Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:43:51 +0100 From: "Mike P" <privacynospamacy.net> Subject: Re: 1984 900 Saloon vs C900 Hatch? Which is better..
"Grunff" <grunffnospam.com> wrote in message news:2ml4lpFo7fs5U1nospamberlin.de... > Mike P wrote: > > > Just picked up a cheapo 84 T16 Saloon at first just for the recon gearbox it > > has. Then I thought about the possibility of an engine/box swap, to turn > > my 89 900S into a T16, because the donor is a good runner and will also have > > all the APC bits to do the job right. > > > > Now, the car looks like it might be better than thought. How do the older > > saloons compare with the newer Hatchbacks for handling and reliability? > > This one's done 160K. Obviously not as practical with no hatch, but it has 4 > > doors which is. Does the extra two doors affect the handling adversley > > or is it just as good as the hatch? > > The saloon body is actually quite a bit stiffer than the hatch, so > handles better. I just really, *really* hate the way they look. Nice to know the handling's good. They are a strange looking beast though :-) > > Oh, yes. I know the 84 Saloon is a flat nose, and it's a bit "uglier". > > Bah! Flat noses rule! > I agree, they look great. It's just the rear end that's bloody awful isn't it? > > reckon though, with a bit of TLC and a set of decent wheels it'll look OK. > > Bit of a rarity aren't they? > > Some people like the sallons a lot. I think they're very ugly. They're > also comparatively impractical. But they do handle well. In all other > respects they are the same car. > If I kept it as is, it would be a second car anyway, more of a project so impracticality is no problem. The ugliness/weirdness isn't an issue to me at all. In fact, with the badges removed it'd fool a few of the boy-racers around here :-) Thanks for the info Grunff, much appreciated. Mike P
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
