[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Re: Competition cries "OOWWWW..

On Tue, 9 May 1995 AUDIDUDI@delphi.com wrote:

> Andy is an awfully good driver but I don't think even he could win the Nats
> in a 4000Q.  The car is simply too heavy, too undertired and the suspension
> design is too outdated to be Nationally competitive these days.  Regardless
> of what you think of it, the MX-6 is a considerably more modern design than
> the 4000Q: it has bigger wheels, a wider track, and a much stiffer body.  I 
> would never own one myself -- or a Toyota Celica, for that matter -- but if
> you want to win H-stock at the Nationals in 1995... 

Thats an interesting point.... As a previous owner of an '84 4000sq, and 
now the current owner of a 91 90 20vQ, I would still vote the 84 as the 
all around better car.  The 20V is more refined on the interior, but Im 
not convinced (yet) that the drivetrain or suspension is any better.  
Dont know any facts or stats, but all I know is that when I left my 
driveway (good sized hump, and a hard turn) the 4000 seemed really 
stiff.  I cant say I ever paid any attention to it until I got the 20V.  
When I leave the driveway now, the body flexes and creaks and makes all 
kind of moaning noises.

The 20v is greatly updated with its 15" wheels, shorter wheelbase, blah 
blah, and more up to par with the '90s, but given a choice I would auto-x 
the 4000 before the 20v. Keep in mind tho, that I put on over 250K miles 
on the 4000q and only 20k (so far) on the 20v.  It could be that I am 
more comfortable with an 'old friend'..??  Thoughts?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'69 Mustang for sale!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Bob D'Amato                     |Information and Technology Center
Southern New England Telephone	|
Voice: 203-771-7081		|mx@starfleet.itc.snetlink.com
Fax:   203-773-3398		|	or
Pager: no Way!!!!!		|bob.damato@starfleet.itc.snetlink.com