Bill Spohn wrote:
> We ARE talking about a mechanical device you guys happen to own, and saying
>that some
> of its attributes aren't as good as some other models hardly counts as a
>personal
> shot
THANK YOU BILL! I also got flamed for expressing my opinion on a car as
if I was taking a personal shot.
<<<snip>>>
Larry list account wrote:
>
> Hans you seem to have a handle on graciousness.
>
> I hope Jim doesn't base his experience with this forum on Blake's messages;
> but rather on Paul Hunt's and Hans' messages.
>
> Good luck Jim.
>
> Larry Hoy
<<<Snip>>>
Just because I didn't like the appearance of the Datsun 2000, doesn't
mean it didn't have technical merrit or I thought people who owned/liked
them were a mite "off the latch." Our family has owned several Datsuns:
420, 510, 610, 720, 240Z. All were very good cars mechanically with
mediocre to non-descript styling (except the 240Z) as Bill pointed out:
"The Datsuns were a bit awkward looking to my eyes - the Japanese
seemed to
steal styling badly, and technology well."
The 420 wasn't very pretty but had a 1000 KG (That's more than a ton!)
payload capacity and had the 1300cc B series engine in it right down to
the SAE dimensions and fasteners. There was no metric.
In 1972, I felt I could afford my first new car which I wanted to be a
sports car. I test drove the MGB, Midget, TR6, GT6, and 240Z. I
already owned a TD and liked most MGs very well.
Which car did I buy? The 240Z. IME it was the prettiest, had the best
suspension, engine, finnish, etc., at a price very little more than the
MGB or TR6. It was like buying a smaller version of an E type.
IMO the only MGs brought into the USA which might be equal or better
than the 240Z (technically and/or visually) are: The MGA twin cam and
the MGBGT-V8.
Regards,
Blake
TD Midget
M.G.A. twin cam
MGB
Datsun 240Z
|