<VV> Terminal block, Not a: HRPT

ScottyGrover at aol.com ScottyGrover at aol.com
Fri Mar 7 14:00:41 EST 2008


 
In a message dated 3/7/2008 8:08:16 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
airvair at earthlink.net writes:

Here we  are again, Roberts. Back again at the same old issue. Ralphy 
complained that  the EM's swing axle design was a "bad design", and that the proof of 
that was  the upgrade in the late model's suspension. You are using the same 
logic, that  a later improvement proves that the earlier design is defective. 
Under that  logic, Corvairs themselves are defective, in so many ways, simply 
because  automotive technology has surpassed Corvairs in many areas. Viton is 
just one  of them.

No, it's your logic that is faulty. Not the OEM late model  terminal block.

-Mark



The way I heard it in this forum, GM passed the word  to Engineering  to 
straighten out the problem with the rear suspension NOW, the result was the  '64's 
leaf spring, similar to that obtainable in the aftermarket; the second  
result, since the LM's were in the design phase, was the use of a modification  of 
the '63 'Vette's design. In this case, an improved design WAS the result  of a 
design unsatisfactory to GM management.
 
Scotty from Hollyweird



**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & 
Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)


More information about the VirtualVairs mailing list