Message text written by INTERNET:ZoboHerald@aol.com
>With all due respect to a fine newspaper whose new slogan apparently is
"If
all this news fits, we'll print it," where DO they get this stuff?
Certainly
it might have been true of some of the very low-volume manufacturers such
as
Morgan, but at least from the early 1950s on it was NOT true of most
series-produced British cars. I suspect that pretty much all of the "new"
products of Standard-Triumph after 1945 (with the possible exception of the
1800/2000 roadsters and saloons) had body parts that were stamped. I
suspect
that was also true of BMC, Vauxhall, Ford, Rootes Group, etc.
<
I'm with you, Andy. I guess this is why I don't read the NY Times. This
was a well written article. It flowed well, had good pacing, a logical
progression and lots of "personal interest." If turned into a college
English professor he would undoubtedly give it a B or an A.
The technical accuracy, however, is abysmal. Typical sensationalistic
journalism. Given the wide variety of experiences with British cars by the
many owners, only the most unfortunate were presented and were presented as
typical. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But an article about cute little cars that were, for the most part, quite
reliable but whose history was speckeled with the occasional unfortunate
experience makes for a boring read and I guess the bulk of the tabloid's
readers prefer the claptrap that was presented here.
This article would be better placed if it were in The Onion.
Dave (I've driven my British cars to both coasts and many places inbetween
with nary a show stopping problem - but so what? This is rather typical,
afterall)
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|