 |

  |
 |
| |
|
|
| Subject |
I don't think 2+2 Z32's look bad, but I am not fond of any |
 |
| |
|
|
| Posted by |
Z U N L on January 27, 2003 at 10:35 PM |
 |
| |
This message has been viewed 38 times. |
 |
| |
|
|
| In Reply To |
Only to the untrained eye. But I will say that after owning posted by YugoBernie (NoVA) on January 27, 2003 at 07:34 PM |
 |
| |
|
|
| Message |
of the earlier incarnations of the 2+2 Z car. Perhaps I am biased by owning a 2+2, but even before I owned it and was looking at pictures of the 90+ model Z's I liked the look of the 2+2 as long as it had a tasteful spoiler (especially the j-spec or the kaminari like Seedy had). I think they have an odd look to the tail end without a spoiler. Aesthetically speaking, they are also a little bit long in the area between the door and the rear wheel well in my opinion (I would like to see it be the same distance as the front wheel well to the door), but I still love the looks of them. I think that the 2+0 look more muscular, but the 2+2 look more lean. Stock for stock, I suppose I prefer the look of the 2+0, but with some minor aesthetic touches, the 2+2 can be made to look very attractive as well.
"The two seater is being joined in a few weeks by a larger two-plus-two model with a rear seat for munchkins." ~Jim Mateja, Chicago Tribune, in regards to the Z32.
Andrew Janeshek // jnshk@aol.com // 1992 NA 2+2 [Stage 2-ish]

 |
 |
| |
|
|
| Follow Ups |
|
|
| |
|
|
Post a Followup |
You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|