[Shotimes] RE: OT - Autoweek stuff

[Carl Prochilo]

I don't know much at all about the history.  I do have an impression
that there is some cult following out there and may be some
aftermarket stuff for it.  Not sure.  Try racing and one and you
might be surprised.

The Marauder is not a SHO for sure.  And to the point about Ford
getting their clock cleaned, they first need a clock.  They've never
really embraced the notion of the performance sedan since Don
Peterson was in charge.
-- 
Cheers,
Carl Prochilo
1992 Ultra Red Crimson

Donald Mallinson said:
> Carl,
>
> I drove a Marauder when they first came out, had one on
> order, and when it came in, took a drive, and was WAY
> disappointed.  Much slower off the line than I expected.
> Even top end rush was below par.  The problem was all those
> smoky burn-out ads that over-hyped the car.
>
> I have talked to a few owners that are very happy, but in my
> case, with the sunroof and the way they mounted the bucket
> seats, there was NO headroom in the stupid car!.   I had a
> 94 CV with the split bench seat that had enough room to wear
> a 10 gallon Texas hat.  How Ford managed to kill off ALL
> that headroom is a mystery.  Ergonomics was just all wrong,
> and my 94 seemed to be peppier off the line.
>
> Don Mallinson
>
> Carl Prochilo wrote:
>
>> Since you appear to be into slushboxes, what shortcomings does the
>> Marauder have that makes it not qualify as a "performance" sedan?
>> I
>> happen to think it's a nice looking car that goes like stink.
>>
>> Does anyone else think of Bugs Bunny when you hear the word
>> "Marauder"?
>>
>> The lack of stick is what turns me off, so that's why it doesn't
>> fit
>> my definition.
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes