4000q vs 90q, or "goes fast .. less filling"

[gfl@cc.bellcore.com (grant f lenahan)]

On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Dan Simoes wrote:
> As an aside, has anyone owned both a 4000Q and a 90Q?  Could you compare
> them as far as performance, space, etc?  One of those, or a 200TQ
> are probably what I will look at.

Dan-

I had an '84 4000SQ and recently bought
a '91 90CSQ (20V).  In every respect except
space, the new car is leagues ahead.  It is faster,
more solid, much better handling, more stable at
speed, has a higher top speed, feels more neutral
in corners, less rattles, quack, quack, quack.

On the downside, it is smaller.  The trunk, with
no provision for rear-seat folding or passthrough,
is an insult (both were fixed in, what, '92?). 
The headroom is less, and the rear seat
has significantly less room (the old 4000Q had really
roomy, comfy back seats).

One note: the new car is very low to the ground.
As a result, it handles great, but can get "hung up"
on deep snow.  In fact, it's so low that I have to take
the dish off my floor jack to get it under the frame rails!

Grant