"Chris Bartram" <news (AT) delete-me (DOT) piglet-net.net> wrote

IME it still costs less to thrash a small engine than go easy on a big
engine.

Z

"Zimmy" <z@y.x> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

If you're driving back lanes, it's a damn sight more fun to spank a
lightweight, small-engined car with a competent chassis than to cruise in
a comfobarge.

(I have no idea if the Direwolet in question has a competent chassis or
not - and no intention to find out - but, somehow, I doubt it...)

Zimmy <z@y.x> wrote:

Given that this Matiz was doing similar mpg to a 4.0 litres Yank Tank,
that's a view that's difficult to justify.

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote


Actually the Dire-0-let chassis wasnt too bad on that front.

It has silly 135 section tyres which would go into understeer just by
looking at them, but if something abit wider was popped on it'd handle
pretty good. Even so, got some lurid snap oversteer / 4 wheel drifting with
abit of deft 2nd gear / wot / left foot braking too. Hugely fun!

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
I'm slightly surprised by that... driven one as a hire car around narrow
mountain roads (max achievable speed 60kph) and the economy was reasonable
(not that I can remember figures). Quite good for town where the roads are
very tight.

Wasn't too good at going up hills though (in a first gear, foot to
the floor kind of way).

As others have said, luggage space about enough for a big rucksack, big fat
pillars, poor rear view, not much space in the back. But maybe these are
common on modern small cars.

Theo

"Tim.." <the.farm.no (AT) spam (DOT) btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Pffft. That's an upgrade size for some of us...!

Zimmy wrote:
worse with a 2 litre one.