At 09:09 PM 11/28/97 -0800, Mike Lishego wrote:
>Keith Wheeler wrote:
>
>> but the
>> TR-7 is the only one that looks "modern" to her eye.
>
> I went to a local car show with a buddy of mine, and we saw a TR-7.
>His
>first remark (re-marque?) was "When did Triumph put out a new sportscar?"
Simply
>put, if you softened the lines of a TR-7, you could sell it as a '98, and
the public
>would say "OK, how much?" This holds especially true to us gen-x folks
who have
>pierced whatevers and no job. Guys about my age don't find the TR-7 too
bad looking,
>and we think rubber-bumpered MGB's are OK too. Of course, from what I've
heard about
>the mechanics of a TR-7, they're a bugger to work on, but that's what
non-MG folks
>said about my 'B. I guess it's all in your point of view.
> As much as I hate to say it, if I could come across a cheap TR-7
convertible,
>I'd buy it. I wouldn't sell my 'B for it though. I wouldn't go for the
hardtop
>design either, they're pretty cramped little cars in that form. Anyway,
if you'd
>like to flame me for this revelation, go ahead, but when it comes to
future classics,
>the wedge could be "the shape of things to come."
>
>--
>Michael S. Lishego
>St. Andrews Presbyterian College
>Elementary Education Major,
>English Minor, Class of 1999
>R.A. of Winston-Salem Hall
>
|