morgans
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: "Charged" Triumphs

To: "'Lannis'" <ottoflick@netzero.net>
Subject: RE: "Charged" Triumphs
From: "Vandergraaf, Chuck" <vandergraaft@aecl.ca>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 17:59:00 -0500
Lannis,

To me, this is all academic.  My +4 is awaiting restoration.  At the moment,
I'm preparing a pair of final exams to give to my students next Monday and,
at any rate, right now my +4 would not be any nimbler with a Ford or Fiat
engine than it is with its heavy ex-Ferguson tractor engine.  But, hey, it's
Morgan, with a flat rad, no less.

Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB

> ----------
> From:         Lannis[SMTP:ottoflick@netzero.net]
> Reply To:     Lannis
> Sent:         Saturday, December 11, 1999 2:47 PM
> To:   morgans@autox.team.net
> Subject:      Re: "Charged" Triumphs
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> >We're not regressing to that +4 vs. 4/4 thread are we?????
> >Keep in mind that a Morgan's a Morgan, three wheels or four, 2, 4, (6?)
> or
> 8
> >cyl.
> >        Cheers & Happy Morganing,
> >            Jim Nichol
> >              '28 Aero
> >             '64 +4 4 pl.
> >
> 
> Gee, I thought we were PROgressing in singing the praises of the
> lightweight
> dance partner of the Morgan line.
> 
> How come it's the guys who don't have a 4/4 that never want to talk about
> how much more nimble and all-over well-balanced the 4/4 is as opposed to
> the
> tank-engined +4 or the aero-engined +8s?  Not that I'm a partisan, mind.
> 
> But I agree that we ought not get involved in any micturition contest
> about
> the specifics of WHY they're neater, quicker in turns, and easier to get
> parts for.   No sir, this ol' boy don't want to be the one stirring up
> hate
> and discontent among the Mog Fraternity just because my model is the best
> value for my BritCar buck......
> 
> Lannis
> '66 4/4 (oops, gave myself away!)
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>