rm@faust.UUCP (01/02/86)
** rebate kiss line with your passage **
This seat belt thing is getting boring. I remember with some fondness the
discussion of best raods and worst roads in net.wheelhead a short time
ago. How about a discussion on car love (or lust), like ferinstance:
If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would
you choose? Assume money is no object.
And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to
drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting
vehicle for the task?
My vote for the most desirable car would be a 1960 Corvette, all white with
red interior. Fuel injected of course. I've never driven one of the first
generation 'vettes but I've heard that they're nothing to write home about
in the handling dept. I'm sure that they, like all Corvettes, are noisy,
uncomfortable, and leak badly in the rain. Still, nothing else quite comes
close to my ideal of automotive beauty as this car does.
As for my idea of hell on wheels, boring cars really, well, bore me.
There are a lot of boredom mobiles around, but if I had to the most boring
it would be the AMC Concord. What can I say? It's just two tons of rolling
yawns to this boy. Flame on, AMC lovers.
R.M. Mottola
Intermetrics Inc.
Cambridge, MA.
Disclaimer: "It's only me, and if there are any real ideas in this note
they probably got in there by mistake."
PS If anyone wants to give me the vette as a late Christmas gift, please
throw in a lot of extra fuel injection parts.fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (01/03/86)
> > This seat belt thing is getting boring. I remember with some fondness the > discussion of best raods and worst roads in net.wheelhead a short time > ago. How about a discussion on car love (or lust), like ferinstance: > > If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would > you choose? Assume money is no object. > > And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to > drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting > vehicle for the task? A GREAT IDEA, and I agree that the seat belt discussion is getting a bit old. Now, as to my choices. First, let me say that I find it a bit difficult to choose a single best and worst car, because there are so many good and (unfortunately) bad cars out there. So, let me list what I consider a couple of the best (though I have no driving experience on any of the cars I will mention). Best Sports/GT: Ferrari Daytona, Testarossa, or GTO (new), with several Porsches as greatfully accepted second choices. Best Sedan: Merc 560SEL(C) is probably the best sedan in the World. As an aside, let me add that the VW GTI (both old and new models) are wonderful cars if you *are* on a budget. Worst Sports/GT: Is there a worst sports/GT? :-) Worst Sedan: Probably a Skoda, any Skoda, though I can think of many cars that deserve dishonable mention. -- Dave Fritzinger, Public Health Research Institute, NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "I think. I think I am. Therefore, I am,...I think." Moody Blues
smithson@calma.UUCP (Brian Smithson) (01/04/86)
In article <2800005@faust.UUCP> rm@faust.UUCP writes: >[...] > If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would > you choose? Assume money is no object. > >My vote for the most desirable car would be a 1960 Corvette, all white with... 1960 Corvette? C'mon, I'd take something more like a 1930's Mercedes 540K! > And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to > drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting > vehicle for the task? > The same! As long as I was going to be there for all eternity, I might as well get some decent wheels :-) -- -Brian Smithson Calma Company ucbvax!calma!smithson calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (01/04/86)
In article <2107@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: > >Worst Sports/GT: Is there a worst sports/GT? :-) Sure!! Ever heard of the Porche 911? What an incredible piece of junk! -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (01/04/86)
In article <421@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes: >In article <2107@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >> >>Worst Sports/GT: Is there a worst sports/GT? :-) > >Sure!! Ever heard of the Porche 911? What an incredible piece of junk! Sorry, guys. I meant to say Porche 914. <donning asbestos suit> -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john "Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixition." "CRUCIFIXITION??" "Yeah, first offense."
