Page 4 of 4
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 5:55 am
by entirelyturbo
When I take full possession of my grandpa's wagon, I think I am going to put a turbo grill on it. That will help out a whole lot, as I think the post N/A grill is absolutely hideous. But it still won't look near as good as my Patti
Oh, and the 91 turbo is the best-looking Legacy of the entire generation, period
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:29 am
by Kelly
subyluvr2212 wrote:
Oh, and the 91 turbo is the best-looking Legacy of the entire generation, period
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 2:41 am
by nzKAOSnz
ummmm - would someone care to put a pic up of a post turbo front next to a post NA front?
just trying to see the diff (didnt know there was a difference)
GO THE POST.
a dechromed post facelift wagon is niiiiiiice
and - comparing a bone stock NA pre to Post - the pre facelift is BUTT ugly. the post is still not that nice ugly - but doesnt look so bad.
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 3:17 am
by THAWA
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 7:15 am
by 555BCTurbo
I totally agree with Todd, I would kill to have a 91 Turbo to supplement my 92...and I agree in that if I was forced to own an N/A (2.2 N/A class rallycar) It would have to be a BC5, or Prefacelift...
As far as the turbos, they all look great!!!
Also...my uncle had a black Preface RS-R down in New Zealand, it was a thing of beauty!!
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 7:30 am
by IronMonkeyL255
I agree with many others on here.
Pre headlights look better than post, and post taillights look better than pre.
That being said, I LOVE my '91 Turbo.
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:00 am
by nzKAOSnz
not all N/A's have the N/A Front. I know how stupid that sounds - but my VZ wagon has same front bumper as the turbo one shown above.
so i have the projector type fogs.
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 4:31 pm
by THAWA
It doesn't matter, it's still ugly
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 11:28 pm
by nzKAOSnz
and whats with the dicky looking bits sticking out the sides of the front corner lenses?
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:08 am
by THAWA
unfortunately we didnt get those.
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:20 am
by nzKAOSnz
????? i mean on the prefacelift. on the side lense - where the post indicators are - theres this hideous orange lump.
POST-wagons all the wayyyy....
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am
by THAWA
I know what you mean, and we didn't get those.
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:08 pm
by entirelyturbo
Does EVERY poll on this board have to have that third option?
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:21 pm
by JasonGrahn
I COULD think of something more creative, if you'd like.
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:27 pm
by Tleg93
Go for it dude, f*&$ it all up!!!!
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:41 pm
by THAWA
We went more than a year without that. That's so gay.
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:57 pm
by tris91ricer
No you're gay!
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:25 am
by 206er
I like both of em, but I'd have to say pre face is better. the NA post faces grille is terrible looking. the turbo postface bumper/grille combo is awesome looking though.
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:11 am
by KGB4187
Ive owned a 91 and own a 94 right now, so I mite as well add my part...
Both look good! I could stare at my 91 LS wagon for hours, much in the same way I can stare at my 94 Turbo. Granted my turbo is Aegean Blue, but still.
The interior is a draw- the 91 was blue but it didnt have the airbag computer, and it allowed me to have a Nardi STi wheel (which felt sooo good) and better intermitent wipers. The wipers suck on the turbo. I really like the mist function tho... The turbo black is better than the LS blue color. No map pockets or coin tray on the turbo.
Lighting goes to the post, no contest. I can see the light from the turn signals at night, eventually I want to wire in the side lights to the signals as well. The pre doesnt have those lights at all, even tho theres a hole in the fender for it behind the trim...
The pre is more rough and ready looking, while the post is more serene and cruising-like. Perfect for touring
I still miss my 91 tho, RIP Pagoda
pics of my 91 after I sold it
