Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:55:54 -0000 From: "Jim" <jimnopsamil.thanks> Subject: Re: 9-5 aero wagon or 9-5 2.3 ?
I think the latest Aero has the same torgque as the manual, tha latest 5 sp auto box is supposed to be able to handle it. Anyone confirm? "H." <musicboxnopsamrider.co.uk> wrote in message news:rr899usf75d47b3r5nl369scindk5ftj0mnopsamcom... > The five-speed auto is only available on the 2002 model, so if you're > looking for an older car you're out of luck. > > Apart from that, the main thing to be aware of is that Auto Aero's > have less torque than the manuals - apparently the auto-box can't > handle so much torque. If I remember rightly the auto also lacks the > maunal's overboost facility (where the engine gives out extra torque > for accelleration for short periods). > > Hope that helps. > H. > > > On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:05:42 +0100, "Simon Putz" > <simon.putznopsamline.de> wrote: > > >hi, > > > >i was wondering what car would be the better buy. > >are there any interesting differences besides shocks/struts, looks and > >engine management? > >i know i can tune up the 2.3 to aero-level so that should not be the point. > >but im wondering if it would be better to get a full loaded 2.3 or a aero. > >also since when is the 5 gear automatic availible and is it much better than > >the 4 speed? > >are there any horror stories about the automatic used in the 9-5 or just the > >normal "i hate slurpies" stuff? > >im looking for a car in the 2-3 year range with up to 60-80 k KM. > >should i look out for something in particular besides black blue or white > >puffs from exhaust or sounds and obvious things? > >well > >any advice is greatly appreciated > > > >bye > > > >simon putz > > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
