3 registered members (Fre3_D0om, slicer, RichG),
226
guests, and 2
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums69
Topics113,680
Posts1,341,731
Members1,830
|
Most Online731 Jan 14th, 2020
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#763441
03/02/2009 15:29
03/02/2009 15:29
|
peanuthead
Unregistered
|
peanuthead
Unregistered
|
acutlly over a 16vt i would take the rover
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#763445
03/02/2009 15:29
03/02/2009 15:29
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,919 Stoke-on-Trent duck!
Tommy_Coop23
My life on the forum
|
My life on the forum
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,919
Stoke-on-Trent duck!
|
Yeah i know what you mean, v boring interior, the coupe interior looks stunning espec with chrome rings, the body coloured strip is a class act, makes me smile everytime i sit in the car i like the front of the gtv and side on is not bad, but the rear is hideous, looks really dated, park all 3 side by side, coupe would outshine them both with ease In fact, when i park the coupe up in public car park (a rare occurence lol), its very rare that i see a car around it that looks as good unless its exotic
I'll be back Alor Blue Seat Leon FR 180 atm
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: Tommy_Coop23]
#763467
03/02/2009 15:50
03/02/2009 15:50
|
RICHB
Unregistered
|
RICHB
Unregistered
|
Cheers for that Trappy, a good read, its interesting to see the coupe compared to its peers, competition it was up against at its time of release & design, rather than pointless comparisons with much more modern cars (IMHO)
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#763492
03/02/2009 16:19
03/02/2009 16:19
|
peanuthead
Unregistered
|
peanuthead
Unregistered
|
not really i have both on my drive and i have a speed red 20vt aned a thati blue 220 coupe n/a and i would say they both look great!
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#767083
06/02/2009 22:28
06/02/2009 22:28
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,581 London
MrCooper
I need some sleep
|
I need some sleep
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,581
London
|
im not taking the mich because i think it does and its more fun to drive and cheaper to run! i find the seats nicer and its much easier to work on mine was miles more reliable than the coop in a big way! if i had the choice of the two side by side and rust wasn't a problem on the rover i would be hard pushed to choose You are one crazy dude!
Ex Grigio Moon 20VT Plus Ex 350Z Now Aston Martin Vantage
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: MrCooper]
#767300
07/02/2009 11:39
07/02/2009 11:39
|
peanuthead
Unregistered
|
peanuthead
Unregistered
|
not at all i have had both and i know from experiance. put it this way it is a diffrent best but just as good if not better than a 20vt coupe and i would take it over a 16vt coupe everytime
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#767328
07/02/2009 12:26
07/02/2009 12:26
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
The 220 Rover coupe is ok, but there is no way on earth I would rather have one than a good 16VT If I was given one maybe the best thing to do would be to scrap it and fit the engine into my brothers Morris Minor.
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#767398
07/02/2009 14:13
07/02/2009 14:13
|
JIM16vt
Unregistered
|
JIM16vt
Unregistered
|
why do you sat that mate,iv got a 16vt put i would really like to no why you would rather the 16vt than the 20vt
Last edited by JIM16vt; 07/02/2009 14:13.
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#767428
07/02/2009 14:52
07/02/2009 14:52
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
why do you sat that mate,iv got a 16vt put i would really like to no why you would rather the 16vt than the 20vt I never said that. What I said was.. I would rather have a 16VT than a 220 coupe Rover.
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#767464
07/02/2009 16:00
07/02/2009 16:00
|
philiplazyjourno
Unregistered
|
philiplazyjourno
Unregistered
|
Think he meant this dude: "not at all i have had both and i know from experiance. put it this way it is a diffrent best but just as good if not better than a 20vt coupe and i would take it over a 16vt coupe everytime "
...who has clearly never driven a 16vt. I did have a look at Rover Coupes about five or six years ago, but they're all just a bit.. shit. They look reasonable when standard, but any of the ones I found were all like something out of Max Power. Innit.
Last edited by philiplazyjourno; 07/02/2009 16:11. Reason: Quick look on pistonheads says it all - not one Turbo in standard condition - silly spoilers, tinted windows, big "rims" et al. Chavtastic
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#767580
07/02/2009 19:06
07/02/2009 19:06
|
JIM16vt
Unregistered
|
JIM16vt
Unregistered
|
sorry i miss read your post
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#767609
07/02/2009 19:40
07/02/2009 19:40
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
sorry i miss read your post I think we all do that from time to time.
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#768015
08/02/2009 13:52
08/02/2009 13:52
|
JIM16vt
Unregistered
|
JIM16vt
Unregistered
|
the bigger the thread the more likly i am to read it wrong[lol]
|
|
|
Re: Autocar- 16vT vs Rover 220 turbo and Prelude V
[Re: ]
#768127
08/02/2009 16:21
08/02/2009 16:21
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
symonh2000
Unregistered
|
the bigger the thread the more likly i am to read it wrong[lol] We all make mistakes, no one in inflammable.
|
|
|
|