On Wednesday, July 8, HW200@aol.com wrote:
<< Did anyone see the article in Moss Motoring on HYBRIDS. It
described the Sunbeam Tiger HYBRID as "An Alpine with a V8" . That is
how most car buffs look at the Tiger. >>
Hey Henry,
I don't think you ought to be quite so quick to accept the aphorisms
offered by Harry Newton in the Moss Motoring article. In the article
he owns up to ambivalent feelings about "hybrids" and acknowledges
that he may be bigotted on the subject but quite simply, the
Newtonisms just don't make a lot of sense.
It is true he writes disparagingly of Tigers but he also throws plenty
of mud on Allards, Jensens, Cobras, and many other fine vehicles.
Although Newton never clearly states his thesis but just rambles into
a fairly incoherent attack on all vehicles powered by engines not
manufactured "in house" it can be seen that according to his very
muddy definition not just my Tiger but also my Morgan Plus 4 is also
to be dismissed as a "hybrid."
The Morgan, doncha know, was powered from the factory by a TR4 engine
(itself, a modified tractor engine). Incidentally, the new Morgan
Plus 8, powered by a Rover V8 (by-the-bye, a rewickered Buick), and of
course the Rolls-Royce powered by BMW... all are, according to Mr.
Newton's view, nothing more than "hybrids."
Absurd!
Perhaps the most foolish statement in the article, though, is Mr.
Newton's statement that "I feel strongly that anything using a used
engine should be a hot rod and disqualified from using the nameplate
of either chasis, body, or engine maker." So, anyone who lunches an
engine and goes to the You-Wreck-'Em-We-Sell-'Em and buys an identical
engine and stuffs it in his car has automatically lost all
credibility? I suppose this rule would not be applied to anyone who
bought a used engine from Moss?
Absurd!
I confess that I find nothing inherently wrong with the concept of
hybridization when applied to cars. "Hybrid" is generally defined as
"something of mixed origin or composition." Hybridization, however,
is practiced because the result is expected to be greater than the sum
of the parts. By this measure, the Rootes factory's decision to
shoehorn a Ford 260 into an existing platform made wonderful sense!
There is certainly nothing spurious about the resulting "hybrid." To
compare the Tiger (and the Morgan and the Rolls and the Jensen, and
the Cobra and so many others) to kit cars--as Mr. Newton does--is
again patently absurd.
Moss Motoring did us all a great disservice in publishing such a
poorly thought out article. A well reasoned article on hybridization
would have been well received and possibly served some purpose.
Henry, you also say:
<< Poor investment. (see stock market for better results) >>
True enough, but, on the other hand, did you ever try to drive your
hundred shares of IBM to the mountains? You buy the Tiger to drive,
use, and enjoy over the years while expecting you won't lose a ton o'
money. With respect to other enthusiast vehicles, the Tiger does
appear to be a relatively sound investiment choice. Witness your own
investment in a Jensen.
<< Outsiders published view as "Alpine with a V8" >>
I suspect that the vast majority of LBC enthusiasts recognize the
Tiger as a legitimate vehicle and regard an Alpine conversion as just
that... a converted vehicle, good, bad, or indifferent.
Cheers!
--Colin Cobb, Las Cruces, NM, USA
(In his youth, himself a hybridizer of some reknown... "If you'll hold
the snake's head, I'll hybridize it!")
|