A commercial I actually liked.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> (Brent P) said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
>>I could get a vette, but then it's got pushrods, and I don't fit it in it
>>comfortably last I checked.
>
> You haven't checked recently then. I fit better in the seats of my C6
> than I did in either of my Cobra Mustangs. The Mustang seats never
> went back far enough to give me proper legroom (I'm 6'1") but the
> Corvette has plenty of legroom.

I'm 6'4" and leg room wasn't the problem. I last checked at the 2006
chicago autoshow.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> I'm afraid I must concur. Having owned two SVT Cobras (a 2001 and a
> 2003), both of which were lemons, there's no way in hell I would every
> buy this new version. Ford might do OK on its high-volume vehicle
> lines, where they have lots of opportunities to work out the bugs on
> the production line, but they have consistently sucked big donkey
> wanks when it comes to limited production high performance vehicles.

I'm not rushing out, have to wait for the morons paying 20K over sticker
to shake themselves out of the market. I am sure problems will be well
known by the time I am ready to decide.

Oddly though, you're the only one I have heard such complaints as 'lemon'
from regarding the 2001 up cobras. Drag racing yahoos complained about
the IRS not being good for drag racing, road racers considered it too
compromised of a design. About all I can recall outside of 1999
horsepower rating debacle.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> GT500: $40,000 plus whatever rapacious markup the stealership tacks on
> (minimum $5000).

Production levels should cancel that out after the morons shake
themselves out of the market.

> Corvette: Starts at $42,000.

Good luck finding one for that. I haven't seen one for under 50K (ok,
maybe I did see one for 49.5K) at the local chebby dealer. I bike past
it fairly often, they always have vettes there and I've stopped to check
the stickers on a few occasions.

And what do you get in a base vette? A camaro engine?

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, 223rem wrote:
> > The reason why I mentioned the Mitsu EVO and the Subaru STI is that all
> > experts agree that they're among the best handling performance cars in the
> > world at any price. Apparently you have to drive them to believe it.
> > Mustangs or GTOs are not even close.
>
> Great, if you say so. Apparently you've mistaken IL roads for a european
> mountain road race course.

Great, if you say so. Apparently you've mistaken IL roads for a German
Autobahn.

I can see a possibility of actually using good handling frequently.
Use your 500 hp for more than 4.9 seconds at a time on IL roads and sit
in jail with your car impounded.

(I will agree that the 4.9 seconds could be fun though)

Martin

In article .com>, Martin wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>, 223rem wrote:
>> > The reason why I mentioned the Mitsu EVO and the Subaru STI is that all
>> > experts agree that they're among the best handling performance cars in the
>> > world at any price. Apparently you have to drive them to believe it.
>> > Mustangs or GTOs are not even close.
>>
>> Great, if you say so. Apparently you've mistaken IL roads for a european
>> mountain road race course.
>
> Great, if you say so. Apparently you've mistaken IL roads for a German
> Autobahn.

Have you driven I294 in light traffic?

> I can see a possibility of actually using good handling frequently.
> Use your 500 hp for more than 4.9 seconds at a time on IL roads and sit
> in jail with your car impounded.

Doubtful that would happen so long as one drives slower than the cops
most hours of the week. But acceleration is what's needed in a MFFY
traffic environment. Just ask Scott.

If I should get a GT500, I am leaning towards ordering one stripe delete
so it appears much more like an ordinary mustang from afar. Plus I am not
fan of the over the hood/roof/deck stripes. Although ordinary GTs are
coming with said stripes now... saw such a car at a local ford dealer. I
stopped because it was parked very protectively and thought it might a
GT500 as I drove by. Of course when I got closer it was just a regular GT.

Brent P wrote:
>
> Plus you seem to think that solid axle and bad handling go together, they
> don't. The only real drawback to a solid axle in street driving is
> uneven pavement.

And especially in curves taken vigorously.

Brent P wrote:

> Then the mitsu is clearly a converted FWD to AWD. Transverse engine and
> all. Probably torque steers too. Has less torque than my current mustang
> (and it's one of the least powerful ones made in the last 15 years) on top
> it.

