lesson has to be, if the other guy starts to race
    don't bite the bait, but slow down and pulled back in behind.
    
    Better a live slowcoach than a dead racer!.
    
    Still glad you survived such an amazing crash, second amazing survival
    I've heared of in an MR2 (read about Nigel Guest in Euro_motoring).
    They must be pretty sturdy cars.
    
    Richard

    
    I've been fortunate enough to drive a lot of enjoyable cars, and
    what really highlights the MR2's appeal is that I enjoy getting
    back into it afterward (I don't think the same would apply in a
    hot hatch). 
    
    
    I must admit to having thought about selling the car though. My
    shortlist of cars to try includes:
    
    - Old style MR2 (why change? Mine is still under warrantee, and
    		    totally reliable).
    
    - New MR2	   Why bother, the old one is more fun.
    
    - MX5	    Wonderful fun, too slow.
    
    - Honda CRX Vtec	Tempting on paper, but never driven one.
                                                      
    So, I'd try the Vtec if I were you - but don't expect mid engined
    response or character... The Golf 16V is quick and reliable, the
    Peugeot 1.9 is fun. Otherwise, if you're keen to have another
    MR2 then I could be open to sensible offers - let me know.
    
    BTW - Take what Derek says with a pinch of salt - the only rule
    is 'never say never'.
                  
    Bill.      

    Re: .37 .47
    
    Glad you survived also. I had a potentially fatal (ar'nt they all?)
    head on crash in a BX three years ago, hence my interest. 
    
    I would recommend some sort of skid training.
    
    Ian.
    
    
    

.45 >> What about a 20v Audi Coupe? Why isn't that on your shortlist?

If you mean the old shape Audi Coupe (if there is a new shape) then it isn't
on the shortlist because 1) I think they look really ugly 2) Depreciation.

.46 >>                       -< my money's on Lancia integrale >-

I know the Integrale is a good car, but I'm prejudiced against Italian cars
because of their terrible depreciation rates. An integrale depreciates by
about 35% in the first year.

FWIW A Lancia 8.32 Thema with Ferrari engine depreciates by 49% in the first
year. That's more than most Lada's.

If I seem to be a bit fanatical about depreciation, it's because I had three
brand new cars and am a bit hacked off by the resale value.

Steve.

If you're really worried about depreciation, then you shouldn't be buying a
new car.  A year-old trade-in may be better.  It should still be in very good
condition, and will be a lot cheaper than a new one...

Scott

    
    If you are frequently changing cars within 18 months of buying them, of
    course you are getting high depreciation (and possibly stung by the
    taxman?). As you say depreciation is highest in the first year, so
    either buy a year old car and keep it a short time or buy a brand new
    car and keep it for more than a year. The depreciation on my Renault
    5 GTT is not bad, but it is nearly 3 years old, if I'd sold it in a
    year I'd have lost out badly, but there's not a lot on the road that 
    can get away from one on a twisty A road.
    
    Of course you could buy a really expensive (when new) 4 year old car
    and dodge half your personal taxation and most of the depreciation.
    
    What about an Audi Quattro (Ok you don't like the look and the 20v is 
    the new model, much rounder), or a  Cosworth Sierra, or a ...
    
    Mark

Ah, but then there's snobbery to take into account.

Have you thought of the Calibra? It fits the description sheep in wolf's
clothing.

Mark.

P.S. This is another issue, but who knows what would have happened to a
R5GTT in that situation. I know nothing about the crumple zone design, and
safety of either car. The view of most of the general public concerning the
safety of any cars is highly subjective, and is based on an impression.

>>P.S. This is another issue, but who knows what would have happened to a
>>R5GTT in that situation. I know nothing about the crumple zone design, and

it would have managed the overtake without fuss or drama

all the talk of depreciation - you're not an accountant or bank manager are you?


....art		:-)

ps. how about a Caterham 7 for depreciation?
    it's probably zero or negative?!

Seems to me that your old MR2 sufferred the ultimate depreciation...

An Intergral would certainly be able to overtake a Granada within 600m. If 
you're going to continue to drive like you have, an MR2 will kill you

;-)

.50 >> I know the Integrale is a good car, but I'm prejudiced against Italian cars
.50 >> because of their terrible depreciation rates. An integrale depreciates by
.50 >> about 35% in the first year.

I was wrong about the depreciation rates for the Integrale, here are values
taken from Parkers Car price guide for December:



	a	b	c	d	e	f
Year	New	A1	good	Fair	Trade1	deprec.
------------------------------------------------------
88 e	15920	 9375	 8550	 6825	 7775	45%
88 f	16995	10400	 9550	 7725	 8750	48%
89 f	17625	11275	10425	 8525	 9625	45%
89 g	20350	12300	11425	 9400	10575	48%
90 g	20995	13300	12375	10225	11475	45%


a = Brand-new price
b = Used price on dealer forecourt
c = V. good condition private sale
d = Above average wear/mileage
e = Trade-in against new car price
f = taken as 100 - (e/a * 100)

Read in to that what you will.

What does the same extract say for the Rover 216 GTi?

It's not been out long, but they must have a feel for it. I suspect that
the depreciation on these cars is very low, as the mfr's are offering
very low discounts on them because of the demand.

I think theres more than depreciation to your reasons for not looking at the
Rover!

Mark.

.59 >> What does the same extract say for the Rover 216 GTi?

As you say, the Rover hasn't been out long and the only price quoted in
the guide is the new price of 13750. It doesn't even state the insurance
group.

.59 >> I think theres more than depreciation to your reasons for not looking at the
.59 >> Rover!

Curses! you've blown my cover, Mark. Depreciation is just one thing. Call me
a snob if you like (oh, you did already), but I'm not keen on Rover cars.
Having said that though, I didn't realise that this is a very new model
and I don't even know what it looks like so I can't really judge it.

Steve

.58 >> You still haven't explained why you either won't consider buying
.58 >> secondhand, or why you would want to sell so soon...
    
I never said that I wouldn't or that I would (refering to both points). In
fact I am most likely to buy a used car, 6-18 months old, possibly ex-dem,
and would expect to keep it for two-three years.

Although I've been going on about depreciation, that was on the basis of
some first year figures I worked out the other day. As you can see from
the Integrale, after the initial plummet, the depreciation is actually
rather low. As you say, I bet it would be hard to find one selling for
figures like I quoted. (You could also guarantee that if you wrote one of
those off, you wouldn't get any higher than that quoted from the insurance
- such is life).

>>          <<< Note 1188.60 by SPAWN::BRIGHT "Just the facts ma'am" >>>

>>Curses! you've blown my cover, Mark. Depreciation is just one thing. Call me
>>a snob if you like (oh, you did already), but I'm not keen on Rover cars.
>>Having said that though, I didn't realise that this is a very new model
>>and I don't even know what it looks like so I can't really judge it.
    
    
    Come and look at my 416GSi 16v in dec park and it'll give you some idea.
    Impressive performance and I haven't even got the GTi's twin cam.
    
    Richard

    RE: .64
    
    I think you do have the twin cam.  I understand it's very hard to fit
    and push 16 valves from the single camshaft.

    
    Apparently there is an single cam 16 valve Honda engine.
    
    Presumably it works like the old Sprint engine.
    
    Mark

    The rover 1.4 variants use a twin cam 16 v rover engine
    The rover 1.6 GSi is a SINGLE cam 16 v honda engine
    The rover 1.6 GTi is a TWIN cam 16 v honda engine
    
    I know all this for definite. Also the 1.4 has single point fuel
    injection (a sort of injected carb) whilst both 1.6 variants have multi
    point electronic fule injection.
    
    Richard

Well thanks to everyone for responding to my notes and giving the advice.
I've just found out from the motor engineer at the insurance company,
Grauniad Royal Exchange, that it's *not* a total loss. So I won't be
buying a replacement car.

He was surprised that Reading Toyota thought it was a total loss as he
reckons there is a considerable margin between the cost of repairs and
the value of the car. Incidentally, he placed the value of the car at
9600 which means a 27% depreciation over 2.5 years (why won't my compose key
work). And I was keeping my fingers crossed and praying for 9000!

Get this, he gave me a choice of having it repaired at Caversham Coach
Works (subcontracted to them by Reading Toyota) or GRE's own place in
Leamington Spa. Although obviously there's more profit in the L.S. outfit
he stated that money is not the question, the sole priority being that
of customer satisfaction. Impressive, or what? I plumped for Caversham
'cos it's nearer. Anyone got any dirt on them?

Anyway thanks once again for all the help.

Steve

(whose driving has been somewhat subdued since the prang and is going
 to get training soon...)

    
    Glad to hear things are working out, Steve. Also pleased with the
    estimate of your car's worth (it bodes well for mine!).
    
    Let us know ehat you decide, re training - I'm happy to go out for
    a drive sometime if you think it might help...
    
    Bill.

    LESSONS:
    1. Don't buy Jap cr*p
    2. If you insist on buying it, don't crash it
    3. If you insist on crashing it, write it off

    
    4. Never take a biggot seriously.
    

    I agree with .75. Especially point (1) !!
    
    I challenged an MR2 GT owner to a race against my Top Class 16V Astra
    GTE and he turned into a quivering wreck.
    
    If your going to buy performance don't fag out and only go half-way, go
    for a real MUSCLE car and buy a 16V GTE. You'll never regret it !!
    
    						Cheers,
    							Dougie
    

    
    ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    
    Never mind the muscle, where's the torque?
    
    Mark
    
    PS Is the talk of a 200 bhp Rover 220 Turbo serious? How the hell would
    you get 200 bhp onto the road through the front wheels?

    probably the same way that Saab do.......through a clutch and a
    gearbox.

