mdh157
Senior Member
I think i might enjoy driving one but have no experience with them. If you have owned or currently own one i would love to hear opinions on dtivability, confort and performance. Talking the later ones, like 89-93.
I think i might enjoy driving one but have no experience with them. If you have owned or currently own one i would love to hear opinions on dtivability, confort and performance. Talking the later ones, like 89-93.
I had a '92 3.0v6 5 speed and I lived that car. It got 30mpg driving it hard, burned oil but the valve clatter let you know when to add a quart. I put everything and anything in that car including a computer desk. Comfortable for the front two passengers, zippy with the manual transmission. I would have kept it but I had too many cars and the seatbelt was chewed up from a dog, staying retracted halfway. Loved it.The newer ones @LocuMob. I cannot afford a 69-70!
A friend who is 6'2" tall suffer a ride in the back seat, once, that was it for passengers in the back seat.But, yea, no back seat room. My kids were little, so that wasn't an issue, but no way any normal size person could sit there comfortably. I seem to remember head room being an issue too. There really should not have been a rear seat...
My first new car was an 85 Turbo, loved it. Lots of fun, did most things well except for the dramatic torque-steer somewhat. Then I got a 90 Shelby VNT (turbo/intercooled) Daytona, and it was much more car and they'd tamed the steer. But neither was a keeper, and I have to imagine that today those cars would be considered rusty crapwagons. I never see them on the road anymore, and there's a reason for that. Think "Chevy Vega".I had an '85 with a turbo and a 5 speed. I really liked the car, but it also rusted around the front frame where the suspension mounted. This was non repairable and I junked the car.
My first new car was an 85 Turbo, loved it. Lots of fun, did most things well except for the dramatic torque-steer somewhat. Then I got a 90 Shelby VNT (turbo/intercooled) Daytona, and it was much more car and they'd tamed the steer. But neither was a keeper, and I have to imagine that today those cars would be considered rusty crapwagons. I never see them on the road anymore, and there's a reason for that. Think "Chevy Vega".
Soooooo.......we're comparing which manufacturer's crapwagon was worse?The Vega engine was lucky to run 20K before it burned so much oil you could not drive it. GM replaced the original aluminum block with an iron one, but that over taxed the front suspension and the car handled like crap. And as noted they were also rust buckets that fell apart.
Dave
I think the Vega wins that one hands down.Soooooo.......we're comparing which manufacturer's crapwagon was worse?![]()
One of my brothers was living in Texas and being a handy kinda guy, he discovered he could buy Chevy Vegas with bad engines for peanuts. He would pull the engine and have them sleeved. Had it all worked out with a local machine shop so it could be done cheap and fast. Since it was Texas, rust wasn't an issue.The Vega engine was lucky to run 20K before it burned so much oil you could not drive it. GM replaced the original aluminum block with an iron one, but that over taxed the front suspension and the car handled like crap. And as noted they were also rust buckets that fell apart.
Dave