> I understand the Chevy Monza situation, my point is: How did Chevrolet and
>the dealerships represent the engine size to the consumer? Perhaps my 351ci
> substitition analogy in a modern Mustang is far fetched, but how would you
>feel if you were told you were getting one engine and you got another
>instead, wouldn't there be a huge liability issue present?- Hank
>
>
It seems like a plausible thing for a dealer to slip by. But if Rootes did
it wouldn't they have tried to make something of it? A 289 MK1A could have
been a good marketing gimmick even if it was the result of a manufacturing
mishap. At least they could have charged more for it. Also, then the
specific liability issue of misrepresentation would have been gone.
Also,
The factory was only building the 6-bolt 289 at this time not the 221 which
was obsolete even before the 260. If, for some reason, Rootes had come up
short on 260s for MK1As it would be logical to assume that the remaining
MK1A bodies could be equipped with 6-bolt 289s. On the otherhand there
exist many other possibilities.
Ford shurely had a quantity of 260 and 5-bolt 289 engines in stock for
service applications in 1967. Wouldn't Rootes have used one of these
service engines if they were short a few score units?
Frank Marrone MK I Tiger B9471116
marrone@wco.com 1966 LTD
Series I Alpine (2.3L powered by Ford)
Yamaha Seca 900
|