[Gubi]

As similar as they are in terms of engineering design, I found that the cars drive very differently. Personally I think if you're used to a Milano, the GTV6 is kind of disappointing to drive. Which is too bad because the GTV6 is a lot less quirky looking than the Milano.

 

[Gubi]

Personally I suspect a lot of it is the power steering. The ZF rack on the Milano has great feel, and probably a faster ratio than the GTV6, no? In any case the Milano feels a lot more chuckable.

The isostatic shift linkage is also a big improvement over the earlier long-oar-in-porridge version. Though the GTV6 did get the isostatic in '86.

 

[Gubi]

Richard, I realize this is the Internet, but never call a man's car ugly. Besides, it drives better than the GTV6, so personality goes a long way

Man, you guys who dislike the isostatic shifter need to, you know, drive one in good shape. My Milano with 100K on it *still* shifted better than the old style shifter, and a little work to repair the wear made it freakin' great. The *synchros* still suck, but that's another story...

If your isostatic shifter is moving around, the shifter ain't the problem...time to start checking transmission mounts!

 

[Gubi]

You misunderstand me, Gabor. I'm not talking about luxury: the Milano has always felt like more of a driver's car than the GTV6 to me. Just easier to throw around. Which always seemed odd because they're basically the same car, but there you go.

Again, I suspect the Milano's faster steering rack has a lot to do with this.

 

[Gubi]

Wouldn't it help you dodge the moose?

Again, I don't just mean the power assist. The rack is faster: fewer turns lock to lock. Of course, the reason they could get away with this is because of the assist...otherwise all Milano drivers would have massive arms.

In practice, the ZF rack is really good with nice feedback. Unlike in many cars, I don't feel like I lose any driving feel from the assist.