Family Vehicle?

[santaman2000]

Ideally yes, two or three or more cars. But then the crunch. Money! Fixed budget (currently undecided like type of vehicle).

So let's say £10,000, two cars = say £4,000 small / medium car leaves £6,000 for a bigger, weekend / activities car.

What you get is a lower quality of car but two of them it you compromise and get one better car that's best for one use.

Plus running costs. Unfortunately we chose a good few years ago to only ever run one car at a time unless work situation changed drastically such that we needed a car each. Environmental, cost and parking space on a good old northern terraced street.

I do however feel multiple cars is a very American approach (no offence intended). I was a young kid when my grandparents came back from America (visiting my American granddad's mother and relatives for the first time since he left in the 40s. He came back with a newspaper cutting with a house for sale Basically a very big house, in a nice neighbourhood and big garden for half the pokey UK house prices. I only saw the nearly new muscle car going for the price of a 5 year old escort(or possibly a lot less). I think cars are cheaper all round in the US perhaps.

Personally we need less cars in the world IMHO) I'm a cyclist and cycle commuter so direct vested interest in seeing that happen.

No offense taken Paul. I knew before I suggested it that it might not be possible. I only suggested at all because you're asking for a lot of qualities/capabilities from a single vehicle. I'm sure you'll be able to find a good compromise and like I said earlier, please keep us informed about your final decision.

 

[Billy-o]

In the 70s we did well with a cortina estate. Three kids and a load of kayaks and surf boards as well as a big cooker affair on the roof.

If you aren’t going to go for a truck and a tarp, you could take a look at a Honda Odyssey, or a Toyota Previa. If you can find a Honda Element buy it anyway. Look at their Pilot too and the Toyota Highlander.

 

[Janne]

Yes, an average family car has easily 150 bhp today. In those days 80-100.
1966 Ford 20M 2 liter engine 90 ps
1972 Ford Granada 2 liter engine 92 ps
2018 Ford Mondeo 2 liter engine 203 ps

I had a -72 Consul 2.6 l V6 ( German made, superior built quality compared to the English cobbled together vehicle named Grenada) which was my dad’s old car.
Had the Cologne V6, an improved version of the Essex V6
120 ps or so before I tuned it. Big bottom carburettor, tuned airintake, no airfilter, easy flow exhaust.
First car I did some work on.

Drank petrol like I owned a well though after my tuning.
Same engine was made in the US for the N. American market but heavily detuned not to compete with the larger displacement Ford engines.

As your budget is limited, I would not buy two cars. You can ‘go retro’ and camp like in the good old days. Your wife and kids will love it!

 

[dwardo]

Very impressed by our CRV.

All depends on price though.

 

[Paul_B]

Today's cars have more powerful engines than those that were made in the 60s and 70s? That was the very height of the muscle car era. Ever since then power has taken a backseat to fuel efficiency. Today's cars are certainly technologically superior to then.

I'm not sure the UK did muscle cars in the same way.

Unless you're talking of a Healey 3000 in British racing green with wire wheels and an exhaust note / engine noise rarely bested IMHO.

I'm no enthusiast but as a kid with a deputy head who drove one of those British classics as his day to day car I certainly appreciate its qualities. Like the ability to hear when he starts it up from anywhere in the school grounds. Pure growl!

My favourite classic used to be a hard top E-type but after seeing and hearing that car the jag is a second rate car IMHO. It's not about pure (fiddled) top speed IMHO. It's the other qualities you can't explain. Even top gear presenters resorted to puerile comments about what the F-type exhaust sounds does to them. BTW JLR engineers had a real difficulty getting that right.

As I said I'm a utilitarian car owner not an enthusiast. I just want a means to get around in the manner I need to get around. I'm not into noisy exhaust noise or engines or even looks (to a certain degree I'll never own a small fiat, micra cc, new mini, etc.).

Boot space is more important than 0-62mph acceleration. Litres in 4 figures with the seats down more important than even BHP in three figures or acceleration into single, decimal figures.

Time between servicing is an interesting statistic now , it seems some are lengthening the time between servicing which improves running costs. I'm not a tinkered so servicing means time without car and hassle of dropping it into the garage and collecting it before it shuts, plus money out the door.

Vans we don't really want but they can be very practical for our needs / wants. Looking again at camper conversion companies and unless you get a big van they all look poky and dark. Why do VW vans command such high prices when even they look poky and not very nice to spend time in? £62,000 for a bit standard but 63 plate vw conversion it's not right when another van make van be very similar for easily half that cost.

As I said big vans for campers but then they're only a second leisure vehicle. A day van in a smaller van size without the big side conversion cabinets might work. Say a 2 seat (non- folding) right behind front seats (which are on swivel plates) with a table mount between and a very basic stove / sink unit behind to one side. Insulated and heated for winter comfort at the end of a walk / ride. Small enough for day use but pop top to get headroom (not for me, I'm 196cm tall even an iveco high top might see me ducking).

No I think it's going to be a modest family car. Suv for motorway height (small / mid van would be good for this too. Just not Ford (ncap 3 in current kuga/focus/Cmax builds).

Anyone buy a car with pull out bike racks from the bumper? I know of someone who bought a used car with this. Seems a good idea in principle as we're long at towbar / towbar bike carrier without it.

 

[Paul_B]

Retro camping? I'm still trying to get a bell tent / pyramid tent purchase through the financial controller (can't get a £3000-4000 bike purchase through but spending that for a short family break and it's not a problem. I don't understand the logic).

Affordability is difficult. We could afford a lot (well perhaps up to £25k used on tick) but won't go that high. Spend too much on one thing and you lose ability to spend on other potentially more important things like experiences with your family. So we'll aim for £5k or so cash and live life more. Just hopefully not in a garage

 

[Mr Wolf]

To be honest,you wont find anything ideal.
Its a question of where your willing to comprimise.
The options are endless,just look through auto trader advanced search and see what catches your eye.
good luck

 

[Paul_B]

Nothing does. That's the real issue. In the absence of a firm set of criteria for the vehicle it relies on something catching our attention. It's all bland IMHO.

 

[Janne]

Retro camping as camping without taking the household including the full bathroom setup.

I am unclear, are you looking for a van only?

 

[santaman2000]

I'm not sure the UK did muscle cars in the same way.

Unless you're talking of a Healey 3000 in British racing green with wire wheels and an exhaust note / engine noise rarely bested IMHO.

I'm no enthusiast but as a kid with a deputy head who drove one of those British classics as his day to day car I certainly appreciate its qualities. Like the ability to hear when he starts it up from anywhere in the school grounds. Pure growl!

My favourite classic used to be a hard top E-type but after seeing and hearing that car the jag is a second rate car IMHO. It's not about pure (fiddled) top speed IMHO. It's the other qualities you can't explain. Even top gear presenters resorted to puerile comments about what the F-type exhaust sounds does to them. BTW JLR engineers had a real difficulty getting that right.

As I said I'm a utilitarian car owner not an enthusiast. I just want a means to get around in the manner I need to get around. I'm not into noisy exhaust noise or engines or even looks (to a certain degree I'll never own a small fiat, micra cc, new mini, etc.).

Boot space is more important than 0-62mph acceleration. Litres in 4 figures with the seats down more important than even BHP in three figures or acceleration into single, decimal figures.

Time between servicing is an interesting statistic now , it seems some are lengthening the time between servicing which improves running costs. I'm not a tinkered so servicing means time without car and hassle of dropping it into the garage and collecting it before it shuts, plus money out the door.

Vans we don't really want but they can be very practical for our needs / wants. Looking again at camper conversion companies and unless you get a big van they all look poky and dark. Why do VW vans command such high prices when even they look poky and not very nice to spend time in? £62,000 for a bit standard but 63 plate vw conversion it's not right when another van make van be very similar for easily half that cost.

As I said big vans for campers but then they're only a second leisure vehicle. A day van in a smaller van size without the big side conversion cabinets might work. Say a 2 seat (non- folding) right behind front seats (which are on swivel plates) with a table mount between and a very basic stove / sink unit behind to one side. Insulated and heated for winter comfort at the end of a walk / ride. Small enough for day use but pop top to get headroom (not for me, I'm 196cm tall even an iveco high top might see me ducking).

No I think it's going to be a modest family car. Suv for motorway height (small / mid van would be good for this too. Just not Ford (ncap 3 in current kuga/focus/Cmax builds).

Anyone buy a car with pull out bike racks from the bumper? I know of someone who bought a used car with this. Seems a good idea in principle as we're long at towbar / towbar bike carrier without it.

I've more or less outgrown the attraction to the muscle cars as well. Apart from nostalgia. That said, engine power also affects your ability to tow. it almost sounds as if that might be your better option providing you can find a place to park a small trailer?

Yes, time between servicing is much, much better now thanks to improved modern lubricants and modern metallurgy.

 

[santaman2000]

Yes, an average family car has easily 150 bhp today. In those days 80-100.
1966 Ford 20M 2 liter engine 90 ps
1972 Ford Granada 2 liter engine 92 ps
2018 Ford Mondeo 2 liter engine 203 ps...

None of those were muscle cars and 2 liters was/is a baby engine compared to muscle cars.

A 1968 Camaro had a baseline engine of 350 cubic inches (5.7 liters) and an option for a 396 cubic inch (6.5 liters)
A similar era Ford Mustang had a baseline 289 cubic inch engine (4.7 liters)
A Pontiac Trans Am had the occasional 455 cubic inch engine (7.4 liters)

 

[Janne]

In the US yes.....
In Europe, (where cars were invented and perfected) , we have always preferred smaller, more efficient engines.
Some European manufacturers without the capacity for developing and manufacturing an own engine did buy US engines. Bristol, AC, some others. All dead now.

Did the -68 Camaro do over 200Km/h? I am unsure.
My Ford did after my 'fixing'. Did 180 km/h before. I know because dad was clocked by the police with me inside. No fine though, they liked his explanation!

Big engines are lovely to drive, but not terribly fuel efficient.
I had a Bristol 411 S5 ( 1976) with a 402 cu/inch engine I rebuilt /Edelbrocked.
10 miles to the Imp Gallon.....

I have now a car with a European 5.75L engine. I think it does around 15 miles/Imp gallon.
living on a small Island, and only the occasional drive makes it OK.

Brakes:
Brakes can be slightly 'different' for a couple of hours, then when the disks and pads break in they should feel perfect, just as good as when the car was new.
Anything else is a shoddy job. Unacceptable, specially with the money you paid!

 

[santaman2000]

In the US yes.....
In Europe, where cars were invented, we have always preferred smaller, more efficient engines.
Some European manufacturers without the capacity for developing and manufacturing an own engine did buy US engines. Bristol, AC, some others. All dead now.

Not the point. The point was "muscle cars" of a bygone era had more powerful engines than today.

 

[Paul_B]

Of the peg muscle cars of the past compared to modern high powered cars that could be considered equivalent then I doubt you'd have much difference. IIRC there's quite a few 500+bhp production cars out there. There's a close to 1000bhp production car in think I read somewhere and that's without going into the super / hyper car levels like the veyron or the modified car market.

A garage owner near us has a skyline GT that he's allegedly got to something like 680bhp.

What bhp were 60s/70s muscle cars?

Of course I'm no car nut so I could be wrong but if you compare like for like they're more powerful now.

 

[Mr Wolf]

There's a close to 1000bhp production

Shelby supersnakes

 

[Paul_B]

Van, van based car, estate mpv, suv, 4x4, hatchback, etc. Not bothered really. Need volume to carry kit, space for at least 3 (5 really} ppl and ability to take a towbar cycle carrier or fit 3 bikes inside plus passengers. Other than that not too expensive.

Whatever catches our eyes. As my partner put it, this is the first time we've looked for a new car and not had any ideas of what we want. That makes it hard to find something and hard to get motivated to look.

If anyone can come up with something exciting that's suitable for anything from £4000 - £8000 that's not too old or too high mileage then please make that suggestion. We have no idea what it could be because nothing seems interesting. It's all meh!

One thing we've gone off the vw stable of brands. After being unable to buy wiper blades from Halfords for our seat we've become pi$$Ed off with them.

 

[Paul_B]

Shelby supersnakes

Wasn't one of the most famous shelby models designed by a brit from a UK brand or was that Hollywood guff? I seem to remember it from "gone in 60 seconds" with Nicholas cage.

 

[Janne]

Yes. AC Cobra.
AC = Auto Carriers Ltd , a Britsh company.

Was/is made both in UK and US.

Would an Italian car with 515 ps count as a muscle car?

The 402 cu inch V8 as fitted to the Bristol ( unmodified) had maximum 280 ps. Some say maybe 300 ps.

 

[Mr Wolf]

Yes. AC Cobra.
AC = Auto Carriers Ltd , a Britsh company.

Was/is made both in UK and US.

Would an Italian car with 515 ps count as a muscle car?

The 402 cu inch V8 as fitted to the Bristol ( unmodified) had maximum 280 ps. Some say maybe 300 ps.

Facto....ac cobra was the reason for motorway speedlimits in uk
Musclecars are big cars with big displacement.
I leave that to the mericans and aussies.
Im strange and prefer big bhp out small engines.

 

[santaman2000]

.....What bhp were 60s/70s muscle cars?.....
.

The 396 was "rated" between 325 and 375 BHP but real world analysis. Not sure about the 289 or 454/455 (I could look them up but I'm sure they'd be proportional)

Facto....ac cobra was the reason for motorway speedlimits in uk
Musclecars are big cars with big displacement.
I leave that to the mericans and aussies.
Im strange and prefer big bhp out small engines.

^What he said.^ Except I like big engines better.