[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Since the tires thread is getting a bit de-railed with car speak, I figured I'd start one just for our daily drivers. What car/truck/van/suv do you use as your daily driver? What aspects do you like about it? What don't you like about it? Other information is welcome as well (vehicle design information, general car talk, differences between US/Euro/other versions of same vehicles, etc...).

I currently drive:

2010 Ford Fusion SE 2.5l i4 4 door sedan

What I like:

Space... tons of room. Handling is tight and responsive. Seats are fairly comfortable. Stock stereo is fine. Powered driver seat with height adjust.

What I don't like:

Headlamps aren't the brightest, hard to clean front/rear windshields due to angle, anemic automatic transmission (great for highway cruising, horrible for quick acceleration). 2010 model has several blind spots and is hard to back up/parallel park due to them (if you're short anyway... dunno if being tall helps with this). Has 17" rims (on my car... 16's are an option from dealer) therefore tires cost more.

I find this vehicle to be versatile for passenger hauling and moving things around such as small kayaks. It is my only vehicle and therefore my daily driver. It has TONS of trunk space. Fairly large gas tank for a midsize sedan, so not the cheapest to completely fill up but still cheaper than an SUV, truck, or van. Easy to do basic maintenance such as oil changes, bulb swaps, or spark plug replacement.

[Rimfiredude]

2014 Hyundai Accent 5 dr.

Things I don't like:
13" tires give a hard ride and road noise
My left elbow gets sore from resting on hard plastic

Things I like:
Gas milage is fantastic, over 40 mpg on the highway
Lights are great
Brakes are great
Traction in snow is quite good

Basically I love the car, the many pros outway the few cons.

[RoxnDox]

2008 Honda Civic Hybrid

Likes:
- Mileage (it was purchased because I had a 112 mile round trip commute back in Nebraska...)
- Comfortable seats, good visibility all around, console is perfect arm rest
- Good handling in snow (not a big deal here in Pugetropolis, but it was in NE!)
- Excellent powertrain (gas w/ battery assist, CVT, FWD) - handled 900-mile drives from Omaha to Denver easily, as well as chugging up the 9000 ft passes in the mountains without even slowing down. And kept the mileage above 30 even up there...
- Sits low enough I can wrestle 80+ lbs of kayak on and off the roof solo.

Dislikes:
- had to get carpet floormat replaced twice - wore a hole in it with my heel in about 6 months...

Thinking about trading it on a small pickup, though, just for getting the boat around easier.

Jim

[reeftool]

Currently,a 2014 Honda CRV and a 2005 GMC Canyon truck. I just sold a 2000 CRV to my daughter. I'll probably get another one. The new CRV is a direct result of owning the older one. My wife loves it (she's actually making the payments on it). I like it too. Ours is the EX-L version with all the bells and whistles. I really didn't care much but my wife has this thing about heated seats and we had to get the whole package. It's been on a couple of long trips and it's very comfortable to drive. On the open road, we are getting 34 MPG. On another trip, we got 29 MPG with 2 kayaks on the roof. Our average overall mileage is 24 MPG, pretty good for a 4 wheel drive. The new one gets better mileage than the older one, despite being a larger and heavier vehicle.

The Canyon is just the most recent of my long run of small trucks. Previously, I owned a 1987 Chevy S-10, a 1996 Isuzu Hombre ( almost identical to the S-10 and built in the same plant), and now the GMC Canyon. The 87 and 96 both came very close to 300K miles and still ran well but fell victim to rust. The GMC is currently at almost 190K with rust starting in the rocker panels and wheel wells. This may be my last truck. I really like the CRV's and I have a nice utility trailer for hauling stuff. I just don't use the "truck" part very much anymore now that I'm semi retired. It's been a pretty good truck. It has the 3.5L 5 cylinder engine and has lots more power than the previous 2 and can still get 28 MPH on the open road with an average of 23. It's the 2WD version.

[SpecialK]

2002 Celica, 208K miles. Runs well, 32 MPG. Front hubs make a clicking sound (for years) that I have learned to live with. New tires, brakes, coil and plugs this year. A bit of bondo thanks to people running into it. Once got stuck in sand...

On a good day at Trona Pinnacles in '08.


Not looking forward to replacing it, though its time will come. Actually, I probably would like something newer but don't want a car payment :-) This is from the CD/cassette era. The 3.5mm input was still a year or two away - though I have a cheap cassette adaptor for my Sansa MP3s.
Only con I can thing of is rear corner view is obstructed making backing out of a parking space an adventure.

[kadajawi]

Ha. Thanks for creating the thread.

My ford cars have been anything but cramped.... though I did feel cramped when I test drove the fiesta back in 2013. The ones that really get the bad reputation for being cramped are their subcompact cars (fiesta/escort, etc...). Here in the states we've had a few re-badged fiestas that were considered small and underpowered (festiva, aspire, etc...). The earlier escorts were the smaller models. When 1997 rolled around and ford introduced the new redesigns on many of their vehicles they added a lot of interior space. I had a '97 Escort LX that I thought was rather roomy for a subcompact sedan. The larger sedans have quite a bit of passenger room, even for taller passengers, and with me being short at 5' 5" tall that just gives the rear passenger THAT much more space.

In regards to mazda styling, there have been instances in the past of ford sharing styling with mazda, but I haven't noticed any apparent instances of this in almost a decade. I'm not certain if ford no longer contracts with mazda for engine design, but I do believe they do that in-house now as well ever since '97. The Fusion SE model I have uses a 2.5L Inline 4 engine. Has some nice power to it, but the weak point is in the automatic transmission.... If you try to do quick acceleration, the transmission/torque converter is set up to even it out for smooth shifting and fuel economy so the response is rather soft when you attempt hard acceleration. Small changes in acceleration have more pick up to them (hitting gas after apex of corner for instance). But at this point the subject of cars should be another thread as we're getting de-railed from the main topic of tires. If I didn't have all of my fishing gear taking up my passenger space of my car right now, I'd take a few photos.

I'm not sure if styling was ever done by Mazda, they did share platforms though. So the previous 3 is based on the Focus for example. The previous Fusion on the 6? One of the 121 was a badge engineered Fiesta '96 (which incidentally I sometimes drive... quite fun, and not too uncomfortable. You do notice the skinny tyres. And it is not as much fun as the Ford Ka that was based on it... god was that a noisy go kart!).

Right now I believe Toyota has a deal with Mazda, they will rebadge the Mazda 2 as a Scion? That will stick out quite a lot in the Scion line up...

As for automatic gearboxes... I loathe them. The Kangoo has one, because it is in a country where people only buy auto gearboxes, and it is the one big flaw of the car. I have driven others with auto boxes, including VWs famous DSG, which is supposed to be as good as it gets (just not reliable). While it is better... I'll take almost any manual box over it. Except the one in the Daihatsu Sirion. That is a dreadfully bad manual gearbox. Favorite so far is the one in my Xsara. Short stick with short distances between gears, a reasonably light clutch that tells you very much when it starts biting, and thus is very easy to handle, ... pure bliss. VW gets the clutch part wrong, the only way to notice where the clutch bites is when the car moves forward, while the French do it by having a point where the clutch pushes back more. Ford I recall being somewhere in between...

---------- Post added 09-07-15 at 10:50 ----------

2014 Hyundai Accent 5 dr.

Things I don't like:
13" tires give a hard ride and road noise
My left elbow gets sore from resting on hard plastic

Things I like:
Gas milage is fantastic, over 40 mpg on the highway
Lights are great
Brakes are great
Traction in snow is quite good

Basically I love the car, the many pros outway the few cons.

Shouldn't 13" tyres give you a soft ride? The less rubber/air around the rim, the harder the ride.

---------- Post added 09-07-15 at 11:13 ----------

My daily driver is a 2002 Citroen Xsara.

What I like:
- Just enough space for everything I might want to do with, without being to long. It could still be a bit shorter when parking.
- The manual gearbox is just great. Allows for very smooth shifting when I want, and very fast shifting when I want. It is also fun to use.
- The ride is comfortable. Not Citroen XM "what do you mean I'm not driving on a road?" levels of comfort, but it won't hurt. Certainly better than what modern cars in this segment (think Focus) offer.
- It will still go around corners nicely. Maybe it's the 195/55 R15 tyres. In any case there are no excessive amounts of body roll.
- The steering is sublime. None of that electric power assist nonsense, they used speed sensitive hydraulics. The faster you go, the harder it gets to turn. The way it does that is nice and predictable. It isn't too light to turn anyway, unlike other cars which make you correct all the time. And it will self center nicely, even on the highway. Basically as long as it is straight you don't need to touch the wheel. Very relaxing to drive. Want to drive a slight corner, just pull a little in that direction. When it is over, stop pulling. With other, newer cars you have to use some force to get it back to the center position, and correct every now and then. I hate that.
- The battery lasts forever. I'm on my third now... and just recently replaced it. 13 years with 2 batteries? I consider that good.
- The seats are quite decent too. Adjustable brightness of the instrument lights is nice.
- 6 airbags. In a 2002 car. Not too bad.
- You sit nice and low, in general a rather low car, which probably explains why it corners well despite being quite softly sprung.

What I dislike:
- The headlights are not good. The light distribution isn't, the reach isn't, ... projector headlights, even halogen ones using the same bulbs that I use, are vastly superior (I recently drove a Renault Megane that had those). Odly enough the Xsara does have projectors... but only for the fog lights. Not sure what they were thinking there, surely the better technology should rather be used on what you use all the time...?
- The engine is a bit... slow. It sounds nice enough (a bit like a cat), but a non supercharged 1.4 with 75 hp is not fast. The gearbox helps, and it is a smooth engine, with smooth power delivery (what little there is). Top speed is still only 170, and above 140 it gets noisy. And when it is loaded with passengers or stuff, acceleration can be bad... ok, it always is. Uphill can be a bit of a struggle, requiring downshifting.
- It doesn't have ESP. Only the 75 hp entry level engine did without. I think the engine next up would solve many things... though I wouldn't mind the top of the line one either.
- Fuel consumption is somewhere in the middle. Even with a heavy right foot I only do around 7-8l/100 km, which is quite decent I suppose. Can't get much below those figures though, and I averaged the Megane with it's much more powerful 1.2l with 115 hp at 5.7-5.8l/100 km. Though if I had driven that one harder I'm sure I would have gone way beyond what the Citroen used. NA engines seem much better for heavy feet, turbocharged ones for very light feet. Such a waste, because the surge of power can be quite addicting.
- The dashboard started squeaking after 12 or 13 years. Damn.
- Rear visibility is atrocious. The rear window is quite flat, and feels more like something that belongs into a Lamborghini than a regular passenger car. Better remember where there are obstacles before you start reversing, because you won't see anything.
- Hard, scratchy plastics.

I also drive a 2005 Renault Kangoo.
What I like:
- It feels like there is no roof above you... there is, but it's so far above you that it feels like there is none.
- The shelf above the driver and front passenger is quite useful and enormous. You can store, hide and lose a ton of stuff there.
- Seating position is quite high, with absolutely excellent visibility all around.
- The doors are just huge and tall. No need to bend the back when getting inside the car. And the sliding doors at the rear? Amazing. Especially if you need to transport people that need a wheel chair. This is the car. Parking in tight spaces? No problem. I never thought I'd like sliding doors this much, but I do now. Peugeot once made the 1007, a small 2 door city car that had 2 sliding doors. It failed, but I blame Peugeot's poor marketing for that. They never advertised the doors properly, to the right people.
- Having space for 5 adults, a big massage chair, a suitcase and a backpack or two? In a car that's roughly 4 meters long? Yeah.
- It doesn't mind heavy loads.
- It seats 7. In a car that's roughly 4 meters long. And is much more comfortable at that than the significantly longer VW Touran (those 3rd row seats are dreadful). There's also still space for suitcases when you're seating 7, and being in the 3rd row is actually not uncomfortable. The ride is comfortable, and you sit high above everyone else, feeling like the Queen, surrounded by plenty of glass, looking down at her subjects inside and outside the car. Entrance to the 3rd row is also relatively easy.
- The ride is quite comfortable.
- It is gold yellow. Looks quite cool.
- Easy to drive, the steering wheel isn't as terrible as some newer cars, though it has nothing on the Citroen.

