BMC or should that be BL O-Series 1.7
Stuart Binns
Does anybody know what cars the O-Series 1.7 ohc engine was found in apart
from the Morris Ital, I suspect also the later series Allegro.
I think this was BL's replacement for the B-Series but I'm not familiar with
it and unsure about parts availability etc
I may soon be aquiring a kit car with this engine, marina g/box and Dolomite
o/d with Ital axle.
Would other Engines drop into this configuration without much modification?
Any info much appreciated
Stu
Jack H
"Stuart Binns" <stuart...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EiNY7.32266$Zg2.3...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Hi
> Does anybody know what cars the O-Series 1.7 ohc engine was found in apart
> from the Morris Ital, I suspect also the later series Allegro.
Austin Ambassador, for one...
--
Fr Jack Hackett
Graham
Not the Allegro (E-series IIRC)
The Ambassador had the gearbox under the engine, as per the
A-series so may be difficult to match to your g/box.
Sherpa? (may have been 2 litre only?)
The Montego/Maestro was fitted with the 2 litre O-series
too.
and then with EFI and turbo?!
Probably better off with another unit (I'm no kit car
expert!) but I found the O-series reliable and cheap.
Regards
Graham
SkodaPilot
stuart...@ntlworld.com says...
What about later Marinas?
--
Carl Robson
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Halmyre
IIRC the later models of Princess had the 1.7 and 2.0 litre engines.
Halmyre.
The bBfish
<stuart...@ntlworld.com> thought for a few moments, giggled and
wrote:
Off the top of my head, it was in the Ital, late Marinas and the
Ambassador. 2 Litre O series engines were used in the Ambassador,
Montego, Rover 2000 SD1, MG Maestros etc etc.
Not sure what series of engine the series 3 Maxi and Allegro had - did
they end up having the 1.7 too?
--
The bBfish
Popex.com monster 69484
Zap the _donkeys_ to reply
Pete Lucas
> Not sure what series of engine the series 3 Maxi and Allegro had - did
> they end up having the 1.7 too?
Maxis had the E4 series engines (1500 and 1750) which shares
no significant parentage with the O-series.
The 2200-series Landcrabs/Princesses used the "E6" engine
which was essentially one and a half Maxi-1500 engines.
I'm told that a version using what amounted to one and a
half Maxi-1750 engines was used in some Australian BL
offerings in the 1970s. Shame we never got it; I guess
Austin/Morris were scared off the big-six market by the
relative failure of the 1800-style Austin 3-litre.
Jack H
"Graham" <gt...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C33BFE1...@freenet.co.uk...
> Jack H wrote:
> >
> > "Stuart Binns" <stuart...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:EiNY7.32266$Zg2.3...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > Hi
> >
> > > Does anybody know what cars the O-Series 1.7 ohc engine was found in
apart
> > > from the Morris Ital, I suspect also the later series Allegro.
> >
> > Austin Ambassador, for one...
> Not the Allegro (E-series IIRC)
> The Ambassador had the gearbox under the engine, as per the
> A-series so may be difficult to match to your g/box.
> Sherpa? (may have been 2 litre only?)
That as maybe, but he clearly asked up ^ there, what other cars the 1.7
O-Series was used in - didn't enquire as to gearbox differences etc... :-P
> The Montego/Maestro was fitted with the 2 litre O-series
> too.
Yes, and the SD1 2000 had it as well.
> and then with EFI and turbo?!
The Turbo isn't just a common or garden O-Series with a blower bolted on;
the bottom end has been strengthened, compression lowered etc.
It also came with an SU, rather than the EFi off of other models.
--
Fr Jack Hackett
Graham
>
> That as maybe, but he clearly asked up ^ there, what other cars the 1.7
> O-Series was used in - didn't enquire as to gearbox differences etc... :-P
I was just trying to be helpful, sounded like he wanted to
know what other motors he could drop into his kit car.
The 2 litre and 1.7 are identical except for bore IIRC.
>
> > The Montego/Maestro was fitted with the 2 litre O-series
> > too.
>
> Yes, and the SD1 2000 had it as well.
Well spotted, I forgot that one. Sorry Dave P.
>
> > and then with EFI and turbo?!
>
> The Turbo isn't just a common or garden O-Series with a blower bolted on;
> the bottom end has been strengthened, compression lowered etc.
>
As with, I'd guess, all turbo'd motors?
> It also came with an SU, rather than the EFi off of other models.
oops meant EFi models and Turbo models, not both as you
correctly point out.
>
> --
> Fr Jack Hackett
Regards
Graham
AWM
later FWD versions used a more conventional gearbox. The 2 litre O series
was pretty quick in the Montego 2 litre EFI, the Rover 16 valve 2 litre M
and T series are also based on variants of the same basic design and
contrary to rumours the 2 litre M series with Lucas multipoint fuel
injection was a good reliable and very powerful engine (190 bhp in turbo
form thanb can be tweeaked to 240+ by tweaking the wastegate spring).
Be aware fitting the transverse versions to RWD cars can be tricky because
of problems with finding suitable engine mounts -- although I am told 2
litre Sherpa parts will do the job (apparently it must be the 2 litre
version not the 1.7).
The engine also found its way into the Rover SD1 in rare 2 litre form and a
few 2 litre Itals exist.
"Graham" <gt...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C33BFE1...@freenet.co.uk...
Dave Plowman
> Well spotted, I forgot that one. Sorry Dave P.
News to me. SD1s have 8 cylinders.;-)
--
* Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Richard Kilpatrick
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>In article <3C350965...@freenet.co.uk>,
> Graham <gt...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Yes, and the SD1 2000 had it as well.
>
>> Well spotted, I forgot that one. Sorry Dave P.
>
> News to me. SD1s have 8 cylinders.;-)
I always took that view with P6s, but I keep finding these things called
'2000TC' and such. I can only assume it's a horrible thing crossed with
a Triumph :)
Richard
--
2000 Peugeot 306 Cabriolet S, 1988 CX25GTi |\ _,,,---,,_
FEs: http://www.fe2vx.co.uk/ - VX2300 Auto 5dr /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
1994 Subaru Legacy 2.0GL sedan |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
E-Mail: Richard<at>lovecraft.demon.co.uk '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
Andrew Marshall
<ric...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> writes
>Previously, <4af39293bd...@argonet.co.uk>, Dave Plowman
><dave....@argonet.co.uk> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>> News to me. SD1s have 8 cylinders.;-)
>I always took that view with P6s, but I keep finding these things called
>'2000TC' and such.
ISTR there were also 2.3 and 2.6 straight-six versions (though I'm not
sure which engines were used).
Regards,
Andrew.
--
Andrew Marshall
Unsolicited advertising matter unwelcome. Offenders may be blacklisted.
John Fitzgerald
"Richard Kilpatrick" <ric...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KXSj+TQU...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk...
> Previously, <4af39293bd...@argonet.co.uk>, Dave Plowman
> <dave....@argonet.co.uk> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
> >In article <3C350965...@freenet.co.uk>,
> > Graham <gt...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Yes, and the SD1 2000 had it as well.
> >
> >> Well spotted, I forgot that one. Sorry Dave P.
> >
> > News to me. SD1s have 8 cylinders.;-)
>
> I always took that view with P6s, but I keep finding these things called
> '2000TC' and such. I can only assume it's a horrible thing crossed with
> a Triumph :)
>
The 2000 and 2200 in SC and TC flavours were four cylinders.
But you were joking anyway right ?
Richard Kilpatrick
Fitzgerald <jfsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> dipped their finger in oil and
wrote:
>The 2000 and 2200 in SC and TC flavours were four cylinders.
>
>But you were joking anyway right ?
Yep ;)
IIRC, Rover P6 and SD1 had:
P6 - 2000, 2200 four cylinder OHV, 3500V8
SD1 - 2000 four (but O-series?), 2300 and 2600 sixes which were similar
to the LandRover six, and rather unreliable, 3500V8 including EFi, and a
Turbo Diesel - four cylinder?
I remember my cousin having a Rover 2300, and it being a cause of much
mickey-taking amongst those of the family who had moved on from BLMC
products (i.e., my dad - my Uncle worked for BL, so we got discounts,
but after the Ambassador, we came to the conclusion a used ex CEGB Audi
80 would be infinitely better than a new Austin-Rover - and we were
right, too).
Dave Plowman
> >I always took that view with P6s, but I keep finding these things called
> >'2000TC' and such.
> ISTR there were also 2.3 and 2.6 straight-six versions (though I'm not
> sure which engines were used).
A straight 6 P6? That would be a squeeze. Think they made a prototype
once - or was that 5 cylinders?
--
* Virtual reality is its own reward *
Andrew Wheeldon
If the SD1 shape rover 6s 2.3 and 2.6 were "like the Landover" they would be
like the P4 and P5 3L, i.e. IoE engines (highly unlikely in my opinion) but
I must admit I haven't looked under the bonnet of one. In which case they
are far from unreliable but are immense over engineered lumps which still
manage to work with horrendous things wrong with them, I know, I run a P4
and my main transport.
Andy
John Fitzgerald
"Andrew Wheeldon" <whee...@homewithalice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a14tuk$76b$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
The SD1 inline 2.3/2.6 six cylinder engine was a SOHC two valves per
cylinder engine which was originally a triumph design for a car which never
made it to production. The engine was fitted instead to the SD1 and the
rest,as they say, is hysterical....
They are ,IIRC, infamous for localised oil starvation on one of the rear cam
bearings, which can 'nip up' and create localised heat which can cause
cylinder head warping and consequent associated head gasket problems.
Or I could be talking Bollocks...
Andrew Wheeldon
"Andrew Wheeldon" <whee...@homewithalice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a14tuk$76b$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bridger/6story.htm
Andy.
Andrew Wheeldon
"John Fitzgerald" <jfsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:55nZ7.5215$Qk.31...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Andy
Richard Kilpatrick
<whee...@homewithalice.freeserve.co.uk> dipped their finger in oil and
wrote:
>If the SD1 shape rover 6s 2.3 and 2.6 were "like the Landover" they would be
>like the P4 and P5 3L, i.e. IoE engines (highly unlikely in my opinion) but
>I must admit I haven't looked under the bonnet of one.
Ah, no, I was wrong. The 2.3 and 2.6 were, I am sure, OHC designs. I
thought some late Series IIIs had the same 2.6 unit, however.
I don't know where the sixes were derived from.
John Fitzgerald
Nah, no Landy Link, only Terrible Triumph........
It did however have quite the grooviest cam cover. Very smmooth and yet
somehow interestingly ribbed.......
Dave Plowman
Andrew Wheeldon <whee...@homewithalice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> If the SD1 shape rover 6s 2.3 and 2.6 were "like the Landover" they
> would be like the P4 and P5 3L, i.e. IoE engines (highly unlikely in my
> opinion) but I must admit I haven't looked under the bonnet of one.
They were loosely based on the Triumph 6. In fact, the SD1 as a whole
was more Triumph than Rover, IMHO.
--
* The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *
Andrew Marshall
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <SDGbzDAE...@g8bur.demon.co.uk>,
> Andrew Marshall <g8...@g8bur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> News to me. SD1s have 8 cylinders.;-)
>
>> >I always took that view with P6s, but I keep finding these things called
>> >'2000TC' and such.
>
>> ISTR there were also 2.3 and 2.6 straight-six versions (though I'm not
>> sure which engines were used).
>
> A straight 6 P6? That would be a squeeze. Think they made a prototype
>once - or was that 5 cylinders?
I meant that SD1s could have 6 or 8 cylinders actually, though I could
have perhaps written it more clearly.
Dave Plowman
Andrew Marshall <g8...@g8bur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I meant that SD1s could have 6 or 8 cylinders actually, though I could
> have perhaps written it more clearly.
Yup, but I was carrying on the (weak) gag. I've got an SD1.
--
* If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *
AWM
loosely based Jag V12 technology but unlike the O and V12 to put it frankly
they were junk. The SD1 also came in 5 cylinder Turbo Diesel form with a VM
engine.
"Andrew Marshall" <g8...@g8bur.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SDGbzDAE...@g8bur.demon.co.uk...
AWM
> > > > Turbo Diesel - four cylinder?
A five cylinder Italiam made VM -- actually quite a nice
engine inspite the strange number of cylinders
> > >
> > The SD1 inline 2.3/2.6 six cylinder engine was a SOHC two valves per
> > cylinder engine which was originally a triumph design for a car which
> never
> > made it to production.
Could well be the SD1 really is a Triumph design -- the structure is very
like the Triumph 2000 of course Stokes and Harry Webster (who together must
takes as much blame for what happened to BL as Red Robbo) were Leyland
Triumph in origin
The engine was fitted instead to the SD1 and the
> > rest,as they say, is hysterical....
> >
> > They are ,IIRC, infamous for localised oil starvation on one of the rear
> cam
> > bearings, which can 'nip up' and create localised heat which can cause
> > cylinder head warping and consequent associated head gasket problems.
> >
> > Or I could be talking Bollocks...
No you are dead right it as the 6 cylinder engine was pure c***
>
>
AWM
>
> I meant that SD1s could have 6 or 8 cylinders actually, though I could
> have perhaps written it more clearly.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew.
An Sd1 if running right could any number of cylinders between 4 and 8 except
7, -- but I've seem one or two running on 7
Andrew Marshall
<a...@davrian.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>An Sd1 if running right could any number of cylinders between 4 and 8 except
>7, -- but I've seem one or two running on 7
The 5-cyl presumably being the VM diesel. Hmmm - I wonder if any big V8
diesels would go in a P5B, P6 or SD1? ISTR hearing of a 6.2 litre one
which will fit.
Dave Plowman
AWM <a...@davrian.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The 2.3 and 2.6 had unique 6 cylnder engines like the O series the head
> was loosely based Jag V12 technology but unlike the O and V12 to put it
> frankly they were junk. The SD1 also came in 5 cylinder Turbo Diesel
> form with a VM engine.
Nope. The SD1 diesel was a four. Think its claim to fame was it was the
fastest diesel made in the UK.
--
* You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *
The bBfish
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> thought for a few moments, giggled and
wrote:
>In article <a16gnb$6k1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>,
> AWM <a...@davrian.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> The 2.3 and 2.6 had unique 6 cylnder engines like the O series the head
>> was loosely based Jag V12 technology but unlike the O and V12 to put it
>> frankly they were junk. The SD1 also came in 5 cylinder Turbo Diesel
>> form with a VM engine.
>
> Nope. The SD1 diesel was a four. Think its claim to fame was it was the
>fastest diesel made in the UK.
Heh, probably one of the rarest too :)
Dan
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 11:18:37 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
>> fastest diesel made in the UK.
> Heh, probably one of the rarest too :)
IIRC it was also extremely economical. 40mpg or better from a car that
size.
Dave Plowman
Dan <danb...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Nope. The SD1 diesel was a four. Think its claim to fame was it was
> >> the fastest diesel made in the UK.
> > Heh, probably one of the rarest too :)
> IIRC it was also extremely economical. 40mpg or better from a car that
> size.
Just happen to have an Austin Rover catalogue from '84
Urban 33.6 56mph 56.2 75mph 39.2
--
* If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.
AWM
"Dan" <danb...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3C38B885...@email.com...
Dan
> In article <3C38B885...@email.com>,
> Dan <danb...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Nope. The SD1 diesel was a four. Think its claim to fame was it was
>>>> the fastest diesel made in the UK.
>>> Heh, probably one of the rarest too :)
>> IIRC it was also extremely economical. 40mpg or better from a car that
>> size.
> Just happen to have an Austin Rover catalogue from '84
> Urban 33.6 56mph 56.2 75mph 39.2
Quite fantastic if they're accurate. Must have been an aerodynamic
beasty to get that 75mph figure.
Dave Plowman
Dan <danb...@email.com> wrote:
> > Just happen to have an Austin Rover catalogue from '84
> > Urban 33.6 56mph 56.2 75mph 39.2
> Quite fantastic if they're accurate. Must have been an aerodynamic
> beasty to get that 75mph figure.
Well, the Vitesse with 8 cylinders and 190BHP is quoted as 30.1 at 75
mph, and my auto EFI regularly manages that on motorway journeys if I'm
reasonably restrained, so I can believe it.
--
* No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *
Geoff Mackenzie
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4af5c33141...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <3C3A3E00...@email.com>,
> Dan <danb...@email.com> wrote:
> > > Just happen to have an Austin Rover catalogue from '84
> > > Urban 33.6 56mph 56.2 75mph 39.2
>
> > Quite fantastic if they're accurate. Must have been an aerodynamic
> > beasty to get that 75mph figure.
>
> Well, the Vitesse with 8 cylinders and 190BHP is quoted as 30.1 at 75
> mph, and my auto EFI regularly manages that on motorway journeys if I'm
> reasonably restrained, so I can believe it.
Used to drive an XJ6 Sovereign (4.2) into London every day. Averaged 16mpg.
Briefly owned a 3.5 SD1 (not Vitessse) and it did 9 mpg over the same
journey.
Geoff MacK
Dave Plowman
Geoff Mackenzie <geoff_m...@acsysindia.com> wrote:
> Used to drive an XJ6 Sovereign (4.2) into London every day. Averaged
> 16mpg. Briefly owned a 3.5 SD1 (not Vitessse) and it did 9 mpg over the
> same journey.
I had a Series 1 XJ6 LWB auto which actually managed to use more petrol
than an earlier Bentley S1. Later Series III XJ6 with the same fuel
injection system as the Vitesse were *much* better.
--
* I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize *
The bBfish
for a few moments, giggled and wrote:
I seem to recall someone saying that the Citroen CX and the