I must be seeing things, Emjay AND Stan back pretty much on the same day


What next....proccy? Sedicivalvole??

AndrewR???

And Sam Simon, and me but no, its awesome to see stan post and emjay

AndrewR???




Please! No!

You weren't quite on the same day Sam - but yes Joe came up with that unerringly simple fact about people not posting =quiet forum

How does the sixteener compare with your others (obviously it's not a turbo...) - do you feel it could do with a 6th gear like the VIS?

Yes Emjay has been enlightened in employing his crossword expertise for us to wade through

Do you remember Turbo_Verde's classic "Stan's love for Mrs. Stan"? I can't believe it was over 10 years ago!

I have seen thing, things that can't be unseen......

The 16v is interesting as I actually drove a 16v na and 20v na back to back at the weekend.

The 16v is heavy, heavy clutch, brakes and much heavier steering. The 20v steering felt far far to assisted after the 16.

I prefer the engine note of the 20v but am more than happy with the performance of the 16v that seems to enjoy being reved far more than the 20v.

Both have there pros and cons and honestly I don't think there is a bad choice, the 20v seems more civilized and easy and the 16v seems like a bit more work for a bit more feel.

If I had to actualy drive it every day I wouldn't choose any, I'd take the porker and it's autobox

You know I've maintained for years the better car for driving is the 16NA - less weight over the front axles. But you're right: it's properly weighted and everything else feels over assisted after driving it. Can't agree about the 5 cylinder noise but that's a personal taste thing... I do like that the 16 just loves to rev... and rev... and rev... (Though I have felt for some time that the brakes could be improved).

Ad as for performance: to paraphrase an old 2CV advert: at 70mph the coupe will easily outpace a Porsche doing 65.

AndrewR wouldn't approve of using three ???

Probably not!!!!