In article ,
says...

On Sat, 23 May 2015 19:49:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I don't understand why anyone would be interested in 48 MPG running on
half the engine in a performance oriented car like a Corvette. Then
again, I wouldn't want a Corvette. I've driven three. The first (and
probably the best that I can remember) was an early 1950's model ..
can't remember if it was a '54 or '55, but I know it had a six cylinder
engine. I was only 16 years old and the owner of the garage I worked at
in the summer had it in storage. He got it out one day and let me take
it for a spin.

The second was a mid 70's model. Horrible. Handled terribly, shook,
quaked and knocked the fillings out of your teeth.

The third was a new one that I test drove about 3 years ago when half
thinking of getting another toy. Much improved but still did nothing
for me.

By far the best performance orientated vehicle I've ever owned was a
2002 Porsche 911/996 twin turbo. 450 hp, six speed manual transmission,
all wheel drive and still got 18 mpg around town and 22-24 mpg on the
highway. The ride was firm but not harsh
and it handled like it was on rails. Best engineered automobile I've
ever driven.

I had to get rid of it though. If I had kept it much longer I would no
longer have a driver's license.


I had a 69 Corvette that I drove for 3 years and put 170,000 miles on.
It was OK but nothing special. I traded it for a Jeep.
I think my 97 Prelude handles as well and on the right windy road, I
doubt that 69 Corvette could ever get out of sight of me.

Getting 170,000 miles out of any 1969 car is "special."
Here's a couple decent comparisons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1IPvRuyzo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6y7oeZx9WY

I prefer the Ferrari. But will settle for my Taurus.