Quote:
Originally Posted by theguywiththelongestname
... any annectdotal impressions or compare/contrast stories with these vehicles and the smart would be greatly appreciated...  ...
|
I owned two SAABs, a 93F and an 850 Monte Carlo, and also drove my parents 93B and 96. The 93s were a little rudimentary but in no way flimsy. The Monte Carlo and 96 were well on their way to what SAAB became.
My mother also had a Renault Dauphine for a while that I drove. That was cheap, "plasticy," and definitely flimsy. It ended its life lugging apples up out of the orchard.
I've happily had some seat time in an early, round-headlight Citroen 2CV. It too was rudimentary (or less) but not really cheap - call it successfully utilitarian as was its intent. The 2CV is so eclectic that its foibles are forgivable.
My first vehicle was a 1947 Austin A10 Saloon with a not-bad-for-its-time 30 BHP flathead four. I don't know where Austin came up with so much steel in the post-war years, but the body might as well have been made out of cast iron. Its moving inertia (when it finally gained some) easily overwhelmed the mechanical brakes.
The Monte Carlo was quite heavily "breathed upon" by Gaston Andrey and Felix Bosshardt (Framingham, MA) and I used it for ice racing. It was quite fast. But for the others, performance was a relative term, and a smart could suck them all up - well maybe not the 96. Fuel economy ran in the mid-30s. They were fun times that seemed to slip away until recently.