This reminds me that I joined the AA (Automobile Association, not Alcoholics
Anonymous - it's not driven me any further to drink yet) just after I bought my
TR6, figuring it would dump me at some point. Lo and behold my 2 year old Golf
broke down the next week (dodgy plug lead). To date, the only time my Triumph
has
failed badly was with a broken clutch master, literally as I pulled into the
garage - I couldn't get it in reverse to get it out again. How's that for
timing -
as if it breathed a sigh of relief - "phew, we're home, I can let go now"!
erl@unix.mail.virginia.edu wrote:
> A bit of a run-on, but...
>
> When I got my TR-3A, my father said how unreliable these sports cars were
> supposed to be, and how expensive they were to repair. Why didn't I get a
> few-year-old Ford or something. He drove a fairly new Buick. We compared
> maintenance records over the next few years, and on almost every point,
> from gas milage to parts costs, the TR was cheaper. The one main
> difference was in the transmissions. The Dreaded PO had trashed first in
> my car, so it would not stay in first, and that cost a pretty penny, but
> pay-back came when a few years later the Buick's trans went South, and it
> cost about 20% more to be repaired than the TR's had cost! I might point
> out, the TR's trans never needed to be fixed again, either! My father
> sold the Buick a few years later.....
>
|