Nope - forget about a 3-series in ice or snow. (4wd version excepted)
It's one of the reasons I ditched mine a got a 4x4 (and one for my wife) -
not that we've seen snow in 4 years...
Jez
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 at 21:34, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 1:05 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
> > Topless Moose wrote:
>
> >> Good looking, yes, but . . .
>
> > . . .
>
> >
>
> > But there is something about the RX7 and the older 3-series cars--you
>
> > can toss them around. They are lightweight and pivot well.
>
>
>
> Never drove a three series seriously. My first car bought new was a '68
> BMW 1600*. higher rear end ratio, so about as
>
> fast as the new 2002, cheaper, and I didn't have to wait. In the dry, what
> you say is true. I ate up the pre Z Datsuns,
>
> MGBs and such on the windy roads. But the weight distribution was wrong
> for a rear drive car. On snow/ice, the rear end
>
> had a mind of its own, with bad ideas.
>
>
>
> I imagine they at least partially corrected that in the three series, but
> it's something to check for folks in snow country.
>
>
>
> Lazy 360 Moose
>
>
>
> * Every reference will call it a 1600-2, for two door, but the badge,
> manual, etc. just said 1600.
>
>
>
> > I like
>
> > that. If I just wanted 1/4 mile times, I'd buy an ugly Mustang.
>
> >
>
> > AG Schnozz
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>
> --
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|