re: 164S vs 164L

[Dave Hillman <hillman@domain.elided>]

Louis Franklin wrote...
> Have any of the 164s v. 164 L debaters ever driven or owned both cars?

   Yes.  

> The 164 S is definitely the more fun and faster car of the two. The L
> has slightly greater low end torque, but does not have the high end
> power of the S above 4000 rpm. If you want to use it as a grocery
> getter or everday car the L may be better, but the S is definitely more
> sporting in feel.

   From Colin Verrilli's excellent 164 site;

	Magazine			164	0-60	1/4
	Sports Car International	1991 L	7.57s	15.95
	Road and Track			1991 S	7.6 s	15.8
	Autoweek			1991 S	7.7	16.1
	Truck and Passenger		1994 LS	6.9	15.4
	Road and Track			1993 Q	7.6	15.8

   It certainly does not appear that there is a statistically significant
difference in the acceleration across the North American 164 range.

   If someone out there has the following magazines, we can get more
complete data;

AutoWeek                5/7/90          164 Introduction
AutoWeek                7/25/94         1991-1994 164 Performance Review
Car & Driver                6/90            164S Road Test
C&D                 7/91            Super Sedan Comparo (164L)
R&T                 8/91            Sedans Under $30K Comparison Test(164L)
Automobile              9/90            164 Road Test
Italian Cars & Bikes (UK)   #13 1993        164 Range Article
Alfa Romeo World        #3              164 Range Article
ARW                     #4              164 Turbo V-6 Article
Complete Car (UK)       11/94           164 TS & Super Long Term Test 
					Report

   Alternatively, we should arrange a '164 Night' at a drag strip
somewhere.  The S does feel faster, and has a different character from the
L, but I don't believe it is much faster.

- --
 D a v i d  H i l l m a n
 scscc, nma, scca, imoc

------------------------------