settling on '88 5kcstq instead of '91 200 or V8?

[Aleksander Mierzwa]

At 09:48 00-12-08 -0700, Ken Keith wrote:

>Do you find yourselves totally content with your '86-'88 5k's, or do 
>you wish you had chosen a later MC2 dual knock sensor, higher 
>compression model, or maybe a '91 200 or V8?

It's a tough question. I believe the '86-'88 5Ks are tremendous value for
the money. I don't really understand why they are so cheap. They don't
rust, the mechanicals are quite durable, and they are a blast to drive. If
you fix the usual stuff (turbo oil lines, rack, pump etc.), which are not
that expensive and very well documented and can live with the outdated
interior you have a great car for very little money.
Newer cars have updated interior, which IMHO is sooooo much nicer it's
alone worth the difference in price. If your primary interest is in
performance and you don't care that much for cosmetics, though, an older 5K
with K26 turbo is a better bet. 
200q20v is a great car because it's so fast, but it is rare and has many
unique parts (including UFO rotors), so it is more expensive to maintain
that it's 10v siblings.

A V8q is a whole different story. It's much more luxurious, much more
complicated and, unfortunately, much more expensive both to purchase and
maintain than 44 type cars. And, unlike turbo cars, there's no chip which
will give you 50% increase in horsepower.

--
Aleksander Mierzwa
Warsaw, Poland
87 5KT