What I dislike:
- The ride is quite comfortable. In a car that is about 1.85m tall. Body roll is quite bad, and it can shake up easily when doing a slalom. Scary.
- Lights aren't great.
- Bloody 4 speed torque converter auto gearbox. It eats up all the power the 75 hp 1.4 produces, and that's not much. Top speed is 140, but reaching there takes forever. The rest of the car could easily handle higher speeds, and does, in the manual versions.
- 2 point belts in the 3rd row, and while the 3rd row is inside boot space is limited. Still big though.
- 2 airbags, no ESP. Especially the lack of ESP is sad in a car that can roll relatively easily. It's taller than it is wide...
- Hard, scratchy plastics. On a plus side (sort of) some metal bits are left exposed, so that bright yellow golden paint shines into the interior.
- I once couldn't enter a car park, because my car was too tall. Damn.

[gwboes]

To put some euro's in this conversation these are my cars.
As a daily driver '09 fiat Bravo 2.0 multijet. 165hp, 360Nm diesel (planning to get it tuned to 200hp) in sport trim and pearl red paint.

What i like:
- the engine, it's a beast. Smooth, fast, silent when it has to be, grunty when you want it to.
- comfortable straight on and tight through corners.
- the looks, I always look back after parking it.
what could be better:
- economy, around 16.5km/l (38-39mpg), while not bad for the type of car/engine I was hoping for a bit better.
- hard of speedbumps and short ridges, mainly because of the low profile tires
- I can't find the perfect driving position.

My other car that used to be my daily driver but promoted to weekend and hobby car is also a fiat Bravo but 10 years older and with a 2.0 20v 5-cyl petrol engine. I don't really know if i should keep it insured or not since it costs about a k-3 II body a year just to drive it occasionally (excluding fuel) but it drives so good and I'll never find one in this condition again.

[Clavius]

Nice thread! Good timing too, I'll explain later on...

After driving very economic Volkswagens and Audi's since I got my license I finally switched. Volkswagen and Audi have this reputation of high durability and low maintenance cost. To put it as nicely as possible: Mine just didn't live up to that reputation. Second hand or new, didn't really make a difference. So I figured I could just as well drive a car that I really like.

Last year I bought myself a black&chrome Alfa Romeo Mito 1.6 JDTM with 164hp.



What I like:

The Mito's driving experience is absolutely excellent. It's the fastest car I've ever owned. It looks and feels very luxurious. The ride is extremely smooth. No rattles, no noises. (Very important for my borderline-autistic self.) I don't even hear the soaring of the wheels on the road. I find it beautiful too, both interior and exterior. It's a tiny car that makes it's 18" rims look giant. It fits me like a glove, loads of room in front, very little in the back.



Things I don't like:

The lighting was a bit dim. But I quickly fixed that with an aftermarket HID kit. Both the low beams and fog lights are the same HIDs now. So pretty now!

After years of driving cars that don't top 60hp, this feels like a catapult. I've thaught myself to always floor it, otherwise I just couldn't keep up with traffic. I find it hard to not do that anymore. It's so much fun.

The suspension is very 'sporty'. The ride is super-smooth on our smooth asphalt roads. But when the quality of the road is bad then I feel it too! So not really a dislike, but something that hangs in the middle.

