[Roadsters] 1600 v 2000?

[Keith0alan at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/20/2008 1:19:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
gsm at gregorysmorrison.com writes:

I've  seen several ground up restorations of 1600s and 2000s. All things
being  equal, the cost is very similar. So, other than "because it's been in
my  family for years", or "because I like 1600s better than 2000s", why  are
some people pouring a ton of money into restoring a stock 1600? Why not  go
with a 2000? Same car, but with more gears and more power.

Just  curious.

Greg
SRL31100494



Why would anyone dump a ton of money into restoring either one? The early  
1600 has the flat dash that lots of folks like better. The 1600 engine is less  
expensive to rebuild and is a more durable engine. I have speeding tickets to  
prove the 1600 is plenty fast enough. Since any roadster restoration is a 
"nice  to have" it is simply a matter of what that individual wants to do. They 
are  different but I wouldn't say either one is better across the board.
 
keith



**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
Home.      
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)