Lannis,
To me, this is all academic. My +4 is awaiting restoration. At the moment,
I'm preparing a pair of final exams to give to my students next Monday and,
at any rate, right now my +4 would not be any nimbler with a Ford or Fiat
engine than it is with its heavy ex-Ferguson tractor engine. But, hey, it's
Morgan, with a flat rad, no less.
Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB
> ----------
> From: Lannis[SMTP:ottoflick@netzero.net]
> Reply To: Lannis
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 2:47 PM
> To: morgans@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: "Charged" Triumphs
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> >We're not regressing to that +4 vs. 4/4 thread are we?????
> >Keep in mind that a Morgan's a Morgan, three wheels or four, 2, 4, (6?)
> or
> 8
> >cyl.
> > Cheers & Happy Morganing,
> > Jim Nichol
> > '28 Aero
> > '64 +4 4 pl.
> >
>
> Gee, I thought we were PROgressing in singing the praises of the
> lightweight
> dance partner of the Morgan line.
>
> How come it's the guys who don't have a 4/4 that never want to talk about
> how much more nimble and all-over well-balanced the 4/4 is as opposed to
> the
> tank-engined +4 or the aero-engined +8s? Not that I'm a partisan, mind.
>
> But I agree that we ought not get involved in any micturition contest
> about
> the specifics of WHY they're neater, quicker in turns, and easier to get
> parts for. No sir, this ol' boy don't want to be the one stirring up
> hate
> and discontent among the Mog Fraternity just because my model is the best
> value for my BritCar buck......
>
> Lannis
> '66 4/4 (oops, gave myself away!)
>
|