as a direct result of its design. I'd say that qualifies it as a "major design feature".
Especially considering everything else available at the time.You think it's weak and little more than a gimmick, fine you can take that attitude towards it, but you are wrong. It was time and time again praised as the best handling sporstcar, or one of the best handling sportscars, at any price in reputable publications and still set handling marks that aren't surpassed by sportscars today. [ http://www.twinturbo.net/net/viewmsg.aspx?forum=general&msg_id=1825186 ] Put it back in 1990 with a C4 corvette, the supra, porsche 964, and the F40 with it's 68.3 mph speed (exoticcarsite.com), and you don't think that qualifies it as a "major design feature"? Do you honestly think the TT had such magical springs, shocks, and swaybars, that a TT-suspensioned NA could have matched or exceeded it's handling without the HICAS? C'mon, if you just want to be in the anti-HICAS boat fine, but don't try to rationalize it by saying it was only a "gimmick" and wasn't a significant performance enhancer. There is nothing that even remotely supports that. GM calling your basic rack and pinion power assisted steering system the "MAGNASTEER SYSTEM" is a gimmick. The car was going to have an engine, making a class leading powerplant is an ADVANTAGE, not a feature. Now I agree twin turbocharge and twin intercool it and THAT'S a feature. The car was going to have a suspension, and without the HICAS feature it is nothing much more remarkable than the other suspensions on other sportscars. I guess you could say the styling was a feature since it was such a departure from the industry trends, but now you are going off into subjective grounds, and we are talking tangible, quantifiable performance features in regards to the HICAS and turbocharging system.
 Tsk tsk, some people just don't know when to stfu search said you suck (n/m) - Wilks. 01:38:02 09/06/06 |
