Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would anyone on here really want to own-up to

> owning one?



Whilst I myself don't have a brand new car, I don't see anything wrong with having one if you can comfortably afford it. If people want to splash out on a motor that's straight out of the showroom, then let them get on with it. There's nothing to feel ashamed about. Also, the 'penis extension' is usually associated with guys in Ferraris or Lamborghinis..not quite the same if you buy a brand new Fiat or Renault!

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't have a car at all but if the person who

> owns the DB7 parked on Melbourne Grove would like

> to take me for a spin.....


What, the one with the illegal number plates ?


Its just a mondeo with a few badges on it - and a big slab of ego trip


I cannot see the sense in buying a new car - company car owners aside - what benefit is there in paying a premium to buy it new as opposed to getting one 3 months old with 1000 miles on the clock for 20% less ?


Its utterly insane & I see otherwise level headed people doing it all the time - it is worth several thousand / tens of thousand of quid ( in some cases ) just to get that brief shopping buzz ?


Some would say its barking wasteful selfish etc etc etc

snorky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I cannot see the sense in buying a new car -

> company car owners aside - what benefit is there

> in paying a premium to buy it new as opposed to

> getting one 3 months old with 1000 miles on the

> clock for 20% less ?


Ah but where would all the second hand cars come from if people didn?t buy new ones?


Personally I feel that a car should to be at least 25 years old and preferably have chrome on it. Does that make me more or less pretentious than someone who goes out and buys a brand new TT?

cars no longer rust after the first few months and car tool kits dont have cold chisels in them any longer.... cars use more energy in their construction that they can use ( and therefor "save" ) during their lifetime - often, the greener the cars, the more wasteful they can be, should you build in the construction energy expense


cars now have the capability to last a lifetime ( dont laugh )



- so reusing and repairing cars is probabaly better for the planet at this lates pre collapse stage anyway


But thats a very utilitarian viewpopint and we know that the majority of new car buying isnt becasue their old one is shagged or the head gasket has gone, but its a vanity decision - new car=visible bauble of success amongst peers etc


and its fashion as well - the so called Chelsea tractors are more frequesntly bought by the proles than the toffs these days ( see also Golf GTI )

Brendan Wrote:


>

> Personally I feel that a car should to be at least

> 25 years old and preferably have chrome on it.

> Does that make me more or less pretentious than

> someone who goes out and buys a brand new TT?


I don't know if it makes you more or less pretentious but it certainly means I share your taste.

I had a dream a few weeks ago that I bought an old farmhouse and in the garage was an old cortina (Mark 4 mind) that I fixed up. Mrs b doesn?t like them though for some inexplicable reason.


Reminds of an old South African proverb. All a man needs is 1 litre of brandy, 2 litres of Coke and a 3 litre Ford.

snorky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ive been looking at Mk3 Cortinas on Ebay

> recently.. how sad is that


Not sad at all!!! I'm currently getting itch about this


It's a MK2. I have the MK1 so would complete the set... ;-) Have to get rid of my MG first though....

Despite it being possibly one of the worst motorcycles I've ever owned, for some reason I grew very attached to this little East German number..

If you misplaced (what I think you could loosely call) the key, you could start it by sticking a teaspoon into the ignition - which (logically) was located on the top of the headlamp.


file.php?20,file=712

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...