February

[TerryG]

I got my copy yesterday and just started reading it.
All good until I got to page 29. What on earth are smart cars doing in PC?!?! they aren't very old, the aren't very interesting, they are certainly not very practical as they only have 2 seats and a boot that is filled by 2 carrier bags. They are certainly not classics!

[JPB]

Too young as yet in my view, but the first purely clean sheet design to be launched since 26/08/59 which must count for something. That much-loved previous effort reused an existing engine, Smart didn't, at least not reused from a car. (Mercedes' OM660 799cc Diesel as fitted to Smarts was used in non-turbo form in several boats and a motorcycle though).
My new washing machine came home in the boot of mine, the two shopping bags had to go on the floor in front of the passenger seat, but the boot's amply large, not compromised as there's not a vestigial seat to get in the way as there is in so many small cars these days. Tell me, how often does your huge off roader need to carry four people? If I need more seats, I take either one of the classics or the Jetta. Even one up, I can legally travel in high occupancy lanes. Can a solo Range Rover occupant do that? Thought not.
Not very interesting? Oh dear, you need to have a shot in one. I guarantee that doing so would see that rather hard of thinking remark overturned. They're an engaging wee thing, handling is frankly amazing - as you'd expect from most two seaters whose engines sit directly between the rear wheels - and unless you do as Top Gear did (traction control on and inflate the front tyres to 80psi having first scrubbed their tread) they really don't understeer catastrophically, no matter how hard you corner.
Any time you wish to cast off your irrational prejudice Terry, you're welcome to come round and have a go in mine.

Meanwhile, I don't come on here telling you how rubbish your modern is, because I'm really quite open minded that way.

[TerryG]

I knew that would get a reply fairly quickly, lol.
In my opinion, 14 years old at most does not make a classic.
As a modern then it is a very small car, I have driven a couple and they aren't great to drive. Far from the worst thing I have ever driven but certainly nothing special. I wouldn't own one as my modern frequently has to accept 3 passengers and lots of server equipment. That and I like Fords so tend to be a bit biased when picking my daily drivers.
I was passed by a smart "city coupe" doing well in excess of the speed limit on the M1 on Christmas eve and remember thinking to myself "on tyres that thin when the only crumple zone is my knees I wouldn't be doing 90 on a wet motorway."
My modern is a Focus Diesel. It's a horrid, soulless and plasticky black box. It's only redeeming features are that it gets 50mpg dragging me almost 90 miles every day and it has comfy seats. It was launched in 1998 too but is it a classic? NO!
It could be worse, they could have put another Rover 45 in.

I'm another 50 pages in now and have seen one of Brett's rivals for the next shitbox ralley. the Rover SD1 looks very special!

[Luxobarge]

John - a predictable rant from you, none of which provides a shred of justification for finding such a car in a classic car magazine. I could probably get four or five washing machines in my Volvo, it doesn't make it a classic, or even particularly remarkable.

And I have driven a Smart - it was awful, not an experience I'd ever want to repeat. But that's just my opinion.

Hey ho, that's why I don't bother with the magazine these days.

[JPB]

I wasn't trying to justify its inclusion, hence the bit that said

Too young as yet in my view

, but was merely setting straight the usual prejudices, hence the observation about the washer.
Terry, tyres are 175/45x15 and 195/50x15 (yes, the same size as those fitted to the Volvo 244GLT but with kerbing beads), front and rear, so are around the same sizes as found on many other small cars or older, larger ones. Skinnier front ones might be better in the circumstances you suggest since the ones fitted would be more likely to aquaplane if overinflated and lacking in tread depth as per the (155/65x15) comedy tyres fitted to make the 450 understeer in Top Gear's rather more amusing bit of Smart-related pee-taking.

That wasn't a rant, by the way. Whatever it was someone clearly made their mind up that way without reading it.
I'm not Mashers, I'm not given to ranting.

And who mentioned its crashworthiness? If I'd been paranoid about having a shunt and being killed by my car, then I'd have bought a Renault Migraine.

that's why I don't bother with the magazine these days.

Then with the greatest of respect, what qualifies you to pass judgement on those who have done so?

[Grease Monkey]

Although I may be biased, I think the last few issues of the magazine have been the best in a long while

As we don't specialise in one particular make it is very difficult to get the balance right every month, we try to keep everyone happy & offer a good variety of cars.

Don't get into the old chestnut of what is & what isn't a 'classic'.




John.

[TerryG]

Hi John,
The standard is pretty high compared to a few years ago. When the only thing I can find to grumble about is 1/4 page and I am a fussy bugger you are definitely doing something right.
I still think the anniversary issue is the best you have ever printed and will take some serious topping.

If you are looking at suggestions for things to increase the readership (or at least people to look at the pictures) Could I suggest more longstone flip outs?

[Mitsuru]

If you're doing the smart car, which is a little too new!

What about a little article on the mk1 Chrysler Neon it was introduced
January 1994 for the 1995 model year, which means it was on sale
in 1994 according to the guys on the neon fan forums.

And there are fewer every year the engine was then used in the pt
cruiser and voyager. But hasn't really been mentioned in UK mags.

The automatic gearbox and some parts come off the talbot horizon too!

[Mikey77]

I don't want to win the anorak award but - the Jaguar on page 19 is by no earthly stretch of the imagination an SS100. It might just be an SS (it actually looks like a post-war Mk V to me) but if it is the initials definitely mean Souped-up Standard.
I can understand your excitement about tripping over this collection but I am willing to bet a nice crisp new £20 note that they will never be transformed into a motor museum.
Talking about excitement, I wouldn't get too enthused over the investment potential of Mercedes coupes either (see auction page). I am also willing to bet I could go out and buy a W116 280CE in decent condition for the same sort of money as I paid for my ten-year-old one no less than 26 years ago.

[suffolkpete]

the first purely clean sheet design to be launched since 26/08/59 which must count for something.

Not so, the Rover 2000, launched in 1963, was a clean sheet design.