tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

RE:289 VS 260

To: "rootes@ix.netcom.com" <rootes@ix.netcom.com>,
Subject: RE:289 VS 260
From: "Kempinski, Robert M." <RKEMPINS@SSF4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 10:12:00 -0600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
REPLY FROM: Kempinski, Robert M.

This engine discussion sounds like so much fun, I have to join in.

Steve Sage makes two fine points. I agree wholeheartedly with them. 
First, the point about using stuff on the floor - it's a reality. Even
in 
a tightly controlled manufacturing environment like space hardware 
manufacture, if we got we'll use it - the big difference here is we 
carefully document what we use. But that's one reason why space shuttles
cost 
billions. Auto manufacturers could never afford to spend the money it
takes 
to document everything. And certainly British manufacturers in the 60's,
going rapidly downhill, and feeling the pinch of spiraling labor costs
and 
inflation, weren't going to spend the money on documentation.

>The second issue is that liability laws, and the lawsuit happy 
>masses, 

I believe using the rationale that no one sued Rootes for using a
different 
engine as proof that they didn't switch engines is silly.  It is a sad 
commentary on  our society today in that we not only think law suits are
a 
remedy for all of society's problems, but that they can also
revise/prove 
history. Actually, such logic is downright scary.  

There are several flaws with this argument. First, does anyone think
Roots 
was concerned about liability? Come on, this is a company that put fuel
tanks 
in the rear fenders and crossover pipers right behind the bumper,  and
that 
placed a fuel pump on top of the muffler.   

The other comments about the victim era and lawsuit 
madness having not started are also vaild.

Finally, statistics and information availability deflate the logic.
First 
off, Rootes didn't build that many Tigers. Certainly they didn't switch
that 
many engines.   (We are talking about one case here.)  So the sample
size is 
small. From a small sample size you have to find a person knowledgeable 
enough to know the difference in the engines. Reduce sample size
further.  
Then you have to find a person that would feel wronged at receiving a
higher 
horsepower engine (How many Tiger owners fit that profile?) Reduce
sample 
size even further. Then that person would have to feel like 
a victim sufficiently enough to sue the company.   Reduce sample size 
again. Then the information about that person's lawsuit would have to
become 
public knowledge. (They could have settled out of court).  Further
reduce 
the data set.  And don't forget Rootes disappeared 
ending Tiger production. It's tough to sue an entity that doesn't 
exist.  The bottom line is the logic doesn't hold water.  

BTW does anyone have any information about law suits against 
Rootes from the 60 or 70's? I don't. Hey, maybe Rootes didn't make any
cars  
because I never heard of any lawsuits against them. Yeah that's it,
Rootes 
never really existed.  ;^)

 >The fact that no record has been found of a MKI or MKIA or whatever 
>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. 
I agree.  How to prove it is a different matter. Perhaps it is not 
proveable and will result in a great mystery for mankind - to be
revealed 
only when  we find out who killed President John Kennedy.

Have a great weekend,

Rob Kempinski
Houston Texas


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