Another thing that I don't like is Alfa's bad reputation. I know I chose an underdog again. (I tend to do that (Pentax?)) And I vastly prefer an unjustified bad reputation and be pleasantly surprised, over VW's unjustified good reputation. But this is a bit over the top. Each and every time I proudly present my car to someone, or tell someone about it, they either roll their eyes or get this strange look. And they tell me all about how they knew someone, somewhere at some point in time that also had an Alfa that was really very high maintenance. They say they rust, leak oil and what not. They "wouldn't want one even if it was given for free." I researched a bit and it's partly true, during the 70's and 80's they really were very bad. Obviously they had to change that and they did. I came to the conclusion though those troubles belong completely in the past. I even know people that swear they're the most realiable brand currently, because they have this bad rep to get rid of. But the bias against AR is really getting to me. (A bit a CaNikon fanboy still thinking all Pentax cameras are still suffering from the sensor stain issue.)

Obviously, I'm comfortable with telling you guys all this because as fellow Pentaxians I know you are able to look past such silly bias...

...but what's even worse, I think I'm not going to be able to prove them wrong! Last Tuesday, I brought my car in for the yearly checkup and maintenance. They quoted me 1200 euros (~1500USD?) in repairs! Both front wheel stabilizers, both front wheel bearings and a back seatbelt. Parts costing peanuts, but very costly in labor. I find it unbelievable that so many things can deteriorate during only one year. Also, I know what bad bearings and stabilizer sound like, and I don't hear anything! So, I'm bringing it in for a checkup at a different garage, as a second opinion next week. I really hope it will be less! I hate it when other things get in the way of lens purchases!!

EDIT:
So, the second opinion turned out quite well. At a different garage my car passed the MOT. I even got a free 3rd opinion, because a it was selected for a spot-check by the state. Even the civil servant agreed it to be roadworthy without needing any repairs. So, I just dodged getting ripped off. It's very sad that some people have to make their money this way!

[kadajawi]

Nice thread! Good timing too, I'll explain later on...

After driving very economic Volkswagens and Audi's since I got my license I finally switched. Volkswagen and Audi have this reputation of high durability and low maintenance cost. To put it as nicely as possible: Mine just didn't live up to that reputation. Second hand or new, didn't really make a difference. So I figured I could just as well drive a car that I really like.

Last year I bought myself a black&chrome Alfa Romeo Mito 1.6 JDTM with 164hp.



What I like:

The Mito's driving experience is absolutely excellent. It's the fastest car I've ever owned. It looks and feels very luxurious. The ride is extremely smooth. No rattles, no noises. (Very important for my borderline-autistic self.) I don't even hear the soaring of the wheels on the road. I find it beautiful too, both interior and exterior. It's a tiny car that makes it's 18" rims look giant. It fits me like a glove, loads of room in front, very little in the back.



Things I don't like:

The lighting was a bit dim. But I quickly fixed that with an aftermarket HID kit. Both the low beams and fog lights are the same HIDs now. So pretty now!

After years of driving cars that don't top 60hp, this feels like a catapult. I've thaught myself to always floor it, otherwise I just couldn't keep up with traffic. I find it hard to not do that anymore. It's so much fun.

The suspension is very 'sporty'. The ride is super-smooth on our smooth asphalt roads. But when the quality of the road is bad then I feel it too! So not really a dislike, but something that hangs in the middle.

Another thing that I don't like is Alfa's bad reputation. I know I chose an underdog again. (I tend to do that (Pentax?)) And I vastly prefer an unjustified bad reputation and be pleasantly surprised, over VW's unjustified good reputation. But this is a bit over the top. Each and every time I proudly present my car to someone, or tell someone about it, they either roll their eyes or get this strange look. And they tell me all about how they knew someone, somewhere at some point in time that also had an Alfa that was really very high maintenance. They say they rust, leak oil and what not. They "wouldn't want one even if it was given for free." I researched a bit and it's partly true, during the 70's and 80's they really were very bad. Obviously they had to change that and they did. I came to the conclusion though those troubles belong completely in the past. I even know people that swear they're the most realiable brand currently, because they have this bad rep to get rid of. But the bias against AR is really getting to me. (A bit a CaNikon fanboy still thinking all Pentax cameras are still suffering from the sensor stain issue.)

