> Skip the convertible. It's way too shaky and not stiff enough for any real
> performance use, plus it's overly heavy. There's a reason they didn't
> bring it over in turbo form: the chassis couldn't handle that power
> without too much cowl shake, etc.
Yes, the convertible is heavier. There was a lot of steel added down
below to stiffen it up without the box strength from the roof.
However, all that additional steel work lowered the CG a lot. From a
pure HP perspective, there are far better cars than any RX. Especially
in regards to torque. But mine was pretty stock except for a little
bit of intake/exhaust adjustments.
> The 3rd gen was better in all ways than any of the 2nd gens, and that
> includes all handling characteristics. Based on experiences on track with
> all of them.
I do agree, with the exception of one thing. I feel that the 2nd gen
is capable of being tossed into a tight 90 degree turn better than the
3rd gen.
The guy I sold mine to did major work to the intake/exhaust,
suspension and computer. Oh, and threw some better tires on it. It was
surprisingly close to a stock 3rd gen.
The thing, for me, is that I find the 2nd gen convertible to be among
the most beautiful cars ever made. The 3rd gen is kinda ugly.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|