Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 15:49:36

Title: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 15:49:36
I've just finished reading a road test on a 1983 VW Golf GTI 1.8.

Apparently, it tipped the scales at a paltry 781 KG.......... :y

What the f**K are they making cars out of today? Mrs Opti's 2003 Corsa 1.2 weighs in at  a Billy Bunteresque 1000 KG. The latest Corsa is even more of a fat bastard. :-\ :-\ 
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Elite Pete on 16 November 2012, 15:56:06
It's all the ABS, Airbags, Climate Control and all the other pap they've added over the years ::)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: symes on 16 November 2012, 16:02:30
Dont like new cars-all the ones round were I live seem as big as miggys boot  ;D ;D and you now ya gonna look g a y driving one- Funny my 5ltre rover lighter than mig :o :o
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Lizzie_Zoom on 16 November 2012, 16:02:42
I reckon it's a conspiracy involving the car makers and steel plants! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: symes on 16 November 2012, 16:07:28
No modern cars cost a fortune so to entice you to buy one they put all sorts of gizmos in them-cant remember maker but on advert you could have internet/wi/fi
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: aaronjb on 16 November 2012, 16:10:34
ABS, airbags, electric windows, side impact protection (heavy crash bars), carefully designed crumple zones with reinforced areas elsewhere, the big dashboards that we all expect today, 19283712 speakers, stereo, electric seats, lumbar support, lots and lots and lots of sound deadening.. Plus the 300Kg of lead in the boot.

None of that was in a 1983 car of the kind you're talking about here ;)

Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: martin42 on 16 November 2012, 16:11:54
im glad ive gone to the escort cabby,no abs/tc issues to worry about,get in and drive it as it was meant to be,none off this drivers aid crap,which the new transit i have at the moment does,hill start wtf is that all about,i dont need it,and if you cant do 1 you shouldnt be driving,bit like the parking assist WHY!!!! if you cant park then you shouldnt be driving,its all part of the test these days,more weight,electrical gadgets etc dont do it for me ;)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 16:16:03
ABS, airbags, electric windows, side impact protection (heavy crash bars), carefully designed crumple zones with reinforced areas elsewhere, the big dashboards that we all expect today, 19283712 speakers, stereo, electric seats, lumbar support, lots and lots and lots of sound deadening.. Plus the 300Kg of lead in the boot.

None of that was in a 1983 car of the kind you're talking about here ;)


That's true, Aaron and I certainly wouldn't wish to wrap an old motor round a tree..........but even accounting for modern safety features the cars of today still seem weighty.

I've just googled the weight of a MK3 Zodiac from the sixties..............1256 KG..... :o :o :o :o :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: aaronjb on 16 November 2012, 16:17:41
I suspect most of the weight difference is really in the 'creature comforts' we've all come to expect than the safety features, myself..

Just think back to how spartan the interiors of cars back then really were (he says, wracking his brains to remember what the Allegro was like!)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 16:20:12
I suspect most of the weight difference is really in the 'creature comforts' we've all come to expect than the safety features, myself..

Just think back to how spartan the interiors of cars back then really were (he says, wracking his brains to remember what the Allegro was like!)


Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 16 November 2012, 16:25:18
Cars are larger, safer and have considerbly stiffer chassis's. Bolt on all the extra's we all must have and the result is much greater weight.

Golf Mk1  - 3.7m x 1.6m
Corsa C - 3.8m x 1.65m (hatch)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: aaronjb on 16 November 2012, 16:25:52
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 16:28:57
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)


I can talk. As a young stud about town, I once owned an Austin Princess 1700.....Shhhh keep it to yourself. ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Kevin Wood on 16 November 2012, 16:32:31
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)


I can talk. As a young stud about town, I once owned an Austin Princess 1700.....Shhhh keep it to yourself. ;D ;D ;)

Oh, same Engine as my Morris Ital..

Oh, 5h1t! I said that out loud, didn't I? :-[
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: omega3000 on 16 November 2012, 16:37:56
Always wanted an Austin Princess  :-X
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 16:44:43
Always wanted an Austin Princess  :-X

Actually, not a bad car, and far superior to a Marina.

Mine came with an advanced ABS system. By this, I mean the brakes were so shite it was impossible to lock the wheels under any conditions. ;D
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 16:47:04
Cars are larger, safer and have considerbly stiffer chassis's. Bolt on all the extra's we all must have and the result is much greater weight.

