<VV> Just Remember I Didn't Start This

[vairologist at juno.com]

> From: airvair <airvair at richnet.net>
> Subject: Early vs late, AGAIN! was: <VV> Misguided Late Lovers

> You and who else? Lates are superior to earlies, not the other way 
> around. If your logic was sound, you'd have to say a '60 is the best 
> of the early cars. And we all know that you have LATE ('64) suspension 
> in your wagon. That's hypocrisy!
>-Mark
-----------------------------------
Smitty says:  Mark Don't try to apply your twisted logic to me.  I never
said 60s are best and I am not going to say it.  The Cave men are
perfectly capable of standing up for their own particular choice in
Earlies.  What I have in my 64 wagon is the latest iteration in
development of the Earlies.  I have no objection if a 65 owner puts a 66
condenser core in it for his A/C.  It is an improvement that is worth
doing.  The fact that it is like growing poodle hair on a pig doesn't
make it necessary bad.   I have it on good authority that some people
have even tried to make Corsas out of Monzas.  Is that an improvement? 
        To get back to basics here Earlies are fun to drive.  They handle
quite well when properly set up. (as designed).  They are more
comfortable to drive.  When the Lates were designed the engineers were
playing with something else when they should have been playing with their
computers. (I won't tell you what I suspect they were playing with). 
They did a good job of stuffing a race car suspension under the tail and
making it streetable but the improvement stops about there.  Late owners
go on about the beauty of the design.  Could be.  That is subjective.  I
won't claim I am a better person than you just cause my face is
prettier.(remember looks are subjective).
        And Del, another crack about mechanical fuel pumps like that and
we are going to have a talk.   ggg