UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

probably the same kind of stereotyping that the mk2 is a granny car (or a cardigan-wearing leather patched uncle kind of car), the mk3 is a non descript slug etc

which im pretty sure we know not to be true

PS never mind the rover 100, what of the CityRover? I think any man caught behind the wheel of one of them may well have to kill themselves on being brought back to conciousness.
Not just because its an ultimately girly car, but because it's sh*t and awful too.

I saw a guy driving a ford street ka today, i had to stop driving as i was laughing so much, theres no doubt that is a girls car

the later models of the Polo are girls cars. They get daddy to pay for it and us lads are stuck with working hard, so we can only afford the early models. But some of the new shape polos look pretty mean.


Also depends on the colour. That Light Blue Metalic colour is just terrible. Waste of a Polo imo

Giorgio wrote:the later models of the Polo are girls cars. They get daddy to pay for it and us lads are stuck with working hard, so we can only afford the early models. But some of the new shape polos look pretty mean.


Also depends on the colour. That Light Blue Metalic colour is just terrible. Waste of a Polo imo

I'm a girl and i've had to work dame hard to get things done on my polo aswell as pay to get myself though UNI I think your statement over 'GET DADDY TO PAY FOR IT' is slightly wrong don't you???

lol ! he's just jealous

Prash wrote:lol ! he's just jealous

A11XLG wrote:

Giorgio wrote:the later models of the Polo are girls cars. They get daddy to pay for it and us lads are stuck with working hard, so we can only afford the early models. But some of the new shape polos look pretty mean.


Also depends on the colour. That Light Blue Metalic colour is just terrible. Waste of a Polo imo

I'm a girl and i've had to work dame hard to get things done on my polo aswell as pay to get myself though UNI I think your statement over 'GET DADDY TO PAY FOR IT' is slightly wrong don't you???

I'm a bloke I work hard and have just picked up my 2001 Polo GTi, so I wouldn't say we can only afford the early models.

pettsy wrote:don't even strart on trying to explain how a supercharger works "is it as fast as a turbo" (when they don't even know what a turbo does!!)

Tell me about it, a bunch of barryboys in my 6th form common room were discussing their cars, (saxo VTR, corsa GSi etc.) and one was saying his was faster because he had fuel injection, and the other one was saying that his was faster because it had an overhead cam.... . Just shows how f•cking stupid most barryboys are.

My polo 1.3 mk4 has injection, hell even golf mk2s had injection technology!
Pretty sure all internal combustion engines have had OHCs.... (although my pre-1960's engine knowledge is non-existant)

OHC and fuel injection is pretty much the rule now, i'd love to see you inform them of that next time they real that nonsense out.

mind you it's not universal - there's probably one or two hangers-on still somehow getting away with carburettors (maybe??), and the ford Ka might still be running on a pushrod engine - i.e. the camshaft is geared to the crank, down the side of the motor rather than on top. It certainly was when it was launched. A more reliable (mostly) method of moving your valves, but not quite as efficient and can put holes in the block rather than just bending valves / mashing head if it goes nipples skywards.

neither of those neccessarily gives more power, however, but generally more tuneable. generally.
still, i'd like to show them the power of a twin 40 weber'd (or a quad...) version of e.g. a mk2, then reveal that it completely ignores fuel injection. or a well tuned yank tank with a pushrod engine........

(perhaps they were getting confused about Multipoint injection, and Double overhead cam - ie the difference between a CL and a GT, or an 8 and a 16 valve)

just goes to show that a good mark of a barry is mouthing off about something without knowing the first thing about it

helios1 wrote:Pretty sure all internal combustion engines have had OHCs.... (although my pre-1960's engine knowledge is non-existant)

CIH's were made untill 1993 (Cam in Head and not to be confused with OHC)

Several cars are still made without OHC or DOHC and they power some fairly desirable cars

Rotary engines don't have OHC's - nuff said

Rover V8's (basically a small block yank lump have their cam in the block and pushrods work the valves) TVR haven't long stopped using these engines!!!

I could go on but I'd be being a bore!!!

Minis have the cam in the block and uses push rods Sup Sup

Didn't know you could have CIH, just goes to show how little i actually know about engines.

