Budget quattro/ 2.3 l 4kq

[Larry C Leung]

Back to back 5000 and 6000? Man, I didn't think they were even in the
same price league. (I've driven a Chebby Celebrity once, the Chebby
version of the 6000. Not good, not bad, just a car. I wouldn't place it
in the same league as the Taurus (though off the line it had a bit more
grunt), and I'm not too impressed with it either (and I'm tooling around
in one as a beater/support vehicle for the 200Q. The price was right @
$0.00), though it is tolerable, and driven properly, it's still faster
than most traffic. Which is either saying good things about the car
(hmmmmm) or bad things about other drivers. (fun chasing rice rockets up
entrance ramps in a Sable WAGON. Sad part is their trying. How do I know.
'cuzz the sound out of the Coffee can on the back starts getting real
loud when the Wagon hauls up their backsides....).

LL - NY

On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 20:19:54 +0100 Tom Nas <tnas at euronet.nl> writes:
>Larry C Leung <l.leung at juno.com> wrote:
>
>>So true, the US need for bigger (4000 vs 80/90) numbers was the cause
>of
>>this confusion. To add to the confusion, I think the US division was
>>trying to forget the Ur80's which, if I recall correctly, were not
>>exactly shining examples of reliable German engineering. And speaking
>of
>>numbers, I believe a US contemporary to the 5000 (nee 100/200) was
>the
>>Pontiac 6000. I just wonder if it really was 1000 more better.....
>
>I think there's a back-to-back in the compilation of Road&Track tests.
>
>IIRC, the Audi won but not by as large a margin as you'd expect. Now
>if
>only they'd test 'em again as used cars...
>
>Tom
>