sutter@osu-eddie.UUCP (Bob Sutterfield) (01/05/86)
> ... > If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would > you choose? Assume money is no object. A Jaguar E-type v-12 convertible. > > And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to > drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting > vehicle for the task? > ... > R.M. Mottola A Chevette. -- ----- Human: Bob Sutterfield Facilities Management Division The Ohio State University Instruction & Research Computer Center Work: Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, Computer Management Group OCES VAX System Manager/Programmer (VMS) Mail: sutter@osu-eddie.UUCP sutterfield-r%osu-20@osu-eddie.UUCP or: sutter@osu-eddie.ohio-state.CSNET sutterfield-r@osu-20.ohio-state.CSNET or: 2120 Fyffe Rd rm 109, Columbus OH 43210 Bell: (614) 422 - 9034
daw1@mhuxl.UUCP (WILLIAMS) (01/06/86)
> >>Worst Sports/GT: Is there a worst sports/GT? :-) > >Sure!! Ever heard of the Porche 911? What an incredible piece of junk! > Sorry, guys. I meant to say Porche 914. Actually you were right in both cases! Add the 924 and the list is complete. If I were forced to drive one of those unreliable beasts I'd pick the 928 - at least I'd cover a lot of ground when it was running :-) 1 1 1 1 2 1 Doug Williams 1 3 3 1 AT&T Bell Labs 1 4 6 4 1 Reading, PA 1 5 10 10 5 1 mhuxl!daw1 1 6 15 20 15 6 1
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (01/06/86)
In article <2107@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >Best Sports/GT: Porsche 959. If it has to be something that can actually be bought, sign me up for a Porsche 911 Carrera RS, 1973 vintage. >Best Sedan: Audi 5000 Turbo Quattro. >Worst Sports/GT: Skoda 120 Rapid. It's actually *slower* than the sedan model! >Worst Sedan: Chevrolet Chevette Diesel or Moskvitch, any model, any year. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979
lane@cylixb.UUCP (Lane Anderson) (01/06/86)
Now this could be a whole lot more fun than some of the same old re-re-rehashed arguments seen here lately. Here we go! My favorite (no consideration to cost or practicality) would be either the Ferrari 365 GTB Daytona or the 250 GT Lusso (is that also a Berlinetta?). The Daytona is the last of the big V12 Ferraris and probably the greatest all-round traditional sports car ever built (yet another topic for discussion?). The Lusso, built in the mid-sixties, has been called the most beautiful Ferrari. It posseses a feline grace that no other car I have ever seen can approach. Damn what a gorgeous car!!!!! Even though it is now twenty years old, I have never seen a car that struck me the same way. As for the worst... Hmmmmmm. I am sure that our European contributors can come up with some winners from their side of the Atlantic but I am going to have to limit my choices to what was available here during my lifetime as a wheelhead. Another two-way tie. This one between the AMC Pacer (sorry AMC) and the Chevy Vega. The Vega was not a totally bad car but the self-destruct engine and body that was rusted out after a year make it a strong contender. The Pacer... Well, what can you say? The body looked like an inverted fishbowl woth the wheels buried miles deep in the fenders. The suspension and brake technology and perform- ance was outdated years before the car was produced. The engine finally used was a yawn producing six. More? Oh yeah. Touted as "the wiiide small car" it was as wide as a Cadillac (I'm looking at the two out of window) while as long as a Volkswagon. This sounds great until you dis- cover that the rear passengers sit between the wheels which made it tight for two people. Even in front things weren't especially roomy due to the thickness of the doors. All in all, a mess of a car. Bleeech! Sorry to ramble so (ramble? AARRGGHH, AMC strikes back!!). I'm looking forward to this one.
olds@ihlpa.UUCP (Mondeville) (01/06/86)
> > > ** rebate kiss line with your passage ** > > This seat belt thing is getting boring. I remember with some fondness the > discussion of best raods and worst roads in net.wheelhead a short time > ago. How about a discussion on car love (or lust), like ferinstance: > > If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would > you choose? Assume money is no object. > > And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to > drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting > vehicle for the task? > > My vote for the most desirable car would be a 1960 Corvette, all white with > red interior. Fuel injected of course. I've never driven one of the first > generation 'vettes but I've heard that they're nothing to write home about > in the handling dept. I'm sure that they, like all Corvettes, are noisy, > uncomfortable, and leak badly in the rain. Still, nothing else quite comes > close to my ideal of automotive beauty as this car does. > > As for my idea of hell on wheels, boring cars really, well, bore me. > There are a lot of boredom mobiles around, but if I had to the most boring > it would be the AMC Concord. What can I say? It's just two tons of rolling > yawns to this boy. Flame on, AMC lovers. > > R.M. Mottola > Intermetrics Inc. > Cambridge, MA. > > Disclaimer: "It's only me, and if there are any real ideas in this note > they probably got in there by mistake." > > PS If anyone wants to give me the vette as a late Christmas gift, please > throw in a lot of extra fuel injection parts. The best or worst car???? I'll start with the worst. My vote for worst car(s),is ALL non-performance, boring,try-to-keep-me-awake-while-I'm-driving type cars which make up the majority of the motoring public,and are such a pain in the A__! to enthusist drivers such as myself.Examples are: chevy chevettes,all that imported fuel saver things,and all those rolling death-traps with billions of people on board. The BEST???? Very hard to say.For me it would be two. 1) A 1974 black on black Pontiac Super-Duty Trans-Am powered by....... a 455 cubic-inch 345-370 horse power engine (I've forgotten the exact h.p. rating). I've come close to this as I own a '76 Trans-Am (Sterling Silver with blue interior),powered by a Pontiac 400 with goodies such-as Holley intake,Crane cam,Blackjack headers,Sonic Turbos. .....etc. 2) A Saturn White 1970 Buick GSX, powered by a stage II (only avaliable in parts) 455.(h.p. around 400+). To complete auto heaven??,highways and roads for high-performance people like me ONLY!!!!! <<<<<<<<sounds good huh???? Eugene G. Mandeville AT&T Bell Labs Indian Hill ihnp4!ihlpa!olds
joe@dual.UUCP (Joe Weinstein) (01/07/86)
Steve Saleen runs a racing car concern in southern California. He has a deal with Ford where specially equipped Mustangs with the hot 302 V8 get delivered to him, where he adds better springs, shocks, urethane bushings, sway bars, frame stiffening, Hurst shifter and linkage, subdued ground effects and cosmetics. Everything is cleared by Ford so you still have the full factory warrentee an can order these cars as such or with other options direct from selected Ford dealers around the country. Mine cost around 14.3 K. These do 0 to 60 in around 6 seconds. This is better than the stocker even though the engines are the same ( roller cam 302 V8 HO ) because of the better tires. The interior is the fancy GT stuff with a Momo wheel and 170 mph speedo, and these cars generate .88 Gs. on a skid pad where Corvettes get .87 . The price is right with a full warrentee and all parts available by part number. He is only going to make about 600 or so this year so they don't qualify for Showroom Stock racing but in Solo II "B Street Prepared" they are taking Corvettes. More people should know about this car. I might expect the fit and finish of Starions to be typically Japanese ( ie. better ) but on any performance criterion this Ford will be significantly better at a better price. What do you think?
mth@druhi.UUCP (HamiltonM) (01/08/86)
My favorite car is a Porsche 935, which I believe is a 930 Turbo with a slant nose. I also like the new Pantera. Some auto magazine mistakenly used a picture of one within a Lamborghini article, labeling it a Countach S. Hell on wheels? How about cruising an AMC Matador? I think the AMC styling department has more than proven that no matter what a car looks like, someone out there will buy one. Mark Hamilton Denver
gmack@cisden.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (01/08/86)
In article <423@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes: >In article <421@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes: >>In article <2107@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >>>Worst Sports/GT: Is there a worst sports/GT? :-) >>Sure!! Ever heard of the Porche 911? What an incredible piece of junk! >Sorry, guys. I meant to say Porche 914. You were close, though, with the 911. The 912 (the four-cylinder version of the 911, really just a fast-back Volkswagen) was just as bad as the 914. Gregg Mackenzie cisden!gmack
gmack@cisden.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (01/08/86)
>> If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would >> you choose? Assume money is no object. 1970 Plymouth Superbird. >> And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to >> drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting >> vehicle for the task? >A Chevette. Or a Vega. Or, a Pinto, or, a Le Car. Or, a Volvo, Saab, Pacer, Gremlin, Maverick, Honda, Datsun, Citation, etc., etc... Gregg Mackenzie cisden!gmack
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (01/08/86)
Hmmm....the one car I would choose....a real toughie...
Being the impractical person that I am, I think I'd choose a Vector W-2.
