Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!hakanson
From: hakanson@orstcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: what should I buy? - (nf)
Message-ID: <4275@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Jan-84 03:39:33 EST
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.4275
Posted: Wed Jan 18 03:39:33 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jan-84 04:41:28 EST
Sender: notes_gateway@hp-pcd.UUCP
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Lines: 28

#R:cae780:-29700:orstcs:3000029:000:1393
orstcs!hakanson    Jan 13 16:17:00 1984

Speaking as an owner of a current Colt and as a reader of the Road & Track
review of the Colt Turbo, I'd suggest sticking with the normally aspirated
Colt with the suspension goodies (it used to be called the "RS" package,
but who knows what it is now).  The Colt 1.6l engine has plenty of power
to lay rubber in 1st & 2nd gears (low range), & sometimes in 3rd (ouch!).
So what if the Turbo gets to 60 in 1.5 sec. less and has a 10mph higher
top speed?  I don't think the lower reliability (& MPG) and higher complexity
of this turbo installation is worth the advantages.  If I were going to put
a turbo on my car, I'd want it to kick in at low RPM's, rather than the
~3000 the stock version is set for.  The TBFI might or might not be an
advantage over my carburetor, but I'd never be able to work on it,
I'd guess.  Sigh....

If you want to correspond more about the disadvantages of Colts, drop
me a line.  But read about them & drive one, first, to see if they fit
you're style.  They are not in the same class as a Conquest or other
luxury sports cars -- Colts are economy cars (but fun!), no doubt about it.

Marion Hakanson			CSnet:  hakanson@oregon-state
				UUCP :  {hp-pcd,teklabs}!orstcs!hakanson

PS -- My wife owns a LUV, and definitely finds the Colt to be more
      comfortable and easier to drive on long commutes.  It also gets
      nearly twice the mileage on the freeway.