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"
19377 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 6:24 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: boomchek (Nov 08, 2008 4:44 pm) I kinda like that '82 Cordoba, too, although I wonder how bad that body damage is. I'm sure once you started tearing into it, it would be worse than it looks. I also don't relish the idea of driving around in something that size with a 90 hp slant six. This was one instance where you'd actually get better fuel economy with the bigger engine! The 318 had a 2.26:1 axle and enough power to move these cars. Not blindingly quick with 130 hp, obviously, but it didn't have to work very hard either. The 225 slant six was mated to a 2.94:1 axle though. Emissions controls tended to hurt its power and economy worse than they did with the V-8's. |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 08, 2008 10:24 am) I don't let valets park my car either...never had the chance come up in the fintail (I bet that car would confuse them or they'd injure it) and the E55 might tempt someone into at least chirping the tires. I have questioned why I have this loyalty to MB, even though I don't buy them new. I like the styling, I like the heritage, I like how they feel when driven - there is some kind of dynamic links between old and new models, this was especially true in my fintail vs W126. I'd rather have a car that looks a little sinister than one that simply looks rich...and a MB sedan fits that too, thanks to Hollywood. |
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Nov 08, 2008 7:18 pm) Perfect comment. I am not sure what kind of idiot he is, but clearly he is some kind of idiot. |
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Nov 07, 2008 5:46 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Nov 10, 2008 12:01 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 10, 2008 2:00 pm) The 2.5 still gets it to 60mph in about 6.5 secs. I don't suspect that will be much of a problem. The S model only shaved about .7 secs off of that. Handling-wise ... well, that can always be tweaked. I would imagine it would still spank my G35X around the track. Interesting to note, however, that the 2000 base model got bumped to a 2.7 engine and lost ~30 lbs, yet, according to edmunds, didn't get any faster.
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Nov 10, 2008 12:01 pm)   
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Nov 10, 2008 3:54 pm) I think the issue is with early cars, and I think even 3-5% would be high. I do agree, though, that Boxsters were not built like 911s. Half the price, half the mileage?  If you want a REAL Porsche engine problem, look at the 911 twin turbos. I'd bet serious money you won't see the far side of 60,000 miles without issues. I'm also amused that people will track their cars and Drive to Win, but they won't "Spend to Win".
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 10, 2008 5:58 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Nov 10, 2008 7:38 pm)
|
|
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