Worst car? I can't agree about the 914; I have seen ONE example of the breed
which I would find tolerable. For worst, I nominate the original Renault
Fuego, with its humorous styling, tiny engine (wow, fuel injected!) and its
awesome advertising campaign. All you GT'ers look out: the Fuego's name
means fire! :-)
-dave
--
David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department
<disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu CF522@UMDD.BITNET
And then there were none.chrise@ihlpl.UUCP (Chris Edmonds) (01/08/86)
> Hell on wheels? How about cruising an AMC Matador? I think > the AMC styling department has more than proven that no > matter what a car looks like, someone out there will buy one. That's definitely close but they outdid themselves on the AMC Pacer which has the construction and weight of a tank with the appearance and horsepower of a turtle. (Eat your heart out Edsel Ford!) Chris Edmonds @ AT&T Something-or-Other, naperville, Il ...ihnp4!ihlpl!chrise
smithson@calma.UUCP (Brian Smithson) (01/08/86)
It seems to me that the "best car, worst car" thing might be even more fun if it were further categorized as "best/worst looking" and "best/worst driving". Of course, some of you hardcore's might think that your hopped-up Mustang should win in both categories (but, best or worst? :-) )... I'd be willing to start with my entry for the worst looking car: the famous AMC Matador (the original one, not the later ones). Anyone remember the ad campaign? It showed a car concealed under a cloth, ready to be unveiled like some sort of sculptural masterpiece. Really, I recall gagging when they pulled that cloth off! -- -Brian Smithson Calma Company ucbvax!calma!smithson calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA
jackg@tekchips.UUCP (Jack Gjovaag) (01/10/86)
First it was Norwegian jokes in net.jokes and now we find Chevettes being called bad and/or dull. Some people just don't know about quality in either nationality or motor cars. Inghard Jacob Gjovaag Dull Norwegian owner of an exciting American Chevette (It must be neat because it sounds so much like Corvette.)
darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman) (01/10/86)
In article <429@mhuxl.UUCP> daw1@mhuxl.UUCP (WILLIAMS) writes: >> >>Worst Sports/GT: Is there a worst sports/GT? :-) >> >Sure!! Ever heard of the Porche 911? What an incredible piece of junk! >> Sorry, guys. I meant to say Porche 914. > > Actually you were right in both cases! Add the 924 and >the list is complete. If I were forced to drive one of those >unreliable beasts I'd pick the 928 - at least I'd cover a lot of >ground when it was running :-) I would like to relate my personal experience with those junky Porsches. In 1958 I bought a new Porshe. After 100,000 miles I decided to trade it for a 1962 model because I thought it was worn out. I drove the second one for 200,000 miles and thought It must be worn out for shure, so again I made a swap, this time for one of those junky 1970 model 914's. The 914 now has 285,000 miles on it and it is still being used daily. The gas milage is only 34 mpg. It is on its third set of tires and I had to put a new clutch into it after only 200,000 miles. I guess I'll never buy a piece of junk like that again. I doubt that any car made in the future could be that junky. Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems
valerie@sdcc3.UUCP (Valerie Polichar) (01/10/86)
"If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would
you choose? Assume money is no object."
Easy: a L A M B O R G H I N I C O U N T A C H
and
a Porsche 928 S
(Oh, and a '65 Camaro, and a Shelby AC
Cobra... who wouldn't?...)
Worst car? Uh, probably my dad's Chevette. Plek!!!!
--
-=< Valerie Polichar >=- ...sdcsvax!sdcc3!valerie
"And the Crimson Dynamo
just couldn't cut it no more;
you were the Law - "mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (01/12/86)
> I would like to relate my personal experience with those junky Porsches. In > 1958 I bought a new Porshe. After 100,000 miles I decided to trade it for a > 1962 model because I thought it was worn out. I drove the second one for > 200,000 miles and thought It must be worn out for shure, so again I made a > swap, this time for one of those junky 1970 model 914's. The 914 now has > 285,000 miles on it and it is still being used daily. The gas milage is only > 34 mpg. It is on its third set of tires and I had to put a new clutch into it > Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems You drove a car 285,000 miles on 3 sets of tires ??? I consider that a bit dangerous, didn't they ever wear out ??? mark homxb!mr
bmt@we53.UUCP (bmt) (01/12/86)
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Maverick in discussing worst cars. I'd mention Fairmont as well. And while we're at it, there's also Pinto, since though it is small enough that you have to squat to get into it, I've driven trucks and busses that were easier to steer. But for all time worst, Chevette probably wins, followed closely by nearly any AMC product; after all, what other carmaker do you know that has changed its official public name twice in twenty years, just to get away from its own reputation? As for best, my favorite car is not a big performance machine, just a very nice and practical piece of transportation. I wish they still made it: Nova. I don't know whether the new Nova the name is anything like it, but that car was great. Easy to maintain, not too small, not too big, it would get up and go when you wanted it to, but it didn't guzzle gas. You can have your Ferraris and your Porsches, I can't afford them. You can even have your Volvo, I can't afford it either. Just give me my American dream car. Sorry to be so... practical. Well, not really.... brian
ayers@convexs.UUCP (01/12/86)
>[...] > If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would > you choose? Assume money is no object. > Well, you didn't ask about the "best" car, but the one you'd "want" the most, so: My vote is for the 1967 Ford GT40, Mark II. <_Because_, that's why!> blues, II
mberns@ut-ngp.UUCP (Mark Bernstein) (01/13/86)
[] > From: gmack@cisden.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) >>> If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would >>> you choose? Assume money is no object. > 1970 Plymouth Superbird. What on earth is a Plymouth Superbird? :-) (I really don't know!) And why is (was) it so wonderful? >>> And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to >>> drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting >>> vehicle for the task? >> A Chevette. Ok...... > Or a Vega. Or, a Pinto, or, a Le Car. Or, a Volvo, Saab, Pacer, Gremlin, > Maverick, Honda, Datsun, Citation, etc., etc... How do Volvo, Saab, Honda & Datsun join the company of such dogs as the Pacer, Gremlin, Pinto, etc.????? Which model(s) V, S, H or D, if any? Why? Is there a joke I'm missing??? Mark Bernstein (UT - Austin, Speech)
tohaapanen@watrose.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (01/14/86)
In article <384@cisden.UUCP> gmack@cisden.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) writes: >>>>Worst Sports/GT: Is there a worst sports/GT? :-) >>>Sure!! Ever heard of the Porche 911? What an incredible piece of junk! >>Sorry, guys. I meant to say Porche 914. >You were close, though, with the 911. The 912 (the four-cylinder version >of the 911, really just a fast-back Volkswagen) was just as bad as the 914. Brilliant ignorance, I must say! A fast-back Volkswagen? The 912 was introduced (in 1965 I think) shortly after the 911's 1963 introduction. It was effectively a 911, which is (I think even Gregg will admit) a pure Porsche. The 912 was designed as an entry model, with lower trim level, narrower rims & tires, and a four-cylinder engine. AHA! you say, Volkswagen! BUT NO! The four-cylinder was the 1600 SC engine from the 356 series Porsches. The 356's did not use a VW engine after about mid-1949 or so. The 356 four-banger has definite VW heritage, but has no interchangeable components (well, I've taken one apart and the only one I found is the distributor...). The only one you could be talking about is the 912E. The 912 was made until 1970; the 912E was re-introduced in 1976 for North America only as a stop-gap measure (1975 was the last year for the 914, and 1977 the first for the 924). This one in fact *did* have a VW Type IV-based engine, similar to the 914. It wasn't a bad car though, with decent power, disc brakes all around, good rubber and 911 suspension components. In any case, I wouldn't put down ALL 914's. The 914/6 (and especially the 914/6 GT) was a great car; if I could only get my hands on one I'd start blowing those Fieros and MR2's into the weeds! Of course, to go one step better, I could try to find one of the 18 or so 916's that were manufactured... \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979
man@bocar.UUCP (M Nevar) (01/14/86)
< (Oh, and a '65 Camaro, and a Shelby AC < Cobra... who wouldn't?...) A '65 Camaro ??????? Funny, but I thought...
sjm@dayton.UUCP (Steven J. McDowall) (01/14/86)
Why not add my 2 pence in? > Best car? How about a '73 De-Tomaso Panterra, with ZF-transmission package, and the great Clevland 350 short stroker? > Worst? This had* to be either my Ford Pinto (74) or my Ford Maverick. (Although the Vega would come in a close second, and probably first if I ever had the gaul to drive it!) -- Steven J. McDowall ihnp4!rosevax!dayton!sjm
mikey@techsup (01/14/86)
The 'Saleen Mustang' is starting to show up around Boston. The 'Saleen Mustang' was also featured in one of the car magazines that I saw on the news-stand right before Christmas, but I don't remember which one. mikey trsvax!techsup!bbimg!mikey
ingrid@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (the Real Swede) (01/16/86)
> > >> And (for added spice) if hell was a place where one was destined to > >> drive around for all eternity, which car would be the most fitting > >> vehicle for the task? > > >A Chevette. > > Or a Vega. Or, a Pinto, or, a Le Car. Or, a Volvo, Saab, Pacer, Gremlin, > Maverick, Honda, Datsun, Citation, etc., etc... > > Gregg Mackenzie > cisden!gmack *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR CAR FLAME OH FLAME YOU!!! I just sold an old Maverick that had 100K miles on it. It never had any major mechanical problems whatsoever. Hell, the damn things are indestructable! And how and why the hell do you put Saabs and Volvos in the same category as the Pinto and Pacer?! I think you've been grinding your valves too long....yeah yeah, the 244 series Volvos were the pits; and those old 99 series Saabs are meant to be stayed away from--but one model does not mean the whole make is the pits?! Why did you just say Gremlin, then, and not just AMC?! Yours blazingly (eat my dust and f***the gas crisis).
