Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:09:06 GMT From: "J. Harris" <jackharrisnospamct-o-cutor.comdamnspam> Subject: Re: 9-3 vs. 900?
Congrats and welcome the NG900 fold :o) FWIW, we have Bridgestone Potenza RE92's on our '97 900SE; they've been very good on wear, exceptionally surefooted in the wet, and shown no wandering/tramlining (unlike prior Perilli P6000s and Michellin MXVs). My '01 9-3 is shod with Toyo Proxes 4's; these tires part water like Moses and stick like gorilla glue; great value/quality to price tire. -- J.Harris '01 9-3SE '97 900SE '88 9000T (R.I.P.) "laurak" <lkrznospamcom> wrote in message news:1105724370.776637.144770nospam2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > I got the 900 (1997 SE Talladega). The 9-3 wasn't available. The > dealership said they'd checked it and it wasn't up to their standards > so they were sending it to auction. Whatever. > I feel in love with the 900 as soon as I got into it. In excellent > shape, everything works, bright red with black leather. One local owner > (from Carfax). > The higher mileage doesn't bother me. Low mileage cars can hide a lot > of problems produced by stop and go driving. > It was a six hour drive home from the dealership, much of it on a dark > and stormy night over substantial mountains. Car was perfect, although > it does need new shoes. Has some odd brand tires on now that don't do > well in the wet. I'm off to Tire Rack to find something better.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