Hmm, think i may have misled you with my first post - what i ment to say was that the barrys thought that OHC and fuel injection were 2 different types of fueling system, as in, an engine with a camshaft was different to an engine with fuel injection...

idiots

christ, that's pretty bad

mind you old mate of mine was a bit like that with computers ... i think a certain blindness sets in sometimes, when you get too sure of yourself without any supporting evidence to back that up, and you lose the ability to change your mind. he loved his pc, mainly for gaming, and doing the odd (minor/cheap) upgrade here and there ... but except for the odd lucky break (getting a deceptively powerful graphics card for not much money etc) he really didn't know what he was doing, or the reasons for something going wrong. All the same, some odd random idea would get into his head before any investigation was made, and off we went on a bit of a wild goose chase 'til I could steer us back to checking for what the fault was and fixing it. EG, the hard drive gets bad sectors... is it the monitor? WTF?

even worse when you want to combine it with boasting and one-upmanship.

another couple of great ones in the pub tonight .... our regular pub quiz team being supplanted by a regular mate's cousin and one of her usually distant friends, and their SO's. not too bad folks, but not generally that bright save for the FoaF. particularly the cousin is a right barry, but just likeable enough to not get decked by one of us on a regular basis. couple of nice ones.....

quiz question..... which has more calories in it..... pint of lager, pint of cider, or can of coke.... hmmm, tricky question we all think. coke is jam full of sugar, but would the alcohol content of the other drinks and their greater volume swing it? however he's got better ideas, and a bigger mouth... "it's the cider" (surprise surprise, he likes cheap cider) --- for reasons he didn't explain --- "certainly aint the coke, as it don't have any calories in"
er.... yeah... how you figure that then? what about all the sugar?
"well its not really got any sugar in, and sugar isnt calories anyway....."
hello? planet earth calling... sugar=pure calories.. stop trying to argue the metabolic toss with a biology graduate, kid
"na, na, that's wrong, shut up.."
(needless to say his school days were a bit of a wasteland)

as i was the one driving (some of us anyway ), i made a point of getting my next coke in a bottle rather than off the tap so i could show him that each 330ml serving has a little over 7 teaspoons of sugar in - ever have a coffee with 7 scoops in, mate? thats what this bottle represents... - and a good 150 calories, or in other words, about 5% of a tall, active bloke's RDA ('n probably about 10% of his, the underage scrawn).

course, it didnt stop him mouthing off because, having made the claim, his barry DNA didn't let him accept it and back down.... only his girlfriend doing something unpleasant and possibly illegal that we didnt see dammed the verbal flood.

also liked his claim that, after making a note that he'd worn the same T-shirt every single time we'd seen him in the pub ... "have you ever actually taken it off, even to wash it, or shower?" ... defence? "Ha, Ive just bought a £9500 car and cant afford shirts... how about you!!?"
yeah, well, very good, you somehow managed to swing finance and insurance on a sporty car.. BUT it's an MG ZR and will be worth less than my 8-year old astra come 2007 (not least because of the colour)... you'll be even more broke than you are now, the engine will be shot to hell because you ragged a dodgy end-of-the-road K-series, whereas I'll be content to have spent a fraction of that for a nice car that i researched info on beforehand to make sure it wasn't a duffer - that will hold its value better, too - and enjoy the very considerable cash saving in many other areas. Such as on clothes that dont have more than the neccessary number of holes.
Plus i'd put money on being able to acclerate the astra better down the twisties than you could the rover. I've ridden shotgun in a 25 with the exact same drivetrain (down to the power & torque peak outputs) far too much and know that its gutless until you reach about 4500, where it's honda sibling rivalry shows through and it feels like VTEC kicking in (even though its just a regular twincam) for all of about 1600 revs.

Real beauty of it is i know i could drop £500 on a GT, chip it and do an intake mod for less than £100 more, and really kick his arse on any road that isnt a 5 mile stretch of very open, flat motorway. Wouldn't even need a G, but if i had a spare 2375 (1/4 of what he spent) it'd be a nice way to take the p*ss.

who knows really ..... there's a switch in their head somewhere, and it was set to overload many many years ago

PS bstardchild - you mean the "old" ie Real Mini, right? The "new" BMW Mini-series uses a regular 1.6 (116/316) beemer engine doesnt it? can't see them putting a rocker type engine in, even with all the other outdated style-over-substance ideas in it.

The new BMW Mini uses a Chrysler derived engine.

Tahrey1043 wrote:PS bstardchild - you mean the "old" ie Real Mini, right? The "new" BMW Mini-series uses a regular 1.6 (116/316) beemer engine doesnt it? can't see them putting a rocker type engine in, even with all the other outdated style-over-substance ideas in it.

never mentioned a mini