(in both senses) Yes, that was a preference of mine, though not a determinant. In practical terms I think.. there's a bit more ease in getting to stuff, even though the space is filled.. it isn't as crammed as in the crosswise designs.

Then too, my fav past cars - Citr\ufffden, Saab were similarly oriented. My suspicion is that the concentrated 'polar moment' of the 4-across types may not produce the best handling. A bit spread fore and aft just.. sounds better. As to rear wheel placement ergo wheelbase shortening, again I'd prefer squeeezing the occasional rear-seat passengers a tad = not a problem for 2, only with 3, VS better handling. The rear overhang beyond axle would be acceptably small unless carrying Pb bricks in the trunk.

Anyway.. it passes my slalom test without exc. lean, and it's closest I'd ever get to a $29K machine (at '94 prices - more like 35 now) for merely hauling around a 180# carbon unit. The TL continued the 5 cyl. engine for 2? more years. Now it's all V-6 (meaning inaccessible spark plugs for 2 or 3 cylinders!).

Fun.. not many toys as complex as a 'car'. Lots to play DIY engineer with. Gotta get Service man. "MAN ABS"


Cheers,
A.