RE: In defence of WR's

[Eaton Dave <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

sorry mike, you're right.  it's a great car, and i loved mine intensely.
in fact, it's still on the list afaik, costing it's new owner a fortune.

i even got to like the voice, once i had disconnected the seat belt
reminder thingy.  when starting off, it was always a contest who would
crack 1st, me of the car reminding me to test my brake lights...

the comments about the mb and rr are simply imo, due to the improvements
in handling and "chuckability" of these cars (including the
improvements, particualrly in the rr, of low-down grunt),
characteristics of which i associate with sports cars.  and not
something i would ever label the s2 or rs2 with.  on a twisty road the
rr is (imho) the car to have (heat shields up, jim)..

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:21:19 -0400
> From: "Mike Hopton" <MARKDOM.MARKPO.Mike@genesis-microchip.on.ca>
> Subject: In defence of WR's
> 
> >> But only of an emasculated WR.
> 
> Aaaarggh....
> 
> Is it just me or is anyone else getting fed up with people knocking
the WR =
> engined cars?
> 
> Dave, Phil, - I appreciate your comments but a WR can "actually" be a
lot =
> of fun. You guys make it sound like a bleed'n PITA to own.=20
> 
> "If" not the fastest or best handling - it was and always will be the
ur =
> quattro. It certainly captures the spirit of the early '80s rally
cars. =
> Low compression, lots of turbo lag and  ..... no T*rsen. Emasculated
is =
> the last word I would choose to describe it.
> 
> Regards, Mike
> 
> Analogue dash, no voice synthesizer and loving it!
> 
> '83 ur-q
> '85 not so ur-q
> '88 5ktq
> '98 Disco
> 
> ------------------------------