Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 15:10:12 GMT From: "Darren" <darrennopsamorp.co.uk> Subject: Re: Comparison
> Each of the cars has its own appeal, but I'd go with the '95 over the '91. > Here's my two cents' worth: > > The '91 admittedly is a classic shape, although it's NOT a true SPG--more > likely it's one with the body panels... SPGs were not available in convertible > form, so it's likely rated at the 'standard' turbo power level. Spare parts > might be a tad more available, and some would argue that the early cars handle > better than the later ones (struts versus control arms up front). > > The 95 is quicker, the transmissions are MUCH sturdier, many of the systems are > better-designed and last longer (A/C is an example) the fit and finish of the > car is much better than the earlier ones, and there might be a slim chance of > having some warranty left on it. > > Paul > Michael I would go for the 91 any day. Having owned an '88 and a '95 I would SEVERELY dispute anything on the '95 will last longer or is fitted and finished better. I would also say don't even look at a '95 unless its got a cast iron warranty. Thats my 2c worth (or perhaps you'd like to hear about my $3,500 worth of repair bills so far for my '95 er!) Darren
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |