morgans
[Top] [All Lists]

FW: RE: 4/4 s

To: morgans
Subject: FW: RE: 4/4 s
From: Mark J Bradakis <mjb>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:52:00 -0700 (MST)
[BOUNCE morgans@Autox.Team.Net:    Non-member submission from ["Vandergraaf, 
Chuck" <vandergraaft@aecl.ca>]]

     Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:34:43 -0500
     From: "Vandergraaf, Chuck" <vandergraaft@aecl.ca>
     Subject: RE: 4/4 s

Colin,

Goes to show ya; don't believe everything you read.  How anybody can
judge a car's driveability without actually driving it is beyond me.  If
he "got tired trying to get into [a Morgan], maybe he should be in a
different line of work.  Testing couches or waterbeds comes to mind.

BTW, can you enlighten us Anglos as to what "no huevos" means?
Something about eggs?  

Came close to your neck of the woods a couple of years ago; traveled
from Los Alamos via Albuquerque, Socorro, T&C, Silver City, Lordsburg,
to Tucson.  Not in a Morgan unfortunately(mine's laid up waiting) but in
a Ford Aerostar. New Mexico is indeed a land of enchantment.

Chuck Vandergraaf

>----------
>From:  CobMeister@aol.com[SMTP:CobMeister@aol.com]
>Sent:  Monday, March 24, 1997 4:47 PM
>To:    Morgans@Autox.Team.Net
>Subject:       4/4 s
>
>Hey Gang,
> 
> The April-May issue of British Car Magazine includes an article which
>compares the handling, performance, and driveability of 4 vehicles: MG TC
>('49), Jaguar XK 140 ('56), Triumph TR3 ('57), & Morgan 4/4 ('65). The
>article was written by an East Coast Gentleman (and I use the term advisedly)
>named Michael Cook.
>
> To cut to the chase: Mr. Cook rates the vehicles (best to worst) for
>driveability in the following order: Triumph TR3, MG TC, Jaguar XK 140, and
>(in LAST place for driveability) Morgan 4/4. I should also point out that,
>judging from the accompanying photos, the LHD 4/4 is a VERY nice looking car,
>well set up including 1600cc with Webbers.
>
> (All four of the cars in the article are very nicely done.)
>
> Most of you, like me, probably have more than passing knowledge of the 4
>tested vehicles, albeit in various configurations and of various years. So,
>you might well ask, how on earth did Mr. Cook wind up with such a perverse
>ranking?
>
> Suffice it to say that Mr. Cook did not even start the engine on the 4/4!
>Seems he had a LOT of trouble just getting into the car... As he says, "The
>Morgan, even though I never turned the key, places fourth for making me tired
>just getting into it."
>
> Yet one of the photo illustrations opines, "The Mog offers exciting
>performance in the most basic roadster package possible."
>
> Soooo...
>
> Buy the mag, read the article, see what you think.
>
> I should also point out that Mr. Cook is the only person I have ever heard
>of who was offered the opportunity to actually DRIVE a Morgan and turned it
>down! Turned it down! This is a sports car enthusiast?
>
> As we say out here in the Land of Enchantment, "No HUEVOS!"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • FW: RE: 4/4 s, Mark J Bradakis <=