Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
19372 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 11:44 AM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: michaell (Nov 07, 2008 9:27 am) Andre -- my good man, statistics are statistics but having dwelt inside these cars for many miles, I can assure you they are incredibly spacious inside compared to say a Corolla, etc. Or to put it another way, if I were driving and you were a passenger, and I said to you 'what do you think of my new compact", you'd laugh at me. BOXSTER -- very reliable car as a rule, yes. GREAT gas mileage, too.
|
|
|
A friend for Andre's NYers Why spend 11K on a 116 when this photogenic old beast is still available "exact replica"...maybe to a 5 year old. Is that truck wearing British plates? Nothing could go wrong here I bet this handles nicely
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 07, 2008 10:06 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Nov 07, 2008 10:09 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 07, 2008 10:12 am) |
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Nov 07, 2008 10:08 am) The exact replica.... nice gaps in the wheel wells. Looks like it's meant for offroading. The Bi Turbo looks super clean. The Chevy on 24s.... at least the guy has a more realistic price than one we saw listed for $10k a few months ago. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 07, 2008 10:06 am) Well, wife is reluctant to spring $11k on a toy car for me. I'll keep working on her in the new year.  BUT, just in case ... what do you think is better out of the box for street and track use: 2.5 Boxster or 2.8 Z3? I think the mid-engine layout is what really pulls me towards the Boxster idea. But, I gotta think practical, too. I could actually work on a Z3 in my garage.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 07, 2008 10:06 am) Nah, you should know me and my tastes by now...I'd be laughing WITH you.  And I'm in total agreement about statistics...sometimes they just don't line up with my own personal experiences. For instance, my Intrepid is rated at 42.2" of legroom, while the Charger/300 are something like 41.8", yet those LH cars feel like they have better legroom to me! But then my uncle's Corolla, which I think is 41.7", give me leg cramps after 10 minutes of driving. According to the Wikipedia article on the W116, it's 210" long, 116.5" wheelbase, and about 4390 lb. for the 6.9L So definitely a substantial car. That's about the size of a 1977 Caprice, which had a 116" wb and was around 212" long. The Caprice was wider though. Not sure how much wider, but enough to give it about 6.5" more shoulder room...~61.5" versus ~55". That's probably why the car feels so substantial...it was very heavy for its size. Most Caprices back then were probably only around 3700-3800 lb. I don't think I've ever had a car that heavy. Well, maybe my '69 Bonneville? |
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Nov 07, 2008 10:56 am) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 07, 2008 10:12 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
