That doesn't counter the fact that, although they found a single-row set-up
cheaper, they would not have introduced it unless they felt it could last, at
the very least, the 50K miles that the EPA tests mandated!
Sometimes, Ed, less expensive (not cheaper) can be better. If the factory
found a way to economize, that savings helped offset the cost of the
federally-mandated additional emissions equipment, etc., and every little
savings helped them keep the selling price of what was by then an obsolete car
as low as possible.
Anyway, even if they did make the change to increase their profit, so what?
That's what business is all about. Aren't you in business to make a profit? If
you could find a way to run your business just as efficiently but at less
cost, wouldn't you do so?
Lawrie
-----Original Message-----
From: JustBrits@aol.com <JustBrits@aol.com>
To: Lawrie@britcars.com <Lawrie@britcars.com>; bkrueger@ici.net
<bkrueger@ici.net>; mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Sunday, November 26, 2000 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Timing Chain Single/Double ? MGB
In a message dated 11/26/2000 3:24:56 PM Central Standard Time,
Lawrie@britcars.com writes:
Logic says the double-row chain should last longer but one has to
remember
that the factory would not have made the change to a single-row chain
if
they expected it to fail within a noticeably shorter period.
Lawrie:
Sorry, but you are using your British Logic not BMC Logic. Motor became
"cheaper" to production line build.
Therefore, (sorry again<G>), I disagree.
Cheers.............
Ed
|