Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site edison.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!dca
From: dca@edison.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Re: best car, worst car
Message-ID: <632@edison.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jan-86 09:50:36 EST
Article-I.D.: edison.632
Posted: Thu Jan 16 09:50:36 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 09:24:47 EST
References: <2800005@faust.UUCP> <2107@phri.UUCP> <421@gcc-milo.ARPA> <423@gcc-milo.ARPA> <429@mhuxl.UUCP> <230@ism780c.UUCP>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 19

> I would like to relate my personal experience with those junky Porsches. In
> 1958 I bought a new Porshe. After 100,000 miles I decided to trade it for a
> 1962 model because I thought it was worn out. I drove the second one for
> 200,000 miles and thought It must be worn out for shure, so again I made a
> swap, this time for one of those junky 1970 model 914's. The 914 now has
> 285,000 miles on it and it is still being used daily.  The gas milage is only
> 34 mpg.  It is on its third set of tires and I had to put a new clutch into it
> after only 200,000 miles.  I guess I'll never buy a piece of junk like that
> again.  I doubt that any car made in the future could be that junky.
> 
> 	    Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems

Worst can describe unreliable but I think in the case of the 914,912
it describes a Volkswagen disguised as a sports car.  The 914,912 fall
in the worst category because they don't live up to their promises not
because they are unreliable automobiles.  I disagree about the
924 which while somewhat underpowered was otherwise a reasonable car.

David Albrecht