(You guys let me know when I've toasted enough eardrums.)
U. Goettsch writes:
> > We're not going to see any more cars with "classic" shapes a la T
> > series. Those days are over. These are the days of soft forms with
> > minimal protrusions.
>
> That is also unfortunately true, that's why we DON'T buy them.
> It sounds like you are saying "Get with it, your technology is outdated!"
> Are you going to tell an owner of antique furniture "These are the times
> of futons, throw away your Louis XIV sofa?"
Please don't misunderstand me. Of course I wouldn't try to dictate to
anybody what he or she _should_ buy. I'm trying to point out the
reasons why manufacturers (such as Rover) are not making cars the same
way they used to (such as MG), even though some of us wish they would.
> See, to us, cars are not just for "going places so we can do things that
> make our life worthwhile". The "getting there" can be quite worthwhile,
> just as the "working on it" and the "improving it" or even the "talking
> about it". (and to some people even the nursing the homebrew while talking
> about working on it so they can go somewhere...)
Although semantic, I might point out that my statement is not
inconsistent with yours. Of course we love to drive. That's part of
it. And the MGF handles better than the MGB.
> > They've gone into improving handling and engine performance, just like
> > you whined about. Do you not see it? Are you so blinded by your love
> > for carburetors, ignition points, and leaf springs? All of those things
> > are totally cool, and represent the state of the art for the period in
> > which our older cars were built, but, as I stated before, those days are
> > OVER. Better systems have been engineered.
>
> Who is to define what is "better"?
Well, SHOOT. WE do, every time we talk about which shock oil to use, or
how to dial in that Piper cam. It's obvious that we want our cars to
accelerate, brake, and handle as well as possible. We want all four
tires to maintain full traction through all conceivable conditions (and
the F's Hydragas beats the B's leaf springs and lever arms). We want a
flat, high torque curve right up to the rev limit of our motor (and the
F's 1.8 gives you 122 ft/lb @ 3000 rpm, with a redline of 6800, which
beats whatever the B's spec is (*)). We want the car to stop
authoritatively, each and every time (ever seen a 'B with four-wheel
discs?). Given these aims, we can easily talk about which systems are
"better" than others.
> You see, if your signature didn't say "74 MGB", I would have suggested
> that this list might not be what you are looking for, a MGF list might be
> more what you had in mind. But maybe you just drive that B because you
> can't afford (or buy) an F...
Believe you me, I'd LOVE for my .sig to proudly claim both the MGB and
an MGF (and a Volvo 855R, and a HD XLH Sportster 883 Hugger). Each has
its appeal. But we don't always get what we want, do we?
--
Todd "Don't forget the sailboat" Mullins
Todd.Mullins@nrlssc.navy.mil On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast
'74 MGB Tourer with new brake rotors and pads, but frozen calipers...
"I could go at any time..."
|