Obviously, I'm comfortable with telling you guys all this because as fellow Pentaxians I know you are able to look past such silly bias...

...but what's even worse, I think I'm not going to be able to prove them wrong! Last Tuesday, I brought my car in for the yearly checkup and maintenance. They quoted me 1200 euros (~1500USD?) in repairs! Both front wheel stabilizers, both front wheel bearings and a back seatbelt. Parts costing peanuts, but very costly in labor. I find it unbelievable that so many things can deteriorate during only one year. Also, I know what bad bearings and stabilizer sound like, and I don't hear anything! So, I'm bringing it in for a checkup at a different garage, as a second opinion next week. I really hope it will be less! I hate it when other things get in the way of lens purchases!!

Aren't HID kits illegal? They are all over Europe I believe...

Back seatbelt? That sounds like something that should be fixed on warranty. The rest... maybe the big rims? They wear out the car faster because the tyres can't absorb the bumps.

Also... an Alfa. Nicely done! The 159 remains a dream... if I could afford one I would get one, and a matching house so I can park it in the living room.

Nice Fiats too.

[hoopsontoast]

My daily, a 1993 Toyota Celica ST182.

Its a standard 2.0L Twin Cam ST182 (UK/euro model) but with the ST185 Bonnet and aftermarket alloys both fitted by the previous owner. I believe it also has the Japanese/import spec front bumper and fog lights.




What I like:
- Quite practical for a 2-door coupe, big boot and fold down rear seats.
- Good mix of speed/overtaking ability and MPG (UK) ~32mpg average and more recently around 35mpg
- Reliable (so far) - all the electrics still work and feels good considering its ~20yrs old and 100k miles+
- Great value
- Excellent PAS, great feel and relatively heavy compared to modern cars.
- Nice size, feels smaller than it looks, when driving.
- You can fit two adults in the back, just.
- Pop up Headlights
- Sounds great at full pelt, even with stock exhaust.
- Happily does my ~40mile round commute every day sitting in traffic, open roads etc
- Cloth seats with very good back/bolster support and nice driver focused interior layout

What I don't like
- Not much at all.
- Could be more comfortable over rough roads but its still pretty good for a sporty car, especially for its age.
- Torque Steer, ~160bph in a front wheel car from the '90s is never going to be that great, only really noticeable in low gears and accelerating hard.
- Could have a bit more torque, being a N/A twin-cam all the power is up the top end.
- Gets very hot inside the cabin in the sun, like a greenhouse and right now the air-con is not working.

Previous car history was a mix of classic Triumphs (Dolomite Sprint, 1850HL, TR7 and Acclaim) then a Rover 100 (Metro) so the Celica feels light years ahead!

[Clavius]

Aren't HID kits illegal? They are all over Europe I believe...

They became legal again, at least here in Holland. The old kits were illegal if no light wipers and cooling were present. But todays HIDs are cooler then the standard halogens themselves, so the ban got lifted.

Back seatbelt? That sounds like something that should be fixed on warranty.

Well it isn't new. Only just out of warrantee. It's a stupid Dutch rule that says that all seatbelts have to be in perfect shape. Mine got rejected because of some lint the size of a rice grain.

The rest... maybe the big rims? They wear out the car faster because the tyres can't absorb the bumps.

That makes sense, sadly. Big rims + very hard suspension = lots of shocks.

Also... an Alfa. Nicely done! The 159 remains a dream... if I could afford one I would get one, and a matching house so I can park it in the living room.

Thanks, yes the 159 is also very cool. I have to park my car outside and out of sight, which I don't prefer.

---------- Post added 09-07-15 at 10:55 ----------

My daily, a 1993 Toyota Celica ST182.

Its a standard 2.0L Twin Cam ST182 (UK/euro model) but with the ST185 Bonnet and aftermarket alloys both fitted by the previous owner. I believe it also has the Japanese/import spec front bumper and fog lights.




What I like:
- Quite practical for a 2-door coupe, big boot and fold down rear seats.
- Good mix of speed/overtaking ability and MPG (UK) ~32mpg average and more recently around 35mpg
- Reliable (so far) - all the electrics still work and feels good considering its ~20yrs old and 100k miles+
- Great value
- Excellent PAS, great feel and relatively heavy compared to modern cars.
- Nice size, feels smaller than it looks, when driving.
- You can fit two adults in the back, just.
- Pop up Headlights
- Sounds great at full pelt, even with stock exhaust.
- Happily does my ~40mile round commute every day sitting in traffic, open roads etc
- Cloth seats with very good back/bolster support and nice driver focused interior layout

What I don't like
- Not much at all.
- Could be more comfortable over rough roads but its still pretty good for a sporty car, especially for its age.
- Torque Steer, ~160bph in a front wheel car from the '90s is never going to be that great, only really noticeable in low gears and accelerating hard.
- Could have a bit more torque, being a N/A twin-cam all the power is up the top end.
- Gets very hot inside the cabin in the sun, like a greenhouse and right now the air-con is not working.

Previous car history was a mix of classic Triumphs (Dolomite Sprint, 1850HL, TR7 and Acclaim) then a Rover 100 (Metro) so the Celica feels light years ahead!

Ah, those Celica's look so cool, and this one is no exception! Hope you'll enjoy it for a long time! Excellent picture as well.

[beachgardener]

Toyota ute for me, can't see the use of sedans or those rediculous townie four wheel drives, if you can't throw stuff in the back tray and on the racks or tow bar what use is it

[kadajawi]

They became legal again, at least here in Holland. The old kits were illegal if no light wipers and cooling were present. But todays HIDs are cooler then the standard halogens themselves, so the ban got lifted.



Well it isn't new. Only just out of warrantee. It's a stupid Dutch rule that says that all seatbelts have to be in perfect shape. Mine got rejected because of some lint the size of a rice grain.



That makes sense, sadly. Big rims + very hard suspension = lots of shocks.



Thanks, yes the 159 is also very cool. I have to park my car outside and out of sight, which I don't prefer.

---------- Post added 09-07-15 at 10:55 ----------



Ah, those Celica's look so cool, and this one is no exception! Hope you'll enjoy it for a long time! Excellent picture as well.

In Germany the HID thing is about not blinding others, so the right projectors need to be installed the right way... auto leveling needs to be present too. And headlight washers. Though with the less bright HIDs in the VW Beetle for example it is not so strict, I don't think it needs the washers?

But basically it is only legal if you get it to factory installed levels... and only if it was offered with HID in the first place and you use those parts.

To be honest that makes sense to me, I have been blinded by way too many aftermarket HID installations in Malaysia.

Also at this point I'd rather have factory installed LED headlights.

Nice Celica!

[Clavius]

In Germany the HID thing is about not blinding others, so the right projectors need to be installed the right way... auto leveling needs to be present too. And headlight washers. Though with the less bright HIDs in the VW Beetle for example it is not so strict, I don't think it needs the washers?

But basically it is only legal if you get it to factory installed levels... and only if it was offered with HID in the first place and you use those parts.

To be honest that makes sense to me, I have been blinded by way too many aftermarket HID installations in Malaysia.

Also at this point I'd rather have factory installed LED headlights.

Nice Celica!

Ohw, I forgot about the lens. In Holland we also still require the lens so you don't blind others. Makes sense indeed. Nothing about auto levellers though. And the washer-rule is gone. Haha.. "One Europe" seems to complicate things more then it simplifies.

[hoopsontoast]

---------- Post added 09-07-15 at 10:55 ----------
Ah, those Celica's look so cool, and this one is no exception! Hope you'll enjoy it for a long time! Excellent picture as well.

Cheers, I am really chuffed with it!