OK. The Subaru STI has a longitudinal boxer engine. Very symmetrical
and lying
low on the bottom of the car. I'm pretty sure though the Evo has no
torque steer.
No review I've read mentioned that.


> In any case, a powerful car is going to be handful in the snow
> regardless. On twisty roads... it's driver, driver, driver, car. Odds are
> if someone is going to hand me my ass on twisty roads choice of car isn't
> going to change it outside of assinine differences like excursion vs.
> ralley car.

The point is that Brent in an STI (or an A4 AWD for that matter) would
run circles around Brent in a Mustang


> Having driven solid axle cars since I learned to drive, the big draw back
> is patches on patches on patches on patches on patches on patches chicago
> pavement.

There is rather sharp curve on Lakeshore boulevard where the pavement
is very
uneven, and people like going fast. Having the rear of your car
launched in the air
by a bump in a sharp curve os not fun.

> Let me know when you have something interesting that meets the basic
> requirements. 2 doors, RWD or AWD biased strongly rear and not transverse
> engined, V8 or I6, MT, preferably 450hp.

Advanced AWDs allow you to adjust the amount of power sent to the rear
wheels.
You wouldnt want a longitudinal boxer engine?

In article om>, 223rem wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Then the mitsu is clearly a converted FWD to AWD. Transverse engine and
>> all. Probably torque steers too. Has less torque than my current mustang
>> (and it's one of the least powerful ones made in the last 15 years) on top
>> it.

> OK. The Subaru STI has a longitudinal boxer engine. Very symmetrical
> and lying low on the bottom of the car.

I was commenting on the mitsu. But the suburu is still a turbo 4, looks
ricey, and has an interior I found much like that of an '86 mazda.

> I'm pretty sure though the Evo has no torque steer. No review I've
> read mentioned that.

I don't see how an essentially front wheel drive car wouldn't with any
kind of power.

>> In any case, a powerful car is going to be handful in the snow
>> regardless. On twisty roads... it's driver, driver, driver, car. Odds are
>> if someone is going to hand me my ass on twisty roads choice of car isn't
>> going to change it outside of assinine differences like excursion vs.
>> ralley car.

> The point is that Brent in an STI (or an A4 AWD for that matter) would
> run circles around Brent in a Mustang

Ok, I'll take my mostly stock '97 and you can put aunt judy or carl in
the car of your choice. Who will win?
>
>> Having driven solid axle cars since I learned to drive, the big draw back
>> is patches on patches on patches on patches on patches on patches chicago
>> pavement.

> There is rather sharp curve on Lakeshore boulevard where the pavement
> is very uneven, and people like going fast. Having the rear of your car
> launched in the air by a bump in a sharp curve os not fun.

launched into the air? Now you make it very clear you haven't driven a
solid axle car. I suspected it, but now you make it very clear.

What happens is the rear end 'skates' and it feels like you're going into
the next lane.

>> Let me know when you have something interesting that meets the basic
>> requirements. 2 doors, RWD or AWD biased strongly rear and not transverse
>> engined, V8 or I6, MT, preferably 450hp.

> Advanced AWDs allow you to adjust the amount of power sent to the rear
> wheels.

I doubt it's a driver based choice. The computer controller is likely the
ultimate decision maker. I don't like machines that are uppitie.

> You wouldnt want a longitudinal boxer engine?

If it had at least two more cylinders.

In article . com>, 223rem wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> Plus you seem to think that solid axle and bad handling go together, they
>> don't. The only real drawback to a solid axle in street driving is
>> uneven pavement.
>
> And especially in curves taken vigorously.

I've never had a problem doing so... well other than needing to brace
myself in my seat. If I was going to seek more out of my '97 I would
address the driver's seat before the solid axle.

Brent P wrote:

> I don't see how an essentially front wheel drive car wouldn't with any
> kind of power.

It is not a function of too much power, but of symmetry. Graham
addressed that
in a recent post.

> > Advanced AWDs allow you to adjust the amount of power sent to the rear
> > wheels.
>
> I doubt it's a driver based choice.

In the STI it is. That's one of the coolest things about that car.


> > You wouldnt want a longitudinal boxer engine?
>
> If it had at least two more cylinders.

OK then. Get the Subaru outback then, with the H6 engine then.