Re: 75/Milano road test

[Jess Liao <jessl@domain.elided>]

> From: Chip Mutza <dmutza@domain.elided>
> 
> They stated:  "The heavy engine stuffed into the inelegant nose of the
> 75 made for less than brilliant handling", and "the weight distribution
> of the 75 3.0 was far from ideal. It made a mockery of the rear-mounted
> gearbox, which had been intended to keep things on a more even keel." -

the 3.0 has 52/48 dist
the 2.5 has 51/49 distr.
the 2.0 has 50/50 but then of course we aint' getting those here.

For the styling, it's love it or heat it. For me, the unique styling
was what caught my eyes at first. Unique shape that is elegant and
machismo in its own way. The 164 has more luxury elegance but
even my mom commented that Milano has the look.

As for handling, the 3.0 does feel nose heavy comparing to the 2.5...
but then it is heavier... coupled with its extra torque, it's easy
to enter a corner too hot or gas a little too much resulting "pushing"
into understeer. The front engine rear trans layout also provides
polarity that makes the car less want to turn, but would keep
the car from wanting to sping too.

I would ease off the gas to make the turn-in. Once set, gas it in
as much as possible. You don't just crank the steering wheel and expect
the car to turn (some thing I learned after long milano driving time)

> "its only a bargain if you can live with the car." <-- If you can live
> with the car?!?! Personally, I'm hurt. ;)

now this is really wrong, some of the british magazine that has been
keen on Alfas named 75/3.0 best performance for the bucks. And if you
remember, Zamani had encounter with the older M3 in his verdefied milano.

Dont worry about road tests from magazines, they are all bias in certain way :)

Then feel sorry for those who never test drive an alfa because of magazine's
review while you have large grin on your face driving one :)

Happy Reving

Jess

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