Golf Mk1  - 3.7m x 1.6m
Corsa C - 3.8m x 1.65m (hatch)

Which model is a Corsa C, Mark? ??? ???
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: henryd on 16 November 2012, 16:49:21
Always wanted an Austin Princess  :-X

Actually, not a bad car, and far superior to a Marina.

Mine came with an advanced ABS system. By this, I mean the brakes were so shite it was impossible to lock the wheels under any conditions. ;D

I had an ambassador 1.7 HL once :-[ :-X
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: omega3000 on 16 November 2012, 16:49:30
Always wanted an Austin Princess  :-X

Actually, not a bad car, and far superior to a Marina.

Mine came with an advanced ABS system. By this, I mean the brakes were so shite it was impossible to lock the wheels under any conditions. ;D

My mates dad had one for years and was used as a private hire taxi , sure it was ex-police  :-\
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 16 November 2012, 16:52:22
Cars are larger, safer and have considerbly stiffer chassis's. Bolt on all the extra's we all must have and the result is much greater weight.

Golf Mk1  - 3.7m x 1.6m
Corsa C - 3.8m x 1.65m (hatch)

Which model is a Corsa C, Mark? ??? ???

The last one, Corsa D (current) is bigger still (4m x 1.7m)

Interestingly, Brazil id full of Corsa saloons, something we never had in europe
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 16:57:01
Always wanted an Austin Princess  :-X

Actually, not a bad car, and far superior to a Marina.

Mine came with an advanced ABS system. By this, I mean the brakes were so shite it was impossible to lock the wheels under any conditions. ;D

My mates dad had one for years and was used as a private hire taxi , sure it was ex-police  :-\


I seem to recall that my Princess  had something called "Displacers"......I've no idea what they did.....or what they were. :-\
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Entwood on 16 November 2012, 16:58:47
Always wanted an Austin Princess  :-X

Actually, not a bad car, and far superior to a Marina.

Mine came with an advanced ABS system. By this, I mean the brakes were so shite it was impossible to lock the wheels under any conditions. ;D

Marina's weren't that bad .. I had the TC Coupe with the 1800 engine, same as the MGB, bit of tweaking and they went pretty well (didn't stop very well .. but went .....  ). Back seat was very comfortable
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: omega3000 on 16 November 2012, 17:04:37
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 16 November 2012, 17:09:03
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P

Ah yes the car that shed weight weekly as it rusted away  ;D

Not to hot with that power either!
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: albitz on 16 November 2012, 17:17:16
Cars are larger, safer and have considerbly stiffer chassis's. Bolt on all the extra's we all must have and the result is much greater weight.

Golf Mk1  - 3.7m x 1.6m
Corsa C - 3.8m x 1.65m (hatch)

Which model is a Corsa C, Mark? ??? ???

The last one, Corsa D (current) is bigger still (4m x 1.7m)

Interestingly, Brazil id full of Corsa saloons, something we never had in europe

We did have the Nova saloon though.My dad bought a brand new one in chocolate brown for some unknown reason. :)

I noticed something about the weight of cars recently.My trolley jack doesnt normally go under the sill of an Omega.I have to lift the car about an inch and then kick the jack under.This was the case with the Omega Im dismantling until I removed the interior and a few other parts.Then the jack went straight under the sill without lifting the car,so the weight of the interior and a few other bits allowed it to rise up a good inch on the suspension.
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 17:18:39
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 16 November 2012, 17:23:30
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y


Nurse!  :y :y :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: henryd on 16 November 2012, 17:24:54
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y

I think the last Tr5's are prettier than the 6's :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 16 November 2012, 17:30:49
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y

I think the last Tr5's are prettier than the 6's :y

yes but that straight six engine with the (intersting if not troublesome) fuel injection!
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: cem_devecioglu on 16 November 2012, 17:32:44
I reckon it's a conspiracy involving the car makers and steel plants! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)

let me add more.. heavy cars consume more fuel ;) ;D ;D
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: henryd on 16 November 2012, 17:33:03
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y

I think the last Tr5's are prettier than the 6's :y

yes but that straight six engine with the (intersting if not troublesome) fuel injection!

the last of the TR5's had that too.....didn't they ???
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 17:35:10
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y

I think the last Tr5's are prettier than the 6's :y

yes but that straight six engine with the (intersting if not troublesome) fuel injection!


The closest I got to that engine was in my Triumph 2500S ......which came with twin SU carbs.
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 16 November 2012, 17:37:05
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y

I think the last Tr5's are prettier than the 6's :y

yes but that straight six engine with the (intersting if not troublesome) fuel injection!

the last of the TR5's had that too.....didn't they ???


