Max,
No! When did anyone read the manual after getting a new car never mind
BEFORE? It was just bad manual writing consistant with reduced
expenditure on such items. You don't honestly think that BL actually
THOUGHT about marketing do you?
At 10:50 AM 11/14/2003 -0800, Max Heim wrote:
>This omission is the sort of thing I was talking about in the oil
>discussion. As time went on, the BL management increasingly dealt with
>engineering issues by sweeping them under the rug. If the marketing folks
>reported that the public's impression was that MGs required too much
>maintenance, they just deleted maintenance items from the manual. Or at
>least that is what it looks like...
>
>on 11/14/03 9:13 AM, Bob Howard at mgbob@juno.com wrote:
>
> > Aaron,
> > When I read your message I immediately wondered how anyone could not
> > know to check fluid levels in the Armstrongs. "Everyone knows that"
> > "It's in the book"
> > You're right---it's not in the book, at least it's not in the handbook
> > that came with my 1972 GT, and it's not in the handbook section
> > reproduced in green-cover Bentley either. That's surprising to me, since
> > reference is made in TD literature in several places, and I just
> > 'assumed' (what that word does for us....) that it was in the MGB
> > literature also. And it's not there. I did note that shock absorbers
> > were included in the exchange part list, and also noted that an upper
> > cylinder lubricant was mentioned in a maintenance chart, but nothing
> > about the dampers, either checking their fluid level, checking their
> > action, or periodically tighening their mounting bolts. One would assume
> > that they are maintenance free. And they are not.
> > Thanks for pointing out this omission.
> > Bob
>
>
>
>--
>
>Max Heim
>'66 MGB GHN3L76149
>If you're near Mountain View, CA,
>it's the primer red one with chrome wires
Regards
Barrie
Barrie Robinson
barrier@bconnex.net
|