> > But my observation still stands: the Miata is nothing more than a
> > replica/repro of the Lotus Elan.
>
> Eh? It's ~ 20% wider, 40% heavier, has unitized construction (Elan
> had backbone chassis), upper/lower a-arm rear suspension (Elan had
> lower a-arm, chapman strut), steel bodied (Elan was fiberglass). Even
> the proportions of L:W:H are no closer to an Elan than they are to an
> MGB.
>
> I admit, I see a faint resemblance in styling, but that's where it
> ends. What ground can you stand on to call this thing an Elan
> replica? If I were an Elan fan and bought it thinking that's what I'd
> get, I'd be pretty pissed off when it arrived.
>
I agree with you, Matt. I think what happens is that when a person
isn't on intimate terms with either of two cars, he can see some
resemblances and automatically assume they were copied from one car
to the other. Personally, I can't tell the difference between most
cars from the 40's, be they Willys, Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth. I see
the big gaping grilles and rounded front fenders, and they look alike
to me. Likewise, I can't fault a non-enthusiast for mistaking an MGB
roadster for a Karmann Ghia or an MGB-GT for a VW 412, even though I
could tell the difference from a thousand yards, as I'm sure a VW
aficianado could as well.
Scott
|