Ulix writes:
>> that the GT was discontinued because it didn't meet higher rollover
>> requirements. That begs the issue of how the roadster survived.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Will, that sure does disarm your theory...
You haven't heard anything yet. Have I discussed my 'line bore and oil
leaks in three-mains' theory with you lately?
>Those higher rollover requirements never got passed, by the way (or
>obviously).
>Had they been passed, the only open cars that would have been allowed to
>be imported would have been the Fiat X 1/9 (it was specifically designed to
>meet these feared new standards - that's why it is a little heavy) and the
>Lamborghini Jalpa (also a Targa).
Ah ha! But you see? You forgot to ignore the man behind the curtain. I've
already figured all of this out. They discontinued the GT in the US *in
anticipation* of dreaded rollover laws, but the paper work got snagged on
the roadsters, delaying cancellation of the open car. Hence, the GT
discontinuation went through, but they managed to halt the roadster paper
work through some clever office politics in the eleventh hour, when it
became clear that the dreaded rollover laws were not to come, only to pass,
so to speak. Then, the paper work to re-enstate the GT got lost, and _then_
Leyland fell completely apart (and all the paper was burned), and the rest
is, as they say, history. See? It makes sense now... doesn't it?
=:O
Will "my head hurts" Zehring
p.s. I say "Bring back the GT" particularly as a 1967 model with wire
wheels and overdrive.
p.p.s. Here's a thought: buy a 67 roadster and convert it to a GT! Why
didn't I think of that?
|