Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 19:32:59 -0400 From: Four Weis <mweinopsamcom> Subject: Re: RWD.
Do you really need an excuse to drive the 96? Remember, a driven car is a happy car! I currently have 3 cars, not including my wife's mini van. One of the three is a rwd Volvo and the other is the Camry I bought before I found my current 900. Each car has it unique characteristics, but the 900 is the hands down favorite. It handles the best of the three in dry, wet, snowy and icy roads. davehinznopsamcop.net wrote: > OK, I did some testing this evening, with two of my Saabs: > > * Saab 9-5, Auto trans, flat, straight road with minimal to zero crown. > > With my hands off the steering wheel, I was unable to induce any deviation > going from 0 to Wide Open Throttle (WOT), or from 20-WOT, 40-WOT, or > 60-WOT. In other words, no matter what speed I was going, I stomped the > turbo and the car went straight; no pull to either side. From this > non-scientific but systematic experiment, I conclude that my Saab 9-5 has > zero torque steer. I mean, heavy accelleration is when I'd see it, right? > and if it was torque steer, the steering wheel *would* deviate from straight > on, right? > > This is consistant with how my classic900 acted, but as I traded it in on > the 9-5, I can't re-test it. > > * 1965 Saab 96, 58.5 horsepower "red" engine (triple carbs, oil injected) > > Same experiment - stomp it at the same speeds, no torque steer. Then > again, it's not got a ton of torque, and it was more an excuse to drive > the '65 than anything, but, no torque steer in the 2-stroke 96 either. > > So, however the 9-5 is put together, it certainly seems not to be > showing any torque steer, in my non-scientific experiment. Further, I > conclude that the oil-injected two strokes don't smoke as much as the > mixers, and that Yamalube smells odd when it burns. > > Dave Hinz
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
