http://crashtest.autoboerse1.de/crash-untere-mittelklasse.html very good this one. compares it to the cars of the time. always said that escorts were insanely bad
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/w140crash.html this one is not good, does appear to be a mk3, but the merc aparently didnt go to production in that guise... so who knows
looks better off than the mk2 tho. These crash tests are done at standerd speeds, normaly 30mph i think. That pic could be for the american standerds set for 1994) that where 40mph.
How has this thread changed from being about why mk3's are unpopular to Matt82's personnal crusade to find out how much he's going to get hurt when he crashes his car?!
well weve sorta proven that the mk3 did eat a few pies. it would appear that one last redeeming feature would be crash safety. IMO it looks better to be in a mk3 than a mk2 if you crash, so thats the end of that K THX BYE
At least people will drive by and go "ah shame, nice car that" when its your mk2 on its roof in a field somewhere
So anyway, is a 16v mk2 faster than an 8v? Just thought people could argue for days about that one (again) & get nowhere. Surley if the owners of Mk3s like them that's all that matters?
yes, their lives are worth more, hence they choose mk3s, as such their opinions count for more too. mk2 drivers are like lemmings going over a cliff. dont slam the door on a mk2 too hard or the car will implode
After 20 years of VAG ownership and 4 mk2 a rallye and 3 mk3 I do prefer the mk3 to the mk2! The MK3 is easier to work on but they do rust. Current 2.0 8v has just covered 170000 miles, passed its MOT with no problems, still running the original engine and cat!
