New Spiders for Old!

[Pottree@domain.elided]

In a message dated 8/11/2002 12:47:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
owner-alfa-digest@domain.elided writes:


> Question - How well do the 91 and newer spider's perform? How much power
> etc? Any common problems? Do they leak easily? I've got a 74 in moderately
> rough shape, but still a blast to drive. How do the 91+ spiders compare to
> the older spiders? How about to other comparable years/brands?
> 
> I'm considering trying to get a newer (91+) spider in the next 3-6 months
> or so. What price range should I expect for one in good condition? I've
> been seeing about 10 to 14 thousand on a few I quickly glanced at online.
> 
Okay, I have had long experience with a 71 1750 Spider and closing on four 
years with the 91 (auto) Spider.

Cut to the chase: the 71 was a better driver.  Emotionally, I liked it 
better.  Setting aide the obvious major difference (5 speed v auto), the 1750 
was lighter and more nimble in every way, and was produced prior to some of 
the fun-robbing emission and safety advances of later years (that, we hope, 
will help us live to enjoy our Alfas for a longer time).  

Overall, the similarities outweigh the differences.  The newer version is a 
refinement of the original design, but it is essentially the same car; that 
is, it is a fine car and the pinnacle of automotive engineering c 1965. 

The 91 is, overall, a better car in every way: it is more comfortable, safer, 
cleaner, seems to be better built, IT IS THE MOST TROUBLE-FREE CAR I HAVE 
EVER OWNED, including those from Japan (bought new) and Scandinavia.  
Amazingly, for a heavier car with bigger displacement, A/C, and auto, the 
fuel economy is about the same: I could get about 32 mpg in 5th on the 
highway (and about 20ish around town) in the 1750; the 91  averages 29 mpg, 
sometimes squeaks out 30.5 on long, flat highway trips, but seems to do 
better around town.  There is very little apparent difference when the A/C is 
on or off.

Leaks?  The volume of fluids I have put into the 91 since I've owned it are 
about equal to what leaked out of the 1750 during its tenure; the newer car 
hardly leaks and the older one was like a new puppy.

My BW always complained that the 1750 with its perfect manual steering "drove 
like a truck."  The 91 has power steering that is actually quite good and I 
don't mind it, but you don't feel like you're driving a sports car in ye olde 
days.  The 91 is her car and she calls it a cream puff, which it is.  Do not 
expect this to be a modern performance car, power-wise.  However, if your 
overall evaluation of performance takes into account all the systems, then it 
is astonishing how well this little buggy has held up over the decades!  
Warning: the brakes are somewhat better than those of the driver likely to be 
following you too closely, so apply accordingly.

Did you ever have an old suit too good to throw away but getting long past 
its prime... that you revitalized with a spiffy new tie?  That is about how 
the 91 compares to the 71.  The 71 was more fun and more genuine overall, but 
in many ways an antique pain in the ass to own (which pain I gladly bore).    
The 91 has most of the same virtues but doesn't seem like the real thing, 
somehow, and it is much easier to own.

Evergreen: many people have asked about the 91: is that a new car?  Is that 
the way cars will look in the future?  Do you think they will start producing 
those and selling them in the USA?  Most non-Alfa people are floored to 
discover it is a 12-year-old example of a 40-year-old design.  And compared 
to the butt-ugly iron rolling around, you can see why.  That, to me, is a 
classic.  And the newer version is just as classic as those from the earlier 
vintages.

YMMV

Charlie
LA, CA, USA
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided