> relng...@aol.com wrote: > > There are many good reasons to stay away from any 924. Particularly the > > Turbo. > > I thought the Turbo was the one that had better suspension and brakes than > an > Audi Fox. Was the 924S that sold alongside the 944 a better car than the > old ones? > > Mitch.... > I guess the reference to the Fox was some kind of sarcasm. I know that the Fox was a dreadful car with the reliability of a five dollar nuclear bomb. Just a plain-ass little FWD 2-door with no redeeming qualities. The 924 Turbo, a rolling hand grenade with turbo and exhaust problems that would put one in the poor house, had about the same performance as the later NA 944 without the reliability. When the 924S showed up in 1988, it seemed to answer a question unasked. It used the current 944 drivetrain in the old 924 narrow body so looked old even when new. The interior, with the old manual AC, was like the early 944.
The 924 was slow and noisy although it handled well. The first ones were 4-speeds and rode like hobby horses, pitching for and aft. These cars were competitors to the 240Z at the same price. We all know what a big success the 240Z was and maybe the main reason people bought 924s was the badge on the nose. RLE > > > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