They all did, apart from the ones that went to the US. Today, the TR5 is a rare and prized beast.
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: henryd on 16 November 2012, 17:40:08
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y

I think the last Tr5's are prettier than the 6's :y

yes but that straight six engine with the (intersting if not troublesome) fuel injection!

the last of the TR5's had that too.....didn't they ???


They all did, apart from the ones that went to the US. Today, the TR5 is a rare and prized beast.

Yep, as far as I can make out the Tr5 was a Tr4a with the 6pot injected motor,only made for 13 months so as you say proper rare now :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: cem_devecioglu on 16 November 2012, 17:40:51
clit 2
length 3.77 , have all the toys and weighs 950 kg.. ncap 4 stars
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: omega3000 on 16 November 2012, 18:26:30
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P

Ah yes the car that shed weight weekly as it rusted away  ;D

Not to hot with that power either!

Aye but this is where you start ...

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc41/milleblack/qikOLZ2S.jpg)


And this is where you finish  ;D

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc41/milleblack/drunk.jpg)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: cem_devecioglu on 16 November 2012, 18:49:35
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P

Ah yes the car that shed weight weekly as it rusted away  ;D

Not to hot with that power either!

Aye but this is where you start ...

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc41/milleblack/qikOLZ2S.jpg)


And this is where you finish  ;D

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc41/milleblack/drunk.jpg)

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y :y :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: twiglet on 16 November 2012, 19:00:22
Cars are larger, safer and have considerbly stiffer chassis's. Bolt on all the extra's we all must have and the result is much greater weight.

Golf Mk1  - 3.7m x 1.6m
Corsa C - 3.8m x 1.65m (hatch)

Which model is a Corsa C, Mark? ??? ???

The last one, Corsa D (current) is bigger still (4m x 1.7m)

Interestingly, Brazil id full of Corsa saloons, something we never had in europe

We did have the Nova saloon though.My dad bought a brand new one in chocolate brown for some unknown reason. :)

I noticed something about the weight of cars recently.My trolley jack doesnt normally go under the sill of an Omega.I have to lift the car about an inch and then kick the jack under.This was the case with the Omega Im dismantling until I removed the interior and a few other parts.Then the jack went straight under the sill without lifting the car,so the weight of the interior and a few other bits allowed it to rise up a good inch on the suspension.

Are you sure the tyres on the trolley jack weren't just flat?  ??? ;D
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: 05omegav6 on 16 November 2012, 22:09:24
Apparantly, the Granada Scorpio has a GVM that is nearly half a ton less than my Omega :o 1850ishkgs against 2350ish kgs. Both have aircon, heated electric seats (front and rear in the frod).

Biggest single difference between the two is simply the thickness of the metal on the Omega, it really is built like a tank :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Andy B on 16 November 2012, 23:33:37
Apparantly, the Granada Scorpio has a GVM that is nearly half a ton less than my Omega :o 1850ishkgs against 2350ish kgs. Both have aircon, heated electric seats (front and rear in the frod).  ....

you need to be looking at kerb weight, not gross vehicle weight. Haynes give the kerb weight of an Omega as anywhere between 1400kg to 1675kg  ;) ;)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Elite Pete on 17 November 2012, 09:41:49
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P

Ah yes the car that shed weight weekly as it rusted away  ;D

Not to hot with that power either!

Mine was but it cost the builder £14000 back in 1990
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Elite Pete on 17 November 2012, 09:44:24
If i bought another classic it would be a TR7 with V8 conversion , nice and light with some decent power on tap  :P :P


Sorry, EMD.......but the TR7 was a hairdresser's car. :-* :-*

However, I still lust after a TR6. :y :y

I think the last Tr5's are prettier than the 6's :y

yes but that straight six engine with the (intersting if not troublesome) fuel injection!

the last of the TR5's had that too.....didn't they ???

Yep, unless it's a TR250 which will be an imported US version which had carbs
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Elite Pete on 17 November 2012, 09:59:28
Not bad for almost 40 years old ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXEFBpZ_Exk&feature=related
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: symes on 17 November 2012, 19:32:36
Thats quieter inside than my rover-could be the fact that I run straight thru pipes and 1 cherry bomb on each side-put a standard 3.5 set up on for MOT though ;D :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: omega3000 on 17 November 2012, 21:07:06
Not bad for almost 40 years old ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXEFBpZ_Exk&feature=related

Great i really enjoyed that video and the noise  :) :)  :y :y Certainly left all the others behind  :)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Elite Pete on 18 November 2012, 10:33:45
Not bad for almost 40 years old ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXEFBpZ_Exk&feature=related

Great i really enjoyed that video and the noise  :) :)  :y :y Certainly left all the others behind  :)

I love the old Triumphs :y
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 18 November 2012, 20:56:58
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)


I can talk. As a young stud about town, I once owned an Austin Princess 1700.....Shhhh keep it to yourself. ;D ;D ;)

I'm guessing that you weren't getting much, so you ditched it for the Triumph 2500S ??  ???  :)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 19 November 2012, 12:48:12
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)


I can talk. As a young stud about town, I once owned an Austin Princess 1700.....Shhhh keep it to yourself. ;D ;D ;)

I'm guessing that you weren't getting much, so you ditched it for the Triumph 2500S ??  ???  :)


I'll have you know, Mr Tigger that the Princess was a babe magnet.  ;) ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: omega3000 on 19 November 2012, 13:17:21
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)


I can talk. As a young stud about town, I once owned an Austin Princess 1700.....Shhhh keep it to yourself. ;D ;D ;)

I'm guessing that you weren't getting much, so you ditched it for the Triumph 2500S ??  ???  :)


I'll have you know, Mr Tigger that the Princess was a babe magnet.  ;) ;D ;D ;D

And so was the allegro vanden plas  ::) ;D :-*
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: henryd on 19 November 2012, 15:08:01
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)


I can talk. As a young stud about town, I once owned an Austin Princess 1700.....Shhhh keep it to yourself. ;D ;D ;)

I'm guessing that you weren't getting much, so you ditched it for the Triumph 2500S ??  ???  :)


I'll have you know, Mr Tigger that the Princess was a babe magnet.  ;) ;D ;D ;D

And so was the allegro vanden plas ::) ;D :-*

The one I had wasn't  :'( :-X
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Andy B on 19 November 2012, 15:21:25
....
And so was the allegro vanden plas  ::) ;D :-*

The bog standard All-Agro was bad, but the VDP hit every branch when it fell from the ugly tree.  ::)  ::)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: henryd on 19 November 2012, 16:46:18
....
And so was the allegro vanden plas  ::) ;D :-*

The bog standard All-Agro was bad, but the VDP hit every branch when it fell from the ugly tree.  ::)  ::)

Lovely inside though 8)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 19 November 2012, 16:48:50
....
And so was the allegro vanden plas  ::) ;D :-*

The bog standard All-Agro was bad, but the VDP hit every branch when it fell from the ugly tree.  ::)  ::)

Lovely inside though 8)


................every car should have picnic tables.... :)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: henryd on 19 November 2012, 16:53:12
....
And so was the allegro vanden plas  ::) ;D :-*

The bog standard All-Agro was bad, but the VDP hit every branch when it fell from the ugly tree.  ::)  ::)

Lovely inside though 8)


................every car should have picnic tables.... :)

Mine did,actually it belonged to a retired bank manager,when I bought it it had covered 16k miles in 17 years :o
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: Sir Tigger KC on 19 November 2012, 21:08:00
Are you admitting to  ownership of an Austin All-aggro, Aaron?

You're a braver man than I. ;D ;D ;)

Keep up old chap.. I've admitted to it several times here over the years ;D  :-[ :-[

1978, same age as me, donated by my Granddad complete with the dual controls he had installed as a driving instructor years before.. leaky, slow, bouncy but a wonderful first car back in 1996 ;)


I can talk. As a young stud about town, I once owned an Austin Princess 1700.....Shhhh keep it to yourself. ;D ;D ;)

I'm guessing that you weren't getting much, so you ditched it for the Triumph 2500S ??  ???  :)


I'll have you know, Mr Tigger that the Princess was a babe magnet.  ;) ;D ;D ;D

Hmmmm...... That hydro-elastic suspension could take some abuse, so if you kept it pumped up it should have coped nicely with the motion of the ocean!!!  ;D ;D ;D  I expect the ladies found it very comfortable....  ;) 

Whats the old saying?  ???  'Built for comfort not for speed'  :)
Title: Re: 781 KG
Post by: omega3000 on 19 November 2012, 21:39:42
They must have built them allegro's like tanks , my mate had one as a first car and took me out in it . He was spamming on about how well it took the corners ... however it didnt stop us going through a brick wall on a hairpin bend  ::) ::) It still went on years after that , still a few on egay as well  :-X