I seem to recall, or perhaps choose to believe ;-), that he elaborated a
little bit. His point (or maybe the point of an automotive journalist - I
can't recall precisely) was that the Jeep was a genuine purpose-built
machine which had sporting abilities (albeit off-road). This was in
contrast to the ridiculous efforts of the mainstream manufacturers to slap
some sporty design elements on a poor-handling "lead sled" and call it a
sports car (e.g. early Corvettes, T-birds, and muscle cars). Undoubtedly,
he didn't consider the Jeep a road-going sportscar, but being a convertible
with a short wheelbase and no frills it certainly had something in common
with sportscars that no other American effort had. Just as an aside, I've
never really looked at Ferraris as sportscars, but more as supercars. MG's
are profoundly sporting cars with raw performance being less important.
Ferraris are profoundly high performance cars with the "sport" coming along
for the ride. I would like to have one for while to make sure my impression
accurate.
Dean
----- Original Message -----
From: "Telewest (PH)" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>
He probably had his tongue well in cheek, saying in effect that all other
American cars were even farther from being a sports car than the Jeep.
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|