Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven7
Yes, cars with lower handling limits are more fun to drive quickly compared to driving a "fast" car the same speed. There's no doubt about that. However, it's a matter of horse and rider. You need to trust your horse and in my opinion the Geo is not a trustworthy steed. It may get great MPG, but that's all it does.
Please forgive my motorsport talk.  |
Absolutely forgiven. I used to run Solo2 in a '99 Miata and then NASA-X in an '84 Supra. I have a copy of the PhoRS in my glove compartment. While I am focused on MPG and the rest of my stable is populated with station wagons, I do know my roots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War_Wagon
As for the Metro vs Civic - I have driven crappy examples of both, and nice examples of both. And I don't drive fast, but I do have to maintain highway speeds on some scary mountain roads from time to time. And in my experience, a worn out Honda drives nicer than a good condition Metro in that situation. Though, the best mountain/highway car I have ever driven was my '91 Tercel DX. I don't know what it is about those cars, but the gearing/torque is just perfect for maintaining highway speeds up hills and through the twisties. Where the Metro would go into 3rd, and the Civic into 4th up some of the grades, the Tercel spent a lot more time in 5th than the other two did. They are pretty comfy as well.
|
I used to own a '93 Tercel 2dr/4sp. I did like that car and I've owned 6(?) other Toyotas. I've actually never owned a Honda
or an American car (except a '77 Wagoneer and a '90 Laser that was just a rebadged Eclipse).
I've heard a lot of reasons not to get a Metro and I thank you all. More than I thought at first, I do care about how the car
feels.