Hi David,
The answer to your question is "yes".
Just kidding -- Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :-)
I'm going to put a metal dash with large gauges in my 68-74 BMH MGB body shell.
Low seats too -- no
headrest. I have the seats, dash, gauges, European speaker console, firewall
steering hub, dash
mounting shroud from a 66 and a John Esposito rebuilt 4 syncro LH. Just need to
finish my TR250 first.
It's going to be a 68 Canadian or European spec car. Metal dash -- 4 syncro
with LH, and backup lights.
I also have a 73 with a pillow -- it's OK. I don't loose any sleep over it.
Just not the same as a
metal dash. I just can't bring myself to put a pillow and high back seats in a
brand new body shell.
I like vanilla and I don't like chocolate. What can I say?
Don Malling
David Breneman wrote:
> --- Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I fail to see how you can consider a style of dashboard padding
>>that was
>>never seen before 1968 in any type of vehicle to be somehow "more
>>in keeping
>>with the aesthetics of a 1960s car" (especially one introduced in
>>1962) --
>>it's simply beyond logic.
>
>
> Here's an execrise in logic. If today Chevrolet introduced a new
> Camaro with a vinyl top, one could rationally state that such a
> car contained a styling anachronism that was more appropriate to
> cars of an earlier age. Simpy the fact that the car was introduced
> in 2005 would not make that observation illogical; in fact it
> would demonstrate the anachronism that the observation is
> meant to reflect. A styling faus pas does not make its
> own correction non sequitir, it requires the very correction
> itself. The fact that a US government regulation lead to the
> reconsideration of the design is only marginally relevant.
> Could the design have been better? Sure. Am I an irrational
> idiot for believing that the design is better than the
> 1950s-style dashboard that it replaced? I'll leave that an
> an exercise for the student. :-)
>
>
> =====
> David Breneman david_breneman@yahoo.com
|