In the UK the P* and a top-trim, well-specced V90 come out at the same list price - £50k ($70k).

“Every other manufacturers’ cars have major failure points like ours,” is a not convincing sales argument, and not true either, as well you know. That argument also goes against your original ‘Lol No’ to my summary in the first post.

Not so. My point, which I obviously haven’t got across, is that every flagship model of Volvo from the 850 to the 2016 V70 has had a major problem that manifests itself within a short period of time of ownership. Other major issues show up a few years after the average 3-year lease is up - consistently.

I’m not quite sure which part of my opinion ‘Lol no’ refutes, but anyone who is a Volvo enthusiast will know exactly what I’m talking about.

Here’s the UK configurator for the V90, the one you actually want. It’s not quite available yet here, but they’re taking orders. Have fun!

The vast majority of my civilian logbook is made up of 757-200 hours, closely followed by the 767 and then the 777. I’ve got a fair bit of 753 as well and a laughable eight months or so of A320/A321.

That appears to be for the 757-300 which, in my opinion, was a fuselage plug too far. Just different enough, in terms of operation, from the -200 to catch you out at 3am after a long day and similar enough to the -200 to lull you into a false sense of security.

A proper aircraft.

When it’s really lightweight, you can pitch straight for 20 degrees on rotation and then fine tune it as it settles down. 20 degrees of pitch sounds rubbish but ask anyone who’s done that as a passenger and they’ll swear it was something like 45+ !

You could well be right - one commentator suggests that they work for a well-known engine manufacturer and are in talks with Boeing for just that machine. Doubt anyone would make that one up so that ties in with what you understand.

They are very versatile machines which is why the freight companies snap the older ones up for conversion.

There’s certainly a gap there but I’m not sure how big it is. The A321 can either do capacity or range (it can’t do both at the same time) but a quick search showed that 150 of the 1000-odd 757 hulls are parked up in the desert, available for recomissioning - 15% of what was a very low production run anyway.

Honestly, I have no idea as I’ve never seen a P&W-engined 757, let alone flown one. The RB211 has significantly lower maintanence costs and TBO (I understand) so if the P&W is any better on fuel, I suspect its overall hourly operating costs are higher.

There is no upgrade program for the 757 as far as I’m aware. It’s a bit unique in being one of the few (only?) narrow bodies that can comfortably do trans-Atlantic routes and also needs engines with a minimum power rating in excess of engines being designed for aircraft of its class today due to the wing.

The 757 is a bit of a dinosaur and something like it will never be built again - the performance is as the internet PA myth describes but it comes at a huge cost in fuel consumption compared to more modern aircraft.

I met Bruce at a hotel downroute during his Astreus years - I think it was somewhere in the Canaries but it was a long time and a crate full of alcohol ago so I wouldn’t bet my life on it - and he’s awesome.

I’m not sure if you’re backing me or disagreeing with me here!

Mini or an MGB B. Both have huge followings on the West Coast, I’m led to believe, and parts are easily obtainable (you can build a brand new MGB from replacement parts, including the body!).

I can only imagine the design process started from the bottom of the car and moved up, contrary to normal practices:

I realised that when I typed ‘normal’, what I was actually thinking was ‘modal’. Most people who buy and drive Minis are my size, because it was built for the average Brit in the ‘60s - not that that size is normal. Bad choice of words on my part.