RE:     <<< Note 1188.80 by NEWOA::SAXBY "A house! My kingdom for a house!" >>>
                         -< Smooth?Yes, but muscley? >-

>>    
>>    Never mind the muscle, where's the torque?
>>    
>>    Mark
>>    
>>    PS Is the talk of a 200 bhp Rover 220 Turbo serious? How the hell would
>>    you get 200 bhp onto the road through the front wheels?

Mark, I'd think that the "torque of a 200 bhp Rover 220 Turbo" would be very
serious indeed!

    
    Really? Saab have a 200 bhp turbo car? Sounds great! :^)
    
    Mark
    
    PS Sorry if we drivers of real cars are boring you toy owners.

    Really! The 2.3L Turbo 9000 is (as far as I can remember) 215bhp though
    I suspect that that is at the flywheel and not the wheels. I think that
    it comes with the "Traction Control System" (intelligent LSD?) to help
    getting the power onto the road.......
    
    Even the "standard" 900 Caarlson is close to 200bhp, 185 as I recall.

    My oh my oh my,
    
    Re: 16v fan club
    
    	looks like we have a "little boy racer" here!!!
    
    How many inches of rubber do you leave on the road when setting off at
    traffic lights? Do you drive at 80mph round blind bends on single track
    country roads? Do you leave a 2 inch gap between you and the car in
    front? Do you wear sunglasses at night?
    
    MR2 owners appreciate _driving_, the ability to enjoy a journey whether
    your are going at 140mph+ or pottering along with the T-bar open and
    soaking up the sun (sorry, do Astra's not have T-bars? - shame!).
    
    The Astra is a fine car, the engine is superb, it goes fast and looks
    good. Unfortunately for some reason it has developed a reputation for
    being the car driven by wine-bar poser types whose sole aim in life is
    to be the fastest around the bend - but many of them end up as the
    fastest wrapped around the lamp-post.
    
    Just returning the balance in an unbiased way!!!
    
    mb

>>    The Astra is a fine car, the engine is superb, it goes fast and looks
>>    good.

	I personally think it's as ugly as sin.

	-John

    RE. Astra 16v
    
    Ok its fast.....But its an ugly pig and as commeon us muck!....The only
    good thing is they skimped on the rear window space....thus they dont
    see me when I fly past them in the Pug!!!!  (Granted except when they
    are going 140MPH!)...

    
    Re .92
    
    Surely they don't use their mirrors anyway, do they? :^)
    
    I've not driven an Astra 16v, but it isn't (to my eyes) a very good looking
    car. However, I'll agree about the engine! (for a non-turbo 4) :^)
    
    Mark

    re quite a few ago, from someone who always seemed to drive at 140+...
    
    Do Astra 16v do 140mph+ ? (assuming that is what you drive)
    
    And where ?
    
    
    Nigel
    
    
    IMHO the only 16v to do that kind of speed in *relative* safety and
    comfort is the 944.

    
    Spotted on the M8 last Saturday morning.
    (Should this be "Seen in passing" 8*))
    
    An Astra 16v doing (assuming my speedo`s roughly accurate) just over
    140 mph.So they will do approx 140.
    
    Talking of boy racers,this bloke went from Newbridge to Newhouse,30
    miles,never once dropping below 135,in the pouring rain,what an idiot.
    
    

    RE: .92
     
    I would be interested to know what type of pug you have that would
    fly past a 16V Astra. (except possibly when it's stationary!!)
    
    By the way we spell commeon???? common in this country,or is that the 
    French spelling?                                        

    
    Derek,
    
    It's not a word, it's a TLA, so it's got to be looked on favourably by
    Digital! :^)
    
    BFN.
    
    Mark

    RE .99 Checkout the price differential between a BMW M3 and an Astra
           16V, is your slight advantage in speed worth the extra 10,000+.
    

    re. 100
    I spell it as common, just my keyboard has not learnt it yet...
    
    Yes the 16V is definitely quicker in a straight line than my 1.9....
    and mine has not been above 129...but I still think the 16V is ugly...
    and I forgot to say last time...the MR2 is nice also...but I will 
    reserve judgement until I drive one......

    Can we be told what the top (indicated) speed of the Astra 16V is?
    
    ... if that is a serious measure of a cars performance!
    
    mb

    Having seen some bigoted drivel in the recent entries in the GM vs Ford
    note..... it seems that its now migrated here.
    
    I'd still rather be in a SAAB than most other cars...... but drive
    something else as a SAAB doesn't meet my broader requirements (I.E. I
    can't get all the family in.....) There are things to judge a car on
    than sheer out and out boy racer power and fuel burn, like safety,
    comfort, reliability etc,.....
    
    When you have been involved in an accident in any car other than a SAAB
    that left you not able to feel your toes, move your feet or move your
    head and still survivewith a complete set of fully operational legs,
    then I'll take the car down from the pedestal it's on in my
    perceptions. 
    
    Try that in an MR2, Astra, 5GTT, RS Turbo etc......... and let me know
    when the wheel chair is being delivered.
    
    People buy cars for different reasons, and for some of us being able
    tear around the countryside at stupid speeds isn't a rational reason.

    Re: .107
    
    Actually, the Astra and Cavalier are some of the safest cars as far as
    crashes are concerned - although the final outcome may depend on
    whether you are doing 140mph or not!!!!!
    
    If you want to drive a car whose basic shape hasn't changed in tens of
    years (in fact is more out-of-date than a skoda) then buy a SAAB!!!!
    
    mb
    
    p.s.
    
    I have no information of crash tests for MR2s unfortunately, but i
    would much rather try to keep out of trouble by driving safely.

Looking at the state of the Astra, and the things that my brother hit, I will
agree that the Astra is a safe car (relatively speaking), but if you are really
worried about safety, then chuck the kids out, get whichever car you want and 
stick a full cage in it !!!!!


		 Alan
		~~~~~~

    
    Regarding accidents.  I know what i'd rather be driving, and it isn't 
    the Saab, or anything else with an engine in front.
    
    
    
    Nigel

    RE last:
    
    Is it one of those Jeep thingies??? ;-)

    
    Re. Hagarty
    
    M3?
    
    Probably the most overrated sh!theap on wheels ..... Scrap it, or get
    it chopped in half!

re the last few

Mines better than yours. But if you won't play I'm taking my ball home!

Come on! This is pretty pointless. Everyone has differring tastes,
thank goodness!

Greg

    Yep, it's true...
    
    My car is a big hulk of metal that just reaches 140 (kph! ;-)),
    but *I* never go that fast... honest officer ;-)
    
    and as for safety ;-)                
    
    so come on, lighten up...
    
    as -1 states everyone has different tastes in cars, women, wine...
    
    if not it would be a damn boring world.

    
    Or, only one woman would get all the fun ;^)

	I want some help regarding the Toyota MR2, can somebody
	please direct me to the appropriate topic?.

	-John_whos_car_is_best_of_all

    John,
    
    	The best help I can give you is sell your cr*py old MR-2 (If you
    can get any money for it :-) and buy an LP-12.
    
    -Rik_whos_Hi-Fi_is_best_of_all

    Man, if you am doing 140 M(iles)PH anywhere other than on de racetrack,
    you am nuts. (Even in an MR2 - see, it does get a mention).
    
    In other words, tell me which roads you're on so that I can avoid them
    !!

    Re: .122 If you're referring to .116, and you had read it properly, you
    would have seen that he said 140 kph, which is not a particularly
    earth-shattering speed.
    
    Jeff.

    re .123
    
    I think you will find that .122 refers to a much earlier note re an
    Astra 16v owner who said he did 140mph.  (.83 or so).  That has been
    the basis of the last 30 odd notes.
    
    The owner of .116 has no illusions about his vehicle :-)
    
    Nigel
    
    

    RE: .123. & .124
    
    Heh Nigel,
    
    140 in a Jeep is well possible... it's just getting the momentum
    going ;-)
    
    		Lewis whos_drives_around_at_140_with_the_roof_off_and
    still_has_every_car_pass_him.
    
    PS. I actually find it quite amusing seeing the 'fast' cars zip past
    and having to stop when they reach the car in front of me. It seems
    some people have a phobia about being stuck behind a jeep ;-)

    Re: .124.  Thanks.  My fault for poking my nose into a note I wasn't
    following.
    
    J

    I just thought I'd take this oportunity to say that my RS Turbo is
    far better looking that any car mentioned in this topic so far, with
    blistering performance to match.
    
    

    
    You all drive rubbish.
    
    My wife's FIAT Uno 45S does 50 mpg day after day...
    
    Can anyone beat that? :^)
    
    Mark

 My mum came close to that in her Astra Estate, she managed around 47MPG, 
although seeing that everyone else has been driving it recently, I would expect
that to be lower recently !!!!!


		 Alan
		~~~~~~

Pah!

50mpg and 4*mpg...!!!

I can do a lot better than that - try 11mpg! ;-)


					Lewis.

 I can come close to that one as well, my broter reckons he is getting between
15 and 20 MPG from his car !!!! (a 1300 !!!) Maybe it is all the trying to keep 
up with the people in 1600 and 2000 cars that are on the same course at College
as him !!


		 Alan
		~~~~~~

	P.S. Don't ask me what I am getting from my car, I haven't dared check !

                       <return to MR2's again>
    
    RE : .87
    
    Hi 140+ mph pilot,
    
    I'm driving an old-shape MR2 in Belgium, but am looking forward 
    to buy an new MR2 (before the next crash), and if possible an Americano.
    American MR2's are priced much lower than in Belgium, and have more
    standard equipment (leather interior, turbo, air bag and maybe more). 
    As said in your note ('get one from the States'), I suppose you know
    more than I do of getting these jewels over the ocean.
    
    The question is what kind of MR2 engines they sell in the States (2
    litres or more, number of DIN H.P. and valves), which equipment is 
    available, the cost of all this beautifull and which American export laws 
    have to be passed. 
    
    It would be very great if you or someone else could give me an answer 
    on this matter (even a partitional one). 
    
    I'm also wondering about the different types of MR2 you have in the UK. 
    2.0 And 2.0 GT (and more ?). In Belgium we can only have a 2.0 GT of 156 
    DIN H.P. with a spoiler on the back. At the Digital car-park in Newberry, I
    saw one that wasn't wearing this thing. Is that the 2.0 ?  Someone
    told me that our version is limited to 156 H.P. because of the
    tax-rules (above 156 H.P. we must pay 33% taxes on the selling price,
    instead of the normal 25%). So, can anyone tell me how much Hp the beast 
    (GT) from the U.K. is using ?
    
    Thanks in advance,
    
    Highway-bullet  
    (Hartwig Asselman @bro, 856-8459) 
    
       
    

    I dunno `bout the MR2 but i know the Celicas are available with a v8!
    
    
    Ian.

    
    Front wheel drive or 4WD?
    
    Mark

    re: .132
    
    Hartwig,
    
    	in the UK there are 3 basic models of MR2 ...
    
    The "MR2", which has the 2.0L 16v Corolla engine and a catalytic converter,
    and only produces about 118BHP thus is a bit slow. It has fewer options
    than on the other two versions, namely
    
    The "MR2 GT", which has the 2.0L 16v Celica engine, no CAT, generates the
    156BHP you mentioned, a rear spoiler, front foglamps and other bits.
    
    The "MR2 GT T-bar" is like the basic GT, but also has leather seats and
    a T-bar roof.
    
    I doubt whether the 156BHP is specifically for the Belgium market, if
    so then i would love to know where the power restrictor is!!
    
    
    I don't know too much about the US market, but they do have a TURBO
    version, with about 170BHP, and being American it probably has CAT and
    airbags, red indicators, high-level brake light and a speedo that
    doesn't read over 80mph!
    
    Although i haven't driven the old MR2, the new version is bigger,
    heavier, less sporty (smoother), faster, more powerful and more
    luxurious.
    
    I suppose you could always remove the spoiler and pretend that you just
    have the 118BHP version when you import the US turbo!!!!!!
    
    
    mb

    
    Also, IMHO, a lot better looking.
    
    Mark

    Re: .137
    
>	More likely to spin and needs a bigger engine to accelerate less well.
 
    What!!! the new MR2 accelerates far faster than the old one.
    
    The new MR2 is actually less likely to "spin" because it has a better
    grip on the road (the standard tyres have been changed since the
    original road-tests last year) - the problem is that the steering is
    too low geared, so catching a spin once it starts is a lot harder.
    
    It costs a lot more though!
    
    mb

    
    The new one is definately the quicker car in a straight line,
    and a very attractive car (which isn't to say the old one
    wasn't). However, its a shame that more development seems
    to have gone into refinements and luxury for the new MR2,
    as opposed to the sporting aspects - some of which seem to
    have regressed from the older version. 
                                         
    That said, and regardless of the pros and cons of the two models,
    they are both excellent sports cars, and still the closest thing
    to a Ferrari on the right side of 20K pounds.
    
    William.

    
    Have you driven a G32, Derek?
    
    Mark

    RE: .136
    
    
    Thanks Martin. It's the 2.0 GT with or without T-bar that we have in
    Belgium, always with a rear spoiler. I suppose the power restrictor
    is the engine itself, but you can pull up the top-speed by replacing the
    twin-cam bars and the valves (cupper ones) or by placing a turbo on it.
    I knew a guy who did this in the past with an old-shape MR2. He gained
    without a turbo 25 BHP (besides, what's the meaning of the B in BHP ?) 
    and got an empty wallit. 
    I'll try to import the US MR2 turbo and i'm gonna change the speedo so
    that the speed-indicator can make a double circle (hope the
    mileage-indicator will not count each mile twice). Good idea to mention
    that it contains the Corolla engine, maybe I'll remove the spoiler (if
    that hasn't already happen during the shipment) and I'm surely gonna
    forget that it contains a turbo.  But first I'll continue to find out
    how to play with the Belgian import rules.
    
    The Celica V8 ???? Not necessary, with the price you pay for taxes and
    insurance during 2 years, you can almost buy a new MR2 GT.
    
    Network Consultant, within this and 6 months my current MR2 can serve
    for doing carting only. The front of the car is a bit damaged, front 
    suspension too (left front wheel often hits the panel above), I have to 
    hit the left front lamp before it functions, the electrical windows and 
    mirrors do not always behave the way i want it, and the worst thing is 
    that this car produces an awful lot of noise once above 90 mph. 
    But the behavior on the road (with new suspension) is indeed amazing. Only a
    few cars can do better (Ferrari, Lambo). Belgian magazines also
    describe it as being much better than the behavior of the new MR2.
    Question is how many hours they've driven both cars (objectiveness
    ????)
    
    Many thanks,
    
    H.A. (Hartwig).
    
    P.S. Martin, are you Derek Bell's brother ?  heavy right-foot too ??? 
                                                             

    Hartwig,
    
    BHP stands for Brake Horse Power, which is something to do with the
    amount of brake-ing force required to resist the engine (or in the case
    of the Astra GTE 16v, the horsepower to BREAK the engine :-) ).
    
    The joke about American cars not showing above 80mph was because a few
    years ago the US government decided that because the speed limit was
    55mph, there was no need to display above 80mph, thus manufacturers had
    to black out the dial above 80!!  It didn't fool most Americans, who
    have occasionally been known to go even faster than 80mph.
    
    Check the tyres (tires) for the US version, often they only fit "S"
    speed rated ones, safe only up to about 90mph. In the UK they fit RE71s
    which are made by Bridgestone specifically for the MR2 (so i am told).
    Check for local suppliers just in case getting hold of replacements is
    difficult.
    
    If you are expecting Ferrari or Lotus style handling then you will be
    dissappointed with the new MR2, but for a fraction of the price, and
    considering what you get, it is a bargain!
    
    mb
    
    p.s. No, as far as i know, i am not related to Derek, but my right foot
    has been known to be heavy occasionally!

    This may  be a bit late, but the US Turbo version come in at
    200 horsepower at 6000 rpm, according to the  US sales booklet I have.
    
    Peter

    RE .145, .146
    
    200 BHP ??? Whoooosh. I think someone becomes more jealous now. Don't
    worry Martin, I haven't got it yet.  Next week, an American will
    provide U.S. prices of the 2.0 GT and turbo to me. He expects from 18K$
    to 20K$ for the GT and 20 to 25K$ for the turbo version (without taxes).
    I hope this guy made a tremendous mistake. In this case, prices are almost 
    the same as in Belgium + that shipment, replacement of some parts
    (tires ? Instead of S-type I need V-type) official check still have to be 
    paid. My goodness !!! 
    But I'll try other tricky things to avoid the US import company and US
    salesman having revenue on it. Won't be peanuts !!!
    
    Thanks guys,
    
    Hartwig
    
    

New MR2 Turbo T-bar is $23,700 (sticker price)  Add delivery charges, tax and
so on ......

Wait though .....  next month, the 1992 models hit the streets, so there are
some great deals going if you look around, and Ourisman Toyota in Fairax, VA
just sold a 91 demo MR2 Turbo for ........ $17,900 !!!!  It had done almost
3000 miles though ;^)

Anyone who pays top dollar for any car in the US these days needs their head
seriously examined.

Brian
Who just bought an $8,000 new Ford for just over $5300 .....

    Anyone know what's new on the 1992 MR2 models ?
    
    -Dave.
    

    Re. .147
    
    Hartwig,
    
    Don't know if you received your prices yet, but I have a book with 1991
    US car prices. I am sure the prices have gone up some, but this is what
    the book list for the Turbo:
    
    
                                             Dealer Cost           List
    				            ____________        __________
    
    		Turbo                        $ 15,614.00        $  18,478.00
    
    		Turbo w/t-top                 $ 16374.00            19,378.00
    
    	    Destination Charge                  $ 265.00              265.00
    
    	    Advertising Charge                  $ 235.00              235.00
    
    			    AC                  $ 660.00              825.00
    
    		     Power Pkg.                 $ 340.00              425.00
                (power windows.              
    	         locks, etc.)
    
    	           Leather Int.                 $ 988.00            1,235.00
    
                   Sound system                 $ 255.00              340.00
    		   
    			with CD                 $ 780.00            1,040.00
    
                            ABS                 $ 904.00            1,130.00
    
    
    You should expect to pay some where around $500.00 - $1,000.00 over
    Dealer cost ($1,000.00 would be a bit high, but on this car they may
    not move much on the price)
    
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Peter
         

    RE .150 
    
    Thanks very much Peter, this is of great help to me. Those prices are
    realy cheap. I wonder if it's taxes included or not.  I also don't
    understand why they ask for a destination and advertising charge (or
    the meaning of it) , and why a dealer's price is so much lower than the
    list price (reductions ?). Anyway, this increases my hope to import a
    turbo GT.
    
    Many thanks for your help,
    
    Hartwig
    
    P.S. The American guy hasn't called back yet. 

    
    I think that the Dealer price is the cost TO the dealer. This seems to
    be widely available in the US, but certainly isn't in the UK and guess
    not the rest of Europe.
    
    Destination, I'd guess, is delivery TO the dealer, but the advertising
    charge I don't understand.
    
    If those prices are inclusive of tax, you should still be able to get a 
    good deal. Have you considered how easy it will be to get such a car
    insured and/or serviced? Not very, I'd guess, perhaps you should talk
    to your local Toyota dealer and/or customer service department to see
    if parts for the car will be available in Europe.
    
    Presumably, you'll still have to pay duty on the car when it arrives
    in your country?
    
    Mark

    Hartwig,
    
    The prices do not include tax. Depending on what state you buy the car
    in, the tax could be anywhere from 3% - 5 or 6%. In Mass. typically you
    would pay the sales tax whan you register the car with the Dept. of
    Motor Vehicles. I don't know what the situation would be if you were
    exporting the car. The advertising gharge is just a gimmick to get more
    money from the buyer. The dealer cost is exactly that, what he gets
    charged for the car. There are (or were) Dealers that would sell cars
    on a "cost +" basis, that is, they have a set profit of say $500. No
    haggling over the price. You get a fair deal, they make a fair profit
    and a lot of the hassle is taken out of the process. They a cheaper
    than other dealerships so they tend to sell more cars, which means they
    can accept a lower profit margin, etc.. However, on a car like this you 
    may be hard pressed to find such a deal. Hope this helps. 
    
    
    Peter
    

>>                     <<< Note 1188.153 by RDGENG::BARRON >>>

    
>>    The prices do not include tax. Depending on what state you buy the car
>>    in, the tax could be anywhere from 3% - 5 or 6%. In Mass. typically you
>>    would pay the sales tax whan you register the car with the Dept. of
>>    Motor Vehicles. I don't know what the situation would be if you were
    exporting the car. 
    
    Here in the UK, the tax is 10% of dealers price, then 17.5%VAt on top
    of the sum of 10% + dealers price.
    Over here the tax is paid via the delaer, who also registers it for
    you.
    
    >>The advertising gharge is just a gimmick to get more
>>    money from the buyer. 
    
    Over here they call it "on-the-road" price, and charge exorbitant
    amounts for half a tank of petrol number plates etc.
    
    >>The dealer cost is exactly that, what he gets
>>    charged for the car. There are (or were) Dealers that would sell cars
    
    I doubt it. It is probably similar here, and the price is what he is
    officially suppose to charge everything on top of. He actually gets it
    for several K less (depending on model etc.) 
    
    The lease companies in the UK use this to lever the garage for discount.
    Typically 12.5% to 15%. The garages usually don't make much at this
    margin, but get some kind of bonus for passing volumes through, hence
    the willingness to do business with the lease companies.
    
    Richard

    Re-1
    
    The dealer cost is the dealer cost (or very close to it). Like here it
    is several K less than retail, but this figure is public because  of
    consumer groups publishing these figures, etc.. However the dealers do
    sometimes get additional kickbacks from the factory. What ever the
    dealer can get between cost and retail is his profit, which is what can
    make the car buying process in the US a real battle, and an
    unforgetable experience! Thier profit on Dealer installed options is
    also MUCH greater than on anything from the factory.
    
    peter

There's a difference between dealer cost, which is the manufacturer's list
price to the dealer (rather like Digital's transfer cost for hardware products),
and the "invoice cost" which is what the delaer actually paid the manufacturer.
Frequently, you can buy last year's models for "$1 over invoice" and the dealer
has to show you the invoice he received to prove the validity of the pricing
claim.  As was said, though, they make a LOT of money on extras: for example,
$500 for an average radio system, $200 for a passenger door mirror, $700 for
undersealing (not required by law in Maryland), and so on.  A saleswoman was
bragging to her boss in the dealership that we went to that she'd sold a "fully
loaded" deal, which meant basically that the $13,000 Taurus she'd just sold 
actually cost the customer over $20,000 with all the options added.

If you really want a cheap car in the US, there is a scheme open to all US 
employees which will get you ANY car you want for just $49 over invoice cost.
Don't know how they do it, but the company offers it as a benefit!  Nice :-)
Oh yes, the Digital Credit Union will also finance the car for 10%, too.

Brian

    Any contacts for Danish prices? Especially RHD ones. I have access to
    Belgian dealers, I live in Brussels!
    
    Laurie.

    RE 1188.158
    
    Hi Laurie (neighbour),
    
    You can get my list of Danish (and Belgian) Tax-free dealers who sell 
    new and used cars that are not imported in the EEC (just in transit in DK).
    Just come to Building I floor III, but first give me a phone call if you 
    want (@ 8459). 
    These dealers are recommended by someone who tells (...) to have
    experience with them. I never met such one, 'cos they're all living
    near Copenhagen.  I went to a dealer in Grenaa (in the nose of Denmark)
    who, as far as I know, sells only EEC cars (11% EEC import duties
    included in the price). By the way : getting a RHD car in Denmark is
    much easier than getting a LHD : they also drive at the right side of
    the road...when they aren't drunk.
    
     
    Regards,
    
    Hartwig Asselman
     
    

    correction to .158
    
    Getting a LHD EEC-car in Denmark will be a lot easier than getting a
    RHD.
    
    Hartwig

    
    Hi,
    
      I encountered a slight problem with my car ( old type MR2 ). Its
    running rather slow, I only managed to get 131 MPH out of it on the
    motorway. I recently have just bought this motor and from what I've
    read previously I was expecting slightly more out of these motors.
    The car was serviced by the Toyota garage I bought it from and is still
    under warenty. Considering this is a C reg, is this expected due to its
    age. Whats annoyed me most is that a friend of mine left me standing in his
    Skoda!!! :-(
    
    
    
    Well the car was actually a XR3i, and thats as good as a Skoda..
    
    
    Should I take this back to the garage and get them to check it out.
    ( are they telling me porkies when they said thay serviced it, or did
    they get the apprentice/teaboy to service the car). What sort of things 
    could cause this problem with both acceleration & top speed..
    
    
    
    Thanks.
    
    	Karen ....
         
                                                  

    
    Are you just having a laugh or what ? 
    
    >>131 MPH
    
    JN.

    I don't know what planet .161 is on but if we all took our cars back to
    the garage because we got burnt off or couldn't exceed 130 mph, there
    would be a long queue.
    
    Roy
    
    PS I assume 131mph must be a typo.
    

    
    Well I always find that 131 mph is a good time to change to 5th, did
    you try changing gear? 

    Or the missing smiley is a typo....
    Richard

    According to all the road test results I've read you should be getting
    at least 155mph out of your MR2, why don't you take it back and
    complain i'm sure they'll be able to squeeze another 20MPH plus out of
    it just for you.
    
    
    Regards Martin

    .166 was definately missing a :-) me thinks.
    
    Roy

    A ha... So I'm not the only one haveing trouble with his Toyota.
    My Supra turbo goes in next week to have the engine management looked
    at as yesterday a light on the dash started blinking yesterday. Its a
    light that doesn't usually come on so I checked in the ol user manual
    and it says; "Unable to activate warp-drive motors, take car to nearest
    toyota service agent". No wondered I was only getting 190mph.
    
    :-()

    re 167:
    
    Top true speed is quoted at 137 MPH. I've had mine showing 135 on the
    clock and it was still pulling. I guess the clocks are pretty inaccurate
    coz a colleague had his up at the 150 mark.
    
    
    POL.

    
    
    Sounds about right. Allowing to clock inacuracies and the fact that
    they never really quote the top top speed, 137 is probably around what 
    you expect. My BMW is rated at 125 mph in the sale blurb. I've hadthe 
    the sports version round thruxton doing 120 at about 7k from church to
    the club chicane. Need less to say there was 1 1/2 k before the red
    line and it was pulling quite well. I suspect I could have managed a
    shade more than 5 mph.
    
    
    	

	I got stopped for speeding this morning, doing 150mph on the
	M25 in my new 968. I shall be suing Porsche as according to
	the handbook the car should be capable of 163mph and I had my
	foot flat on the floor, so should have been able to outrun the
	police Sierra that had the nerve to pull me over - after all,
	if my car is capable of doing such a speed then it must be safe
	to do it. I think the author of .161 should relate this tail to
	the Toyota garage, telling them that she'll be suing if she
	isn't capable of attaining the car's quoted maximum speed at
	moments like this when it might be needed.

	JJ.

    I still can't work out if .161 is a wind-up or not ?
    
    Roy

    
    Paul,
    
    Don't forget yours is the new type, the old type is road tested
    anywhere between 121 - 126 MPH from what I've seen.
    
    Regards Martin

    
    Re the original note in this stream.
    
    Yep, take your MR2 back, I was in that Fiat Uno 45 that passed you!
    
    Mark

    
    I've only ever seen the turbo version of the MR2 when I was over in the
    States last year. It was 23000 dollars. Makes you sick when you realise
    my 16v T-Bar cost somewhere in the region of 19000 quid over here.
    
    Then again, god knows what the extra 40 BHP would do to the tyres. I had
    my first set changed at 10500 miles (Thank god for a Hertz lease)
    
    
    POL. (still 2500 miles away from another set!!!!)  

    
    Karen,
         I would agree that there is something wrong with your MR,
        especially after watching it get blown away by that French
        205 shopping trolley thingy.Best bet would be to buy a Mk11
        with 2.0l GT 16v engine.Lots more power plus I know where
        you can get an H-plate MR2 GT-Tbar,one carefull owner,never
        raced or rallied,etc etc for a very good price.
                                                       Doogz