dca@edison.UUCP (01/16/86)
> I would like to relate my personal experience with those junky Porsches. In > 1958 I bought a new Porshe. After 100,000 miles I decided to trade it for a > 1962 model because I thought it was worn out. I drove the second one for > 200,000 miles and thought It must be worn out for shure, so again I made a > swap, this time for one of those junky 1970 model 914's. The 914 now has > 285,000 miles on it and it is still being used daily. The gas milage is only > 34 mpg. It is on its third set of tires and I had to put a new clutch into it > after only 200,000 miles. I guess I'll never buy a piece of junk like that > again. I doubt that any car made in the future could be that junky. > > Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems Worst can describe unreliable but I think in the case of the 914,912 it describes a Volkswagen disguised as a sports car. The 914,912 fall in the worst category because they don't live up to their promises not because they are unreliable automobiles. I disagree about the 924 which while somewhat underpowered was otherwise a reasonable car. David Albrecht
tjsmedley@watmum.UUCP (Trevor J. Smedley) (01/16/86)
> If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would > you choose? Assume money is no object. > Just about any British convertible more than 15-20 years old. Preferably with lots of spare parts. Trevor J. Smedley University of Waterloo {decvax,allegra,ihnp4,clyde,utzoo}!watmum!tjsmedley
martinl@molihp.UUCP (Martin M Lacey) (01/16/86)
In article <5800030@convexs> ayers@convexs.UUCP writes: > >>[...] >> If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would >> you choose? Assume money is no object. >> > >Well, you didn't ask about the "best" car, but the one you'd "want" >the most, so: > > My vote is for the 1967 Ford GT40, Mark II. > >blues, II Thats a beautifull car now ain't it!!. I had the good fortune to see one up close while visiting the Beauly (sp?) motor museaum in England. Anyone who has seen and knows of this car drools. Its definitly my choice for car of the century. Ahhhh, what a gem!!!!(and 1st gear red line around 60 mph!!!). Drool, Drool...... But now within reason, I think I'm going to go for the Mazda RX-7 this summer. It's not the same, but at least I'll be able to get parts for it :-). All I've heard says this is one heck of a car. Martin the Magician.
rickb@tekig4.UUCP (Rick Bensene) (01/17/86)
> "If you could have your choice of any car that ever existed, what would > you choose? Assume money is no object." > Easy: a L A M B O R G H I N I C O U N T A C H > and > a Porsche 928 S > (Oh, and a '65 Camaro, and a Shelby AC --------------------------------------------^^ <<<< '65 Camaro? Right...they didn't even exist until 1967! >>>> > > -=< Valerie Polichar >=- ...sdcsvax!sdcc3!valerie As for my choices: Best: Any Dodge/Chrysler Plymouth Product with 440 6-Pack or Hemi power. Dodga Challenger T/A Plymouth AAR 'Cuda Any Chevrolet Product with L-78 396, L-88 427, LS-6 454, ZL-1 427, or 427 TriPower. Any Ford product with 427, 427SOHC, 428 or 429 CJ/SCJ Power Any Nova, Chevelle, or Camaro produced by Nickey Chevrolet, Dana Chevrolet, Baldwin-Motion, or Yenko. 1965 Z-16 Chevelle Any COPO Chevrolet Porduct (includes ZL-1 Camaro, COPO Ironblock 427 Camaros) Plymouth Superbird Dodge Charger Daytona Chevrolet Z/28 Camaro, 1967, 68, 69 or 1970 1/2. Also 1986 1/2 350 CI TPI IROC Z/28. Chevrolet Corvette. 1965 through 1972, 1986. Any product a result of the Ford/Carrol Shelby connection. Ford Talledega(sp?) Mercury Cyclone Spoiler Buick GS Stage I or GSX Oldsmobile 442 W-30 1969 Pontiac Trans-Am Coupe or Convertible Mercury Cougar XR-7G or Cougar Eliminator ...the list goes on... Worst: Anything that can't do 1/4 mile in 15.50 or less (for new cars), and anything that can't do 1/4 mile in 14.99 seconds or less (for older cars, and surprizingly enough, even some new cars can live up to this). Rick Bensene {ihnp4, decvax, allegra, cbosg, ucbvax}!tektronix!tekig4!rickb Phone: Weekdays (503) 627-3559 BBS: (503) 254-0458 300/1200 baud, 24 hours a day US Mail: Tektronix, Inc. - P.O. Box 500, Mail Stop 39-170 - Beaverton, Oregon 97077
mikey@techsup (01/18/86)
The Plymouth Superbird was made for 1 year, and 1 year ONLY. It was based on the Road Runner chassis (Which was based on the Sattelite...) hench the name 'Superbird'. Base minimum engine was the 440 Hemi Magnum. Optional engines were the 440 Hemi-Magnum six-pack or the 426 Hemi. It had the option of a Torgueflite automatic transmission or a 4-speed. Imagine a Road-runner with a horizontal tail about 22 inches off the rear deck supported by vertical fins at the left and right fender. The front end was modified with a snout with flip up headlights (Very radical for 1970). The under carriage was beefed up and 'supposedly' had a suspension tuned for Daytona at 220 mph. (The earlier Daytona model did in fact have a suspension tuned for 180 mph) The superbird was produced and designed for retail under $5000. All the numbers were adjusted for this as there were some rules for racing about the maximum selling price back then. The superbird didn't fare that well on the race circuit. 220 mph was great on a track by itself, but the thing was pretty poor when it had to run in a pack of slower cars. Also complicating it was a rules revision that limited any cars with aerodynamic modifications to 5 liter engines when the rest of the field was allowed 7 liter. All in all, a bueatiful car, but not practical. I only ever saw one ad from Plymouth for the car, anyone remember the backroads legend of Johnny and his Superbird ad? mikey N1DVJ trsvax!techsup!bbimg!mikey ps. You KNOW how I feel about 55!!
tohaapanen@watrose.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (01/20/86)
In article <632@edison.UUCP> dca@edison.UUCP writes: >Worst can describe unreliable but I think in the case of the 914,912 >it describes a Volkswagen disguised as a sports car. The 914,912 fall >in the worst category because they don't live up to their promises not >because they are unreliable automobiles. I disagree about the >924 which while somewhat underpowered was otherwise a reasonable car. Arrgghh! Again! As I previously described, the original 912 had no Volkswagen in it besides its heritage (note that VW-Audi and Porsche are two completely separate companies). The 912E (only made for the US market, and only in 1976) did have a VW Type IV engine, but that's all. As I recall, 914's did come from a VW assembly line (since Porsche did not have sufficient capacity), but it was Porsche engineered. The VW components were to be found primarily in the drivetrain, which included the same Type IV engine found in the 912E, the VW 411/412 and the VW Transporter! The 914/6, incidentally, was almost pure Porsche. "Volkswagen disguised as a sports car": can you name half-dozen VW components in the 914/6 (we all know the regualr 914 had a VW engine). I can think of one --- inside door handles! \tom haapanen watmath!watrose!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979
gmack@cisden.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (01/20/86)
In article <211@pilchuckDataio.UUCP> ingrid@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (the Real Swede) writes: > >OH FLAME YOU!!! > >indestructable! And how and why the hell do you put Saabs and Volvos >in the same category as the Pinto and Pacer?! I think you've been grinding >your valves too long....yeah yeah, the 244 series Volvos were the pits; >and those old 99 series Saabs are meant to be stayed away from--but one For everyone who has asked me why I lump Saabs and Volvos in with Pintos and Vegas, it's because they are ugly. Ugly, ugly, ugly. >model does not mean the whole make is the pits?! Why did you just say >Gremlin, then, and not just AMC?! Because the Jeeps are good vehicles and the old Rebel Machine (I don't remember the year, '68 or '70, I think) is a good vehicle. (UGLY!) Gregg Mackenzie cisden!gmack
jimmy@scgvaxd.UUCP (JR) (01/22/86)
My best car from the factory, considering money as no object (which makes it hard to object!) would be a late 70's Jaguar XJ-S with their 12-cylinder engine in that metallic green or white they have. I've heard I'd need a couple as they break down a bit (Is that true?)! If I could modify the car, I would like a 1973 Dodge Challenger Rallye (with hood scoops, side scoops, heavy duty suspension, etc.) Since they did not make a convertible that year, that would be my modification. Oh, I'd like just the basic 318 cu. inch engine with the 3-speed slap-stick transmission. In hell, I'd be driving any Japanese car! Buy American!!! Jim Raisanen
markm@grkermi.UUCP (Mark S. Miller) (01/22/86)
