- 1. Cumberford's article (score: 1)
- Author: lmg@gomog.com
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:32:13 -0400
- Though there is undoubtedly truth behind the observation that auto advertising revenues influence auto reviews, it is difficult to dismiss all Morgan reviews as a free kick at the can premitted by th
- /html/morgans/2000-06/msg00059.html (7,122 bytes)
- 2. Re: Cumberford's article (score: 1)
- Author: FPS3@aol.com
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:29:31 EDT
- I had to agree totaly with the article. I'll go for the back half- the TR3 rear is OK and I can accept the design cues of the +4+ side window and the flat windscreen.. from there forward- it's butt-u
- /html/morgans/2000-06/msg00100.html (7,131 bytes)
- 3. RE: Cumberford's article (score: 1)
- Author: "Willburn, Gerry" <gerry.Willburn@vcincorp.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:38:00 -0700
- Actually, that is Bill Fink's Plus 8 prototype, not Greg's. Gerry
- /html/morgans/2000-06/msg00103.html (7,739 bytes)
- 4. Re: Cumberford's article (score: 1)
- Author: Howie <hclark@mail.dcwi.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:40:02 -0500
- I mentioned the Cumberford remarks about the Aero 8 to a friend of mine and he said, "No wonder, he designed and manufactured a very similar car that failed in the marketplace." My friend, who has a
- /html/morgans/2000-06/msg00140.html (9,606 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu