Re: ur-Q reliability

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

On 13 Apr 1995 glen.powell@smc.com wrote:

>   I really don't understand the claims for the ur-Qs being "unreliable".

what a lot of people seem to assume is that the ur-Q was never improved from
the original 81/82/83 model.  nothing could be further from the truth.  while
the external styling remained instantly recognizable, lots of changes were
constantly made beneath the skin.  the early cars were troublesome, but to
extrapolate that experience to say, a 1990 20V model would be blind
stupidity.  it would be as dumb as saying "i had a 1973 honda civic that was
a tinbox, therefore all japanese cars made today are tinboxes". 

i would also guess that by 1985 (glen's car) advances were made in production
and quality as by then they realized that the car would be more than a
homologation special.. 

if i wanted to make generalizations about the ur-Q's reliability, i
would not extend it beyond the same model year..


eliot