tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

289 VS 260

To: Tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: 289 VS 260
From: rootes@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 23:25:10 -0800
Hello Everyone:
A couple of issues that the discussion on engines is missing: 

I speak with a bit of knowledge having been in the retail (new car
dealer) business for 13 years and having worked for two of the most
successful former Rootes dealers in southern California, Kramer Motors
and Studio City Motors, both still owned & run by their original Sunbeam
dealers. I've discussed Rootes' business practices with them many times.

First off, nothing in Rootes, or any other auto manufacturer of the
1960s would have prevented them from trying another similar engine in a
car if they were out of the "stock" engine. As we know, the 289 & 260
are pretty much the same outside, except to the trained observer which
most retail car buyers are not. If the factory had run out of 260s & had
a 289 or two laying around for the upcoming MKII project, they WOULD
have used it. I'm in agreement with one of our group who commented that,
once an assembly line has a production goal, all other considerations
fly out the window. That production goal MUST be met & the whole line
would not stop if a reasonable engine alternative were available.

The fact that no record has been found of a MKI or MKIA or whatever with
a 289 from the factory does not mean that it couldn't have happened. It
doesn't prove it did either, but all I'm saying is that from what I've
seen, it COULD have happened. Now, I'm not saying it did...but
maybe..... (how's that for skirting the issue?).

The second issue is that liability laws, and the lawsuit happy masses,
are now much more numerous than they were in the 60's, if I'm not
mistaken (you attorneys in the list can tell if this is correct). Also,
and this IS a fact, it is, and was, MUCH harder to do a lawsuit against
someone or a company in the UK than it is here. You didn't have whole
teams of liability lawyers consulting with manufacturing managers in
Britain in the 60's. I doubt whether any liability concerns would have
prevented a 289 being installed in an earlier than MKII car. After all,
that's exactly what they put in the MKIIs just a few months later.

That's my two cents (or two pounds) worth!!

Steve Sage

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>