In a message dated 97-08-26 06:45:41 EDT, gardner@lwcomm.com (Scott Gardner)
writes:
<< > > 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
Gee guys, I don't know what to say.......I bought my Miata BECAUSE it was an
updated and improved copy of the Elan. I had an Elan years ago, and although
an entertaining vehicle, it really wasn't a real car. That is, you could get
in it, but you would not necessarily arrive at your destination!
As to the copy debate,(an inch here and there, made of steel, yady yady)
the MAKERS of the Miata SAID that they had produced an updated, improved copy
of the Elan. They wanted, and I bought, an Elan that could make it in the
real world.
I take them at their word...........
Ray
|