On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:56:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:30:15 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
>>Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
>>Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).
>I've not tracked down the origins, but I'm sure my 2.0 Turbo is shared
>by others too. Mitsubishi, Audi, and a few others have the same size.
Just because AMC and GM both had a 327 does NOT mean they were the
same engine. Even Pontiac, Buick, Chevy and Olds used to have their
own totally separate 350 (and 400 I believe) and checy had both BBC
and SBC 400 engines at the same time.
Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
back then. The "world engine" DOES come in many different
displacements - shared among the same players. Audi and Mits do not
share. Mits does share with Chrysler, Hyundai/Kia ( and possiblya
couple of others)
<harry130...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 8:07 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:37:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
>> ><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>> >>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
>> >>><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>> >>>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>> >>>Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
>> >>I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
>> >>But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
>> >>And "sedan" was specified above.
>> >>I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."
>> >What do you think those bodies are sitting on? What do you think the
>> >drivetrain and the like are? Stylist go to great lengths to fool
>> >people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
>> >few. Worked for you.
>> >Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? In the case of older Jags,
>> >ever check the Chevy tranny in them?
>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>> BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
>> The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
>> Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
>> Get real. And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
>> somebody operating a backhoe.
>> What is you drive, Hyudai?
>> Stick to what you know.
>Well now. Ford owned Jaguar for a while and a much modified Ford V8
>engine was fitted to Jaguars and still is in some models.
>The Buick 3500cc engine has been fitted (extensively modified)to
>(Land) Rover for decades.
>Many parts for cars are "off the shelf" and not specifically made for
>any particular car or even make of car.
>Shit American cars are well known to be just different bodywork fitted
>to mechanics years old. This is why the US car industry is in
>trouble. Lack of developement. Old technology. And the oil
>companies.
>Happens when accountants are put in charge of things instead of
>engineers/enthusiasts.
On 2012-11-12, cl...@snyder.on.ca <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
> Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
> back then.
There were plenty, even back then. My parent's '64 Saab was powered by a Ford V4.
Perhaps not a factory offering, but Jag XJ's with small block Chevy
engines are a common mod in CA. So much so, you can shop for one.
Ford made Anglia's in UK starting in the late 30s. Opel was a German
subsidary of GM... yada yada....
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:20:05 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:42:26 -0600, The Daring Dufas
><the-daring-du...@stinky-finger.net> wrote:
>>On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
>>> <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>>>>> "In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
>>>>> the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
>>>>> three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
>>>>> Borg-Warner units used hitherto."
>>>> Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
>>>> in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid shit.
>>>> So it looks like it will never end.
>>>> But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.
>>> Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
>>> not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
>>> "manufacturers"
>>Na, now they're VW or BMW or is it the other way around? O_o
>>TDD
> Interestingly, VW paid millions for Rolls Royce - but did not do
>their due dilligence. They got everything except the NAME. They can
>NOT build Rolls Royce cars. That's whay they are all Bentleys. No
>Rolls Royce cars being built any more - and very possibly never will
>be.
OK - looks like I got that wrong.
Looks like VW bought the Bentley and Rolls manufacturing rights etc
but not the Rolls name - as I stated - BUT, the Rolls name was
"licenced" to BMW - so BMW can build a car and call it a Rolls, but
they cannot build the old rolls - while VW can build the old Rolls,
but has to sell it as a Bentley.
What a screwed up sale that was.
Rolls was devided into Rolls PLC and Rolls Motors. back in 1973.
Renamed Bentley Motors it was sold to VW in 1998. Bentleys were using
BMW engines at that time - and BMW and VW battled for what was then
still known as Rolls Royce Motors - VW won - but did not get the
Rolls Royce name, and now operates as Bentley Motors. Rolls Royce
PLC licenced the Rolls Royce name to BMW who then formed RollsRoyce
Motor Cars as a wholly owned subsidiary
>> Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
>> back then.
>There were plenty, even back then. My parent's '64 Saab was powered by a Ford V4.
>Perhaps not a factory offering, but Jag XJ's with small block Chevy
>engines are a common mod in CA. So much so, you can shop for one.
>Ford made Anglia's in UK starting in the late 30s. Opel was a German
>subsidary of GM... yada yada....
>nb
Anglia was to Ford UK what Galaxy or Fairlane was to Ford North
America.
Also known as the ford "Pop", for Popular, it was the 2 door car,
while the Ford 4 door Pop was called a Prefect.
Opel Was GM Germany - and Vauxhaull became GM Great Britain - Taunus
was Ford's German arm, and Rootes (singer, sunbeam, humber,) became
Chrysler's british arm, with Simca the french Chrysler
Australia had Holden as GM Australia until it (I believe) separated
off into it's own company - stilll closely allied with GM.
GM bought the bankrupt Daewoo in Korea - and owned the majority of
Japan's Isuzu. Not sure what the current status of Isuzu is.
Ford has cross polinated with both Mitsubishi and Mazda over the years
- and mitsubishi also with Chrysler.
Nissan and Renault are basically the same company today.
Over the years, designs crossed from one "division" to the other -
with the Chevette being one of the first "world cars" built and sold
as a Vauxhaul in GB, an Opel in Gemany and a Chev in North America (as
well as a Pontiac Acadian or T1000 in Canada) while the Vauxhaul HC
(while not a "world car) was sold as a Pontiac Firenza in Canada -.
The sunbeam (rootes)was sold in north america as a plymouth cricket
and Plymouth Arrow for a year or so, and then the Mitsubishi colt was
sold as both a Dodge Colt and a Plymouth Cricket as well as a Dodge
Challenger and a Plymouth Sapporro.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:01 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:18:47 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
>>There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
>>first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
>Not a fanboi.
>I've owned and driven just about all the majors -AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
>GM, Toyota, Peugot, VW, Renault, Fiat- and worked on most of the
>others - -including Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Lada, Nissan/Datsun,
>Mitsubishi, etc
>Right now, I find the Ford product to be the better vehicle. Years ago
>I preferred Chrysler.
See, that's silly to me. Saying any used car brand is "better"
without talking about year, model, engine, trans, and cost. Then, you
have to add wrenching capability.
I would never recommend a car without knowing all that.
The only exception I make is for women on a tight budget whose car I
won't be maintaining.
I just tell them to get a new Corolla.
>I'd rather be driving a Toyota, but the premium you pay for a good
>used one is too high. Same for Honda. THEY are overpriced,
>particularly on the used market.
>For what the GM vehicles are, I think they are overpriced too - but
>that's just my opinion.
>I know to you that doesn't count - but your opinion and $2 bucks might
>buy ME a small coffee
>>Nonsense doesn't fly.
>>>You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>>>good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.
>>It's a fucking mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
>>Even mine is only "great."
>To each his own. The Lumina is a cheap car. Some decent ones from '95
>up, but on the whole not considered a "desireable" car - as the price
>reflects. GM killed off the name and brought back the Malibu moniker
>because the Lumina name had been so badly sullied by the early years
>they needed to retire it. You are not likely to see the Lumina name
>plate revived - ever.
>The Taurus is a mid-level Ford. Ford retired the Taurus name and went
>with the "retro" Ford 500 nameplate - and had to bring back the Taurus
>name to sell it (and yes, the early (generation 1) Taurus WAS a
>pretty lousy car, in comparison).
Again, it's all in your personal perspective, and what's important to
you. If you have it in your head you don't like a car, it will never
satisfy you. Sometimes you have good reason, sometimes it's just in
your head. I like it that a car like the Lumina is "cheap" in your
head. Because of that and millions of other similar heads, I got it
cheap.
One of my brothers is a GM hater, so he bought a used Taurus, couple
years old, old of warranty. Trans failed. He had it fixed.
So he buys another similar Taurus for his wife. Trans failed.
Cost him thousands. Made Luminas cheaper to buy.
It's all good to me, and to my brother. He still buys Fords.
And I'm not knocking Fords. The AXOD "incidents" were "unfortunate."
I just happen to have concentrated on GM as my used car of choice.
Been good to me. I've studied them Next will probably be a used
Malibu with a 2.4. There will be no "surprises" if I can help it.
Remember, you're wealthier than me, if what you spend on cars is an
indication.
So I have a different perspective.
>>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:18:47 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
>>>There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
>>>first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
>>Not a fanboi.
>>I've owned and driven just about all the majors -AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
>>GM, Toyota, Peugot, VW, Renault, Fiat- and worked on most of the
>>others - -including Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Lada, Nissan/Datsun,
>>Mitsubishi, etc
>>Right now, I find the Ford product to be the better vehicle. Years ago
>>I preferred Chrysler.
>See, that's silly to me. Saying any used car brand is "better"
>without talking about year, model, engine, trans, and cost. Then, you
>have to add wrenching capability.
>I would never recommend a car without knowing all that.
>The only exception I make is for women on a tight budget whose car I
>won't be maintaining.
>I just tell them to get a new Corolla.
>>I'd rather be driving a Toyota, but the premium you pay for a good
>>used one is too high. Same for Honda. THEY are overpriced,
>>particularly on the used market.
>>For what the GM vehicles are, I think they are overpriced too - but
>>that's just my opinion.
>>I know to you that doesn't count - but your opinion and $2 bucks might
>>buy ME a small coffee
>>>Nonsense doesn't fly.
>>>>You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>>>>good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.
>>>It's a fucking mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
>>>Even mine is only "great."
>>To each his own. The Lumina is a cheap car. Some decent ones from '95
>>up, but on the whole not considered a "desireable" car - as the price
>>reflects. GM killed off the name and brought back the Malibu moniker
>>because the Lumina name had been so badly sullied by the early years
>>they needed to retire it. You are not likely to see the Lumina name
>>plate revived - ever.
>>The Taurus is a mid-level Ford. Ford retired the Taurus name and went
>>with the "retro" Ford 500 nameplate - and had to bring back the Taurus
>>name to sell it (and yes, the early (generation 1) Taurus WAS a
>>pretty lousy car, in comparison).
>Again, it's all in your personal perspective, and what's important to
>you. If you have it in your head you don't like a car, it will never
>satisfy you. Sometimes you have good reason, sometimes it's just in
>your head. I like it that a car like the Lumina is "cheap" in your
>head. Because of that and millions of other similar heads, I got it
>cheap.
Same thing I liked about the 1972 Pontiac Firenza (Vauxhaul HC 2300
Magnum) The old saying was "any F'renza yours aint no friends o'mine"
- I bought the thing dirt cheap - I drove the wheels off it, lent it
to my best man to drive to seminary while his Lotus Cortina was torn
apart, then gave it to my wife, and then passed it on to a friend of
hers - virtually trouble free, and the parts that WERE needed were
dirt cheap - because NOBODY wanted a Firenza. Friend ended up
scrapping it in about 1992 when the steering rack gave trouble and
parts were too hard to find - and it still looked and ran as well as
when I bought it in 1979 for $75.00
>One of my brothers is a GM hater, so he bought a used Taurus, couple
>years old, old of warranty. Trans failed. He had it fixed.
>So he buys another similar Taurus for his wife. Trans failed.
>Cost him thousands. Made Luminas cheaper to buy.
>It's all good to me, and to my brother. He still buys Fords.
>And I'm not knocking Fords. The AXOD "incidents" were "unfortunate."
>I just happen to have concentrated on GM as my used car of choice.
>Been good to me. I've studied them Next will probably be a used
>Malibu with a 2.4. There will be no "surprises" if I can help it.
>Remember, you're wealthier than me, if what you spend on cars is an
>indication.
>So I have a different perspective.
I buy $5000 cars and drive them 10 years, on average - with very
little spent on service and repairs (other than regular oil changes)
Car cost, $500 per year. Service cost, less than $500 per year over
the last 20 years - not counting that Pontiac. Even averaging in that
pontiac it's not much higher -I paid as much , including the engine
and transmission, as I generally pay for a car - and the repairs while
I owned it were not TERRIBLY expensive - just extremely irritating. It
just didn't last as long as average (or expected). And there are
always 2 cars on the go. Mine and my wife's (which my #1 daughter
also drives when she is "in country") Second daughter owns her own
cars - on car #3 - $2000 Colt, then $5000 Neon, then a brand new Honda
Civic. (over 300,000km in 12 year period) - and she only buys and
drives standard. trans cars.
When I bought the TransSport, I was really prepared to like it. After
a Ford Aerostar, who couldn't like a plastic/fiberglass/rustproof
body?? ( the body rust was the only thing I really did NOT like on
either of my 2 Aerostars) It was loaded - leather seats and all - and
it did ride less like a truck than the Aerostar. It also had a lot
less room in it than the long Aerostars. But it never lived up to my
expectations. The fact that the steel UNDER the plastic body still
rusted didn't help either - - - . The Aerostars got tough looking, but
remained solid. The TransSport stayed looking pretty, but I had to
weld the underbody/frame. Dispite it's problems I LIKED the damned
thing. It was just the "worst" vehicle I had ever owned here in North
America. (gave me the most problems - ) I guess I'd been spoiled by
all the (many) other cars I'd owned before.
The 1967 Peugeot and the 1949 VW I owned and drove in Zambia in the
seventies gave more trouble, and were over-all worse cars - but they
were BEAT when I bought them - as was my first car - a 1961 Mini with
$196,000 miles that I bought for $60. There were no expectations to
the contrary with either of those 3. They were all 3 virtually theft
proof.
I replaced the Pontiac with a PT Cruiser. Similar mission. Less power
with the 2.4L 4 cyl. Less space. Not a whole lot better gas mileage.
Virtually trouble free. I liked it too, but I got tired of it, and
since I was using it more as a truck than as a car recently, and we
had just replaced my wife's car, I kept my eyes open for a nice
compact pickup - and bought myself a Ford Ranger - sold the PT to a
neighbour.
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:32:37 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>-snip-
>>>What is you drive, Hyudai?
>>>Stick to what you know.
>>Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.
>A friend has a 2011 or 12 & I have long though it was a fine looking
>car--- Then I saw a 2013-- Gotta give them credit for that one. I'm
>a GM guy, but I hear the siren's song. . . . Hope my 2001 Impala is
>nice to me for 4-5 more years.
>Jim
I drove mostly GM for many years. The last one, 2001 LebSabre, turned
to crap in my driveway. When thing started going bad after two years
(but more than 36k miles) GM was no help. They wanted to give me a few
bucks off a new car.
Heated seat (they wanted $672 to replace it), transmission, power
windows, heat and AC, brake lines, wheel bearings, steering wheel
controls, bunch of other stuff in five years. I finally just gave it
away. No more GM here.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:48:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:07:13 -0800 (PST), harry
><harry130...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 11, 8:07 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:37:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>> >On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
>>> ><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>> >>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
>>> >>><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>>> >>>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>>> >>>Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
>>> >>I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
>>> >>But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
>>> >>And "sedan" was specified above.
>>> >>I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."
>>> >What do you think those bodies are sitting on? What do you think the
>>> >drivetrain and the like are? Stylist go to great lengths to fool
>>> >people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
>>> >few. Worked for you.
>>> >Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? In the case of older Jags,
>>> >ever check the Chevy tranny in them?
>>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>>> BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
>>> The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
>>> Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
>>> Get real. And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
>>> somebody operating a backhoe.
>>> What is you drive, Hyudai?
>>> Stick to what you know.
>>Well now. Ford owned Jaguar for a while and a much modified Ford V8
>>engine was fitted to Jaguars and still is in some models.
>>The Buick 3500cc engine has been fitted (extensively modified)to
>>(Land) Rover for decades.
>>Many parts for cars are "off the shelf" and not specifically made for
>>any particular car or even make of car.
>>Shit American cars are well known to be just different bodywork fitted
>>to mechanics years old. This is why the US car industry is in
>>trouble. Lack of developement. Old technology. And the oil
>>companies.
>>Happens when accountants are put in charge of things instead of
>>engineers/enthusiasts.
> So what killed the British car industry????
On 2012-11-17, k...@att.bizzz <k...@att.bizzz> wrote:
>> So what killed the British car industry????
> British engineering prowess.
The same thing that almost killed the US auto industry, namely upper
mgt awarding themselves ever more $$$$ while failing to upgrade their
own product and mfg processes. Harley would have died too if the
brand didn't have such a legacy and middle class geezers hadn't come
outta the woodwork in droves to relive their too-poor youth. Plus,
the Brit govt wasn't so stupid as to bail out the failing Brit
car/motocycle industry at its citizens expense.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:30:05 -0500, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:48:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:07:13 -0800 (PST), harry
>><harry130...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>On Nov 11, 8:07 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:37:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>> >On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
>>>> ><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
>>>> >>><thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>>>> >>>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>>>> >>>Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
>>>> >>I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
>>>> >>But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
>>>> >>And "sedan" was specified above.
>>>> >>I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."
>>>> >What do you think those bodies are sitting on? What do you think the
>>>> >drivetrain and the like are? Stylist go to great lengths to fool
>>>> >people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
>>>> >few. Worked for you.
>>>> >Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? In the case of older Jags,
>>>> >ever check the Chevy tranny in them?
>>>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>>>> BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
>>>> The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
>>>> Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
>>>> Get real. And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
>>>> somebody operating a backhoe.
>>>> What is you drive, Hyudai?
>>>> Stick to what you know.
>>>Well now. Ford owned Jaguar for a while and a much modified Ford V8
>>>engine was fitted to Jaguars and still is in some models.
>>>The Buick 3500cc engine has been fitted (extensively modified)to
>>>(Land) Rover for decades.
>>>Many parts for cars are "off the shelf" and not specifically made for
>>>any particular car or even make of car.
>>>Shit American cars are well known to be just different bodywork fitted
>>>to mechanics years old. This is why the US car industry is in
>>>trouble. Lack of developement. Old technology. And the oil
>>>companies.
>>>Happens when accountants are put in charge of things instead of
>>>engineers/enthusiasts.
>> So what killed the British car industry????
>British engineering prowess.
with the help of brittish accountants and bankers.
>The same thing that almost killed the US auto industry, namely upper
>mgt awarding themselves ever more $$$$ while failing to upgrade their
>own product and mfg processes. Harley would have died too if the
>brand didn't have such a legacy and middle class geezers hadn't come
>outta the woodwork in droves to relive their too-poor youth. Plus,
>the Brit govt wasn't so stupid as to bail out the failing Brit
>car/motocycle industry at its citizens expense.
