Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:56:49 -0500 From: ma_twain <ma_twainnopsamo.com> Subject: Re: 1998 GM 900 vs. C900
Am I guessing your C900 was an automatic? All of mine were/are manuals and there is no need for special lubricants to get them to shift. I will agree that a C900 with an automatic is not that great, but try one with a manual :-) Yes - I am talking Volvo. I learned to drive in a P1800. I still have my first Volvo, a 1982 245 Turbo with a B21FT engine and M46 transmission (4 speed electric overdrive). The 740 has better visibility and I have heard good things about the "newer" B23 engine. I still drive the 245 for fun - rear wheel drive, turbo and manual transmission :-) meld_b wrote: > I realized after I wrote about improvments that someone might not think > they were better... > I know I'm supposed to like wishbones over struts...but when going over > bumps - I'll take the struts. > > In order to get my C900 to shift I put RedLine MTL in the transmission. > Without that I think it was almost unshiftable when cold. > > Are you talking Volvo?!!??? > -D > >>>> >>>> The transmission feel, suspension, & interior noise I think are all >>>> WAY better in the NG900. Having a remote and Alarm system is taking >>>> some getting used to but I think this is an improvement. I'm really >>>> missing the ability to open the back hatch using a latch where it >>>> should be like the C900's (and our 02 Subaru!) >>> >> Some of us don't think they are improvements - but then that is only >> our opinion. Now, the 740 was an improvement over the 240. >> >> >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
