Your First Car


Recommended Posts

A Vauhall Chevette 3dr hatchback, which my old man cristened 'the clockwork orange' - when I sold it to a 'mechanic' he apparently told a mate of mine that "you can pour oil in the top n hear it splashing outta the bottom"

It was never raced or rallied tho :whistle:

Mine was a 1987 Mini 1000, with a MG Metro 1275cc 75bhp engine, which i forgot to tell the insurance about :whistle:

That was back in 1991 when I was 17 and could get away with that sort of thing.

Was a quick car, no weight and a powerfull-ish engine made it lots of fun. Had it for 2 years then sold it to a stoner who managed to roll it a week after I sold him it.

And anyone who's ever driven a original Mini will know how difficult it is to roll one of those things.

my first car was an 84 ford ranger two seater, four banger. man what a POS, one mouth after i bought it i had to rebuild the engine (2.3). but after that rebuild she ran like a trooper, far from a speed demon but very reliable. now i was hoping that it would have been good on gas but no way. it had 85 HP yet it chuged gas just like a V-8.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • "Moreover, the Writing Tools in macOS 27 are now powered by Siri AI, allowing users to draft emails and other content, as well as request feedback on specific pieces of text." APPLESLOP !!! or because its Apple, so its Okay 😉
    • Been using Outlook all my Life on Windows,  But Classic Outlook---Briefly Tried NEW Outlook, but wasn't to my tastes, but i feel if and when forced to switch in the future--i could get used to it if  i had to   
    • Apple has clarified Series 9 was left off the watchOS 27 compatibility list by mistake.
    • Signal accuses UK government of using child safety as cover for mass surveillance by David Uzondu Recently, the UK's Home Office announced a sweeping set of proposals to make Britain the "first country in the world" where children cannot share or view nude photos on their smart devices, an initiative that authorities claim will protect children from online predators and combat pornography. In response, Signal believes that while the government must keep children "safe" and "protected," it should do so through social services and education, not by "surveillance, funding cuts, and cover-ups." The company called the plan "dystopian" and warned that it violates everyone's fundamental right to privacy, arguing that scanning on the presumption of nudity will only strengthen the market dominance and data control of giant corporations like Apple and Google. The statement continues by accusing the government of hiding its true intentions under the guise of child safety. Signal argues that the Home Office is building an invisible surveillance infrastructure that remains ripe for exploitation by future administrations and authoritarian regimes. According to the company, this aggressive approach completely ignores the actual needs of young people, such as properly funded schools and mental health services. Tech companies like Apple and Google have a three-month window to implement these mandatory device-level filters across the United Kingdom. If these tech firms refuse to comply with the mandate, the government will pass emergency legislation to force them to comply, threatening massive fines and even going after the CEOs of these companies with criminal charges. The technology will work by blocking explicit images directly on the operating system of all smartphones and tablets by default. This system monitors the device camera and third-party apps to intercept nudity before anyone can upload or send the image. Adults can still view explicit content, but only after completing a strict age verification check to unlock their devices. Several bodies like the NSPCC and Barnardo's praised the Home Office's decision, arguing that device-level intervention stops the cycle of grooming before it starts. The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) also supported the policy, claiming that tech companies can implement on-device checks "without threatening privacy or collecting any data."
    • Did you watch the keynote? It is way beyond what is described in this article. Looks interesting. Now it is time for them to deliver unlike what happened in 24.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Very Popular
      Captain_Eric earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • One Month Later
      amusc earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      510
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      226
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      88
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      81
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!