"1994 Nissan Sunny saloon."
Ever driven one? Dull to look at certainly, but not dull to drive. Even the 1.4 16v was fun to pilot especially compared to rivals of the time. Mk V Escort and Mk III Astra were horrid in comparison. Pre-Renault Nissan made some great cars even if they didn't alway look the part.
|
|
Anything by Seat, sub brand of a dull brand from a country with no real car making history?
|
|
That is not really fair and suggests that you are not aware of Seat's existence before being taken over by the VW group juggernaut.
Before this most of them were license built Fiat's, which were in turn pretty characterful cars. The MK1 Ibiza was a very characterful little car, both in its looks and zingy performance (system Porsche engines don't you know!)
Regarding Spain's car making history, firstly, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cars have character, secondly, while Spain does not have a LONG history of making LOTS of cars, at least not before the 1950's, it does have a LONG history. With the company which went on to become Hispano-Suiza (La Cuadra) starting to make electric cars in 1898. Car production in Spain did not really start to take off until after the civil war when Hispano-Suiza along with Banco Urquijo (Bank) and a group of Spanish industrial companies formed S.I.A.T. in 1940 which would go on to become SEAT.
|
“The MK1 Ibiza was a very characterful little car, both in its looks and zingy performance (system Porsche engines don't you know!)”
Horrid things! First company car I had was a 92 Ibiza 1.7 diesel, second was a 1.2 CLX. Poorly made, terrible Fiat gearboxes (like stirring porridge) and petrol engines which (despite the Porsche engineering involvement) were utterly lacking in character. Bargain buckets and looked ok, certainly quicker than the equivalent Fiesta but a 205 or even a Nova were far nicer to drive.
But I agree that Seat don’t deserve to be tagged as dull and lacking character. From the first VW engineered Ibiza and Toledo GTi’s to the later Cupra and FR models there’s always been some spirit about the Seat range since VW took over. I sourced an Ibiza 1.2 TSi FR for a friend last year and it was a good wee drive, nippy, nimble and economical. He is delighted with it.
|
“The MK1 Ibiza was a very characterful little car, both in its looks and zingy performance (system Porsche engines don't you know!)” Horrid things! First company car I had was a 92 Ibiza 1.7 diesel, second was a 1.2 CLX. Poorly made, terrible Fiat gearboxes (like stirring porridge) and petrol engines which (despite the Porsche engineering involvement) were utterly lacking in character. Bargain buckets and looked ok, certainly quicker than the equivalent Fiesta but a 205 or even a Nova were far nicer to drive. But I agree that Seat don’t deserve to be tagged as dull and lacking character. From the first VW engineered Ibiza and Toledo GTi’s to the later Cupra and FR models there’s always been some spirit about the Seat range since VW took over. I sourced an Ibiza 1.2 TSi FR for a friend last year and it was a good wee drive, nippy, nimble and economical. He is delighted with it.
I test drove a later Ibiza with the PD diesel. Handling very understeery with so much weight in front but it picked up speed effortlessly with all that torque. Refinement was poor though with the rough engine making everything inside vibrate at idle - that engine was a much better match in bigger cars like Passat and Superb if you like a civilised ride.
|
|
|
|
I remember a work mate having a MK1 Ibiza 1.5 (GLX i think), and he raved about it!. I've never driven one myself, but i did like the looks, very crisp, clean and modern for the time, with the wheels pushed right out into the corners it had virtually no overhangs to speak of at either end.
I really didn't like Seat's re-style of the MK1 Fiat Panda (a car i absolutely love) which made it look horrible.
The MK1 Toledo, which was the 1st Seat developed after VW took the company over, was really a Skoda Octavia before it came about. Same idea really, put a hatchback body with a huge boot on a relatively small platform, which in the case of the Toledo was the MK2 Golf. The Octavia did the same thing 5 years later.
|
“I really didn't like Seat's re-style of the MK1 Fiat Panda (a car i absolutely love) which made it look horrible.”
The Seat version was essentially the first gen version while Fiat updated theirs in 86 with much cleaner styling, better trim, free revving FIRE engines and more modern suspension. These were great little cars, simplicity itself and great fun to drive. Crash worthiness of a wet paper bag but then what didn’t back then? Sold a fair number in my day and with nothing on them really it was rare to have an upset punter.
|
|
So maybe more rubbish than dull. Funny how one can take an interest in some manufacturers but others pass you by. I have a pretty good idea if most manufacturers model range but Seat pass me by, is that just because they "white label" and don't actually create anything original?
|
So maybe more rubbish than dull. Funny how one can take an interest in some manufacturers but others pass you by. I have a pretty good idea if most manufacturers model range but Seat pass me by, is that just because they "white label" and don't actually create anything original?
If you are saying Seat's are rubbish, you are also saying the same about Skoda, VW and Audi, as under the skin they are the same. If you are saying you don't like how they look, well that is a seperate thing, and entirely down to personal choice. But, again, that has nothing to do with whether or not a car has character. If the Seat range pass you by, then it is probably safe to assume you have never driven one. You can't say a car is characterless without having driven it (unless of course, your ONLY consideration is how the car looks), it has to be dull both to look at and drive. There have been so many cars over the years that have looked dull, but have unusual or interesting engines, or are particularly entertaining to drive, this gives them character.
|
|
And that's just the point, I've never driven one but never had a desire to drive one. VW have made plenty of interesting cars, have innovated, produced some great engines etc etc, Seat just get given a template to produce a slightly cheaper version of the original from. That to me epitomises dull.
|
|
|
|
"1994 Nissan Sunny saloon." Ever driven one? Dull to look at certainly, but not dull to drive. Even the 1.4 16v was fun to pilot especially compared to rivals of the time. Mk V Escort and Mk III Astra were horrid in comparison. Pre-Renault Nissan made some great cars even if they didn't alway look the part.
Yep, it was my Dad's and we shared it after I passed my test. It was the 1.6 SLX if I remember correctly.
|
|
Blimey, I know I'm not that adventurous but reading the above I'm clearly worse than I thought ....
Among the thirty something cars owned since 1967 there were some pretty bland machines.... Morris Minor, couple of Austin 1100s, couple of Maestros, various Anglias, Singer Gazelle VIII (the boring 1967 square shape).... and so it goes on.
Not only that but there was a Maxi and a dreadful Chrysler Alpine and a Sunbeam Talbot ( no, not an interesting early one - an horrendous1979 two door).
If you want characterless just stick with me.
OK, admittedly we progressed on a tiny bit from there but not to any exclusive exotica. A 1600E, Corsair GT and a rather pleasant Rover were better than some. The Renault 16 had character if you call developing a rust crack that went virtually the width of the car, characterful.
Then we come to Hyundais and VWs ... pretty undramatic - dull even, but don't seem to keep breaking down - which at this stage is a bit of a bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