> the name 'Superbird'. Base minimum engine was the 440 Hemi Magnum. Optional > engines were the 440 Hemi-Magnum six-pack or the 426 Hemi. It had the I think it was a 440 4-bbl, a 440 Six-Pak, and the 426 Hemi. The term 'Hemi' applies only to the 426! > The under carriage was beefed up and 'supposedly' had a suspension tuned for > Daytona at 220 mph. (The earlier Daytona model did in fact have a suspension > tuned for 180 mph) Yes, the suspension was beefed up. In fact, one side of the rear leaf springs had more leafs (I forget which). This was not only because of the oval tracks, but also to compensate for the IMMENSE torque put out by the Hemi. An old friend of mine's brother had an old Charger R/T (similar suspension to what was used on the Superbird/Daytona) and reported that you just couldn't make it lean, no matter how hard you cornerred. > > The superbird didn't fare that well on the race circuit. 220 mph was great > on a track by itself, but the thing was pretty poor when it had to run in a > pack of slower cars. Now, I'm a little rusty on my Mopar lore, but as I recall the SuperBird/Daytona dominated for the years they ran. In fact, they did so well that the Reg's were changed to stop them. As I recall a Superbird held the record at Daytona (200 something or other mph) until just a couple of years ago. Also, the drivers were VERY impressed with the handling of the car. One marvelled that he could drve it around the big ovals with just one hand - unheard of for the NASCAR circuit in those days. I'd hate to try parking one of these cars at the K-Mart, but I'd dare anything to try and catch it on the road! MSM "Mopar spoken here"
bellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Bellas) (01/23/86)
In article <-39614471@techsup> mikey@techsup writes: > Base minimum engine was the 440 Hemi Magnum. Optional >engines were the 440 Hemi-Magnum six-pack or the 426 Hemi. If I am not mistaken the 440 was a "wedge" engine not a "hemi". -Pete-
dhk@hp-pcd.UUCP (dhk) (01/25/86)
Re: Superbird Several years ago, when Superbirds were new, my mother worked with a lady that used to drive a Lime-green one of these beasties to work everyday. The perfect commuter car for a lady in her mid-thirties, right? :-) Dustin !hplabs!hp-pcd!dhk
moroney@jon.DEC (Mike Moroney) (01/26/86)
>>model does not mean the whole make is the pits?! Why did you just say >>Gremlin, then, and not just AMC?! >Because the Jeeps are good vehicles and the old Rebel Machine (I don't >remember the year, '68 or '70, I think) is a good vehicle. The "Machine" is a '70. (I own one) AMC's weren't always ugly, the '67-69 Rebels were fairly sharp looking cars. They started practicing ugly with the rear quarter panels of the '70 Rebels, then perfected UGLY with the 71 model year, though they've succeeded before (look up UGLY in a dictionary, they show a picture of the '67 Marlin [unless it's a new dictionary, then they show the Subaru XT]). -Mike Moroney An AMC fan, but I don't want anything to do with any car they made from '71 on.
david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor) (01/26/86)
pilchuckDataio.UUCP> <427@cisden.UUCP>
Sender:
Reply-To: david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: MicroPro Int'l Corp., San Rafael, CA
Keywords:
To all those who think that Saab 900 Turbos are ugly, can the ecstatically
happy owner of a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo with the fancy Special Performance
Group option, remind you that "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder".
My car is GORGEOUS to my eyes, handles like a dream, has had zero maintenance
problems in 8 months of driving and is in every way what I knew I was buying.
It may sound like snobbery but I bought a REAL CAR and feel slightly sorry
for all you 3 box construction Pinto-knockoff owners. It was worth every
penny I paid!
--
david
... David W.Taylor, MicroPro Product Development
{dual,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!sagan!davidbellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Bellas) (01/29/86)
In article <191@sagan.UUCP> david@sagan.UUCP (David Taylor) writes: > >To all those who think that Saab 900 Turbos are ugly, can the ecstatically >happy owner of a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo with the fancy Special Performance >Group option, remind you that "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder". >My car is GORGEOUS to my eyes, handles like a dream, has had zero maintenance >problems in 8 months of driving and is in every way what I knew I was buying. ^^^^^^^^ Wow a whole 8 months with no problems!!!!!!!!!!!!! Call us again in about 10 years (We might be impressed then :-) -Pete- ps - Beauty? Some people like Citreons (sp?)