I agree - the BX does look good in white. I guess it's a personal perspective - my first TGD was white and the second one cream like Tim's - liked them both. Current TGD is Venetian red and I'm 'comfortable' with that - I get blinded when I wash the granny in the sun because Diamond white is an exceptionally bright colour - seems to glow in twilight - great colour for that bodyshell. But then I really like Todd's yellow BX
I guess if it's a great drive (which both the BX and the granny are) and the mechanics and electrics are all in good shape then the colour is less of an issue but good to have a head-turner - and BXs seem to be heading in that direction whatever colour they are
Philip Chidlow wrote:Lada Nivas en route.... I didn't think they made them anymore!
They do! brand new imported for you for 5 grand via ebay. All you have to do is register it. I had (an older) one for a while and loved it. VERY different to a Citroen in almost every way possible. Somewhere is an ancient film of a (then new) Niva going head to head with a (then new) Range Rover, and completely embarrassing it. I saw plenty in Russia when I was there, and wish there were more of them around here. Another one on my list of cars to own if I had the money and space....
Philip Chidlow wrote:On the ferry - an unusual companion to Tim's BX...
That's a Renault Avantime, unless I am much mistaken. I have a pic of my XM parked next to a Vel Satis in France I must put online at some point...
Ray The Fleet (most recent first):
2000 Citroën XM 3.0 24V V6 Exclusive Auto (pre-MOT)
1997 Citroën XM 2.0 TCT Exclusive Auto (for sale)
1979 Citroën CX 2.4 EI Cmatic Prestige (slowly being restored)
1992 Alfa Romeo 164 Lusso 3.0 v6 12v Manual (on the to-do list)
Philip Chidlow wrote:Lada Nivas en route.... I didn't think they made them anymore!
They do! brand new imported for you for 5 grand via ebay. All you have to do is register it. .
Make that £7695, plus VAT, and then plus registration etc. and you're looking at the thick end of ten grand. For a LHD vehicle, designed in the 70's. With no radio.
Brilliant little vehicles they may be, but so is a Suzuki Jimni (no, really!) and they're £7k new. And RHD. With a warranty, and modern crash protection.
If I had the money to waste on a new small 4x4 vehicle, I know what I'd be looking at. Yep, a second-hand Defender.
Philip Chidlow wrote:Lada Nivas en route.... I didn't think they made them anymore!
They do! brand new imported for you for 5 grand via ebay. All you have to do is register it. .
Make that £7695, plus VAT, and then plus registration etc. and you're looking at the thick end of ten grand. For a LHD vehicle, designed in the 70's. With no radio.
Brilliant little vehicles they may be, but so is a Suzuki Jimni (no, really!) and they're £7k new. And RHD. With a warranty, and modern crash protection.
If I had the money to waste on a new small 4x4 vehicle, I know what I'd be looking at. Yep, a second-hand Defender.
Are the Jimny's really any good?
Went to see some friends yesterday, who have moved to a place in the wilds, accessed by a very steep unmade road, with loose surface and a hairpin bend. His vehicle to deal with it is one of those angular nineties Jeep Cherokee's with the VM diesel last seen blowing head gaskets in Range Rovers. He is about to do some major surgery on the thing, as it has no transfer box and 4wd is not selectable (apparently) and comes in of its own volition when a wheel starts to spin. Works ok going up the track, but not so good going down
Thankfully the fathers IIA took it very much in it's stride...
"Boring damned people. All over the earth. Propagating more boring damned people. What a horror show. The earth swarmed with them." -Charles Bukowski
DavidRutherford wrote:Make that £7695, plus VAT, and then plus registration etc. and you're looking at the thick end of ten grand. For a LHD vehicle, designed in the 70's. With no radio.
They've gone up since I last looked, so apologies for that. I'd buy a 2nd hand one again, and then buy whatever bits I needed to fix it. Last time I sent SWMBO shopping in Moscow before she came over here
Last edited by rayfenwick on Tue May 11, 2010 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ray The Fleet (most recent first):
2000 Citroën XM 3.0 24V V6 Exclusive Auto (pre-MOT)
1997 Citroën XM 2.0 TCT Exclusive Auto (for sale)
1979 Citroën CX 2.4 EI Cmatic Prestige (slowly being restored)
1992 Alfa Romeo 164 Lusso 3.0 v6 12v Manual (on the to-do list)
Given that they have all the elements for a decent little 4x4, I'd say they are. Seperate chassis, coil-sprung live axles, high-low gearbox, selectable four-wheel-drive etc.etc They are in effect a 2/3 scale range rover, and yet I (as a 6' tall large bloke) can sit in the back of one with a 6'2" driver in front of me, and still be relatively comfortable.
For what they are (and more importantly, for what they are intending to be) they are remarkably good. In the same way that people who think the BX is shit hasn't understood the point of the car, anyone who thinks a jimni is crap hasn't understood what a small utility 4x4 is supposed to do.
Having driven one regularly my opinion differs from yours, maybe they are great off road, but lets face who ever uses one for that? As a "car" they are slow, noisy, wallowy and thirsty aswell as cramped, plasticky inside and expensive to road tax.
Not sure about the Jimnys but certainly the earlier Suzuki SJs have surprised me with their off road ability (but are even more agricultural). The narrow track, short wheelbase and lower weight helps in some circumstances, but can be a hindrance in others.
It all depends on what criteria you are judging them by, by what they were originally designed to do, or what they are typically used for...
/\ I have to agree, 4x4 vehicles are tools, and the reason to have one is a need to deal with adverse conditions; the 'lifestyle' vehicles are ridiculous IMHO because they are underwhelming both on and off road. Yes the Jimny may be 'average' on road compared with a car, but if it has genuine off-road ability then for me it is a useful tool. Unlike the Cayenne et al.
That said, looking at the Suzuki website they make much of 'push button four wheel drive' and no mention of low range, so it may be that the transfer box has now been dropped, which would then considerably lower such versions in my estimation; IMHO a transfer box is essential in anything that claims to be a genuinely useful 4x4, in fact I would go as far as to say not having one in a vehicle used off road in anger is a danger. 'Hill descent systems' are all very well, but relying on ABS sensors (which are likely to be even more temperamental than usual in a vehicle used off road) have to be FTL...
"Boring damned people. All over the earth. Propagating more boring damned people. What a horror show. The earth swarmed with them." -Charles Bukowski
I agree with Jonathan about the low range, I have to add that I've been astonished how well the electronics can work to keep you moving (in a Freelander), the fact that it had no low range would make it difficult to manoeuvre trailers etc and off road work in general without slipping the clutch. Even a crawler gear would have done. The other point is that it's a Land Rover and therefore the electronics are likely to fail...
The Freelander strikes me as being designed more for on road use however, with the electronics coming into play (effectively) to avoid embarrassment if you are one of the few that take it into the rough. Oh, and as it does not have a separate chassis, if you get it badly enough cross axled, the windscreen will crack. Apparently.
And they do get used for all sorts of purpose not just 'Picadilly Tractors'
(this in Bob's neck of the woods last week)
Kevan
1997 Mercedes C230 W202
2003 Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5 - Daily driver / hobby days and camping.
1993 Land Rover Discovery 200tdi Series 1 3 door - in need of TLC
2020 Fiat Panda 4x4 Cross Twin Air.
Roverman wrote:Having driven one regularly my opinion differs from yours, maybe they are great off road, but lets face who ever uses one for that?
I did, and it performed extremely well.
Roverman wrote:As a "car" they are slow, noisy, wallowy and thirsty aswell as cramped, plasticky inside and expensive to road tax.
Indeed they are, but find me any vehicle that is actually good off road that is anything other than slow, noisy wallowy and thirsty on the road? Sounds like a perfect description of a Range-Rover to me...
Anyone who uses a 4x4 as a "car" clearly hasn't understood what a 4x4 is for.
Hence my comment that they are not crap if used for what they are designed for!
