A Reeky clubhouse IRL
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Changing crank seals on an RD-400
Next: pɐǝɥ ɹnoʎ pǝǝɟ
From: tomorrow on 27 Nov 2009 11:13 On Nov 26, 11:53 am, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:0117c5a2-73b6-4347-9b23- > 6ac1f4717...(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: > > > I've never had a lemon in my life, domestic or > > foreign. > > You've never owned a 2000 Dodge Durango. This is true. However, my brother owns a first-gen Durango that currently has over 270,000 miles on it and is daily transportation for two of his teenagers. And my buddy Clayton had a second-gen Dakota (that the first-gen Durango was based on) that he sold with 240,000 miles on it without ever having had any notable problems with it. And I have owned Triumph Spitfires and GT-6's and two Renaults. None of them were lemons, either.
From: Mark Olson on 27 Nov 2009 16:08 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > And I have owned Triumph Spitfires and GT-6's and two Renaults. None > of them were lemons, either. 'The exception that proves the rule' Renault Dauphine: Worst. Car. Ever. Wikipedia says: "It was also heavier and 12 in (300 mm) longer than its predecessor, but used the same engine, albeit a version increased in size and power from 760 cc to 845 cc and 19 hp to 32 hp (14 kW to 24 kW) (the Dauphine was infamously slow: Road & Track magazine measured the Dauphine's 0-60 mph/0–97 km/h acceleration time as 32 seconds). "
From: Vito on 27 Nov 2009 16:30 "Mark Olson" <olsonm(a)tiny.invalid> wrote | Renault Dauphine: Worst. Car. Ever. | | Wikipedia says: | | "It was also heavier and 12 in (300 mm) longer than its predecessor, | but used the same engine, albeit a version increased in size and | power from 760 cc to 845 cc and 19 hp to 32 hp (14 kW to 24 kW) (the | Dauphine was infamously slow: Road & Track magazine measured the | Dauphine's 0-60 mph/0–97 km/h acceleration time as 32 seconds). " | I don't know what its predecessor was so I cannot comment on that. I owned a 1957 Dauphine. It was priced cheaper than a VW, had about the same acceleration and top speed (neither remarkable) but had 4 doors, its heater worked, the defroster didn't fog the windshield and was king of its class in the parking lot slalom league thanks to better handling. The "trunk" made a great cooler. Down side was they tipped easier than a VW or Porsche unless rear axel travel was limited and dealer service sucked. Hardly the best or the worst $1600 car ever.
From: J. Clarke on 27 Nov 2009 17:42 Mark Olson wrote: > tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > >> And I have owned Triumph Spitfires and GT-6's and two Renaults. None >> of them were lemons, either. > > 'The exception that proves the rule' > > Renault Dauphine: Worst. Car. Ever. > > Wikipedia says: > > "It was also heavier and 12 in (300 mm) longer than its predecessor, > but used the same engine, albeit a version increased in size and > power from 760 cc to 845 cc and 19 hp to 32 hp (14 kW to 24 kW) (the > Dauphine was infamously slow: Road & Track magazine measured the > Dauphine's 0-60 mph/0–97 km/h acceleration time as 32 seconds). " Sounds like it was aimed at the same market as the Citroen 2CV and the Subaru 360. The 2CV was at least entertaining to look at.
From: The Older Gentleman on 27 Nov 2009 18:13
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > Sounds like it was aimed at the same market as the Citroen 2CV and the > Subaru 360. The 2CV was at least entertaining to look at. And to drive. All 600cc of it. The early models had a smaller 436cc engine. When I was a student in France, a friend had one. I remember she was lifting us all back from town one night (four up in the car made it supernaturally sluggish), and one of our lot was American who asked, curiously, how big the engine was. "Quatre cent trente-six centimetres cubes..." she replied nonchalantly. You could see this guy's brain turning over. He'd heard 436cc, and he spoke good French, but it didn't compute. He must have made a mistake. He knew it wasn't four thousand cc, because patently it didn't have a four and a half litre engine, and nobody, in his book, put a four hundred cc engine in a car. So he asked again, and got the same answer. And the penny dropped. "Four hundred and thirty-six cee-cee? We wouldn't even put that in a lawnmower!" He had a point :-) -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |