larry.g.unger@lmco.com wrote:
> Bob Allen wrote:
>
> > See! Larry once again gets tripped up with the facts.
>
> Sorry, but I don't see how I gotten tripped up ... what I did say
> was that fitting the massive six cylinder to the 'B', to produce the 'C',
> had and adverse effect on handling and that the six cylinder didn't
> produce as much power as one anticiapte.
Hey! Is that what you were trying to say? The motor is heavy, causes
oversteer, and ain't as powerful as they thought? Well why didn't you say so!
That's obvious.
Actually I wonder what the deal was back then. I think BL must of pissed off
the press. All of the road tests were subjectively negative of the car. I
think the press decided to hate it before they ever drove one. 'Club' reviews
in the following decade had them all back-peddling like mad.
As I understand it, besides the motor being too heavy, the new ones had poor
intake manifolds and the lower end had too much friction with 7 mains. Also,
the first few examples had 3.03 rear ends which probably made them real
lethargic.
> Does the 'C's increase in power outway the impact on handling?
Always. Every time. No matter what.
> (Bob Allen, I've jus' been funnin' wit' ya ... feel free to add the
> following to your signature line.) IMHO, yes 'cause "[T]the 'CGT' is an
> excellent all weather touring car!"
Man, you sure back off real fast. Hmph!
I noticed a couple of things in the exchange:
1) You didn't quote the 1/4 mile times for the beloved 'A'
2) Nobody pointed out that 18 second quarter mile times are nothing to brag
about.
Oh well. The little cars are a hoot anyway!
Have some fun out there today.
Bob Allen, Kansas City, '69CGT, '75TR6, and that Elva
"The 'CGT' is an excellent . . . car!" -- Larry Unger, September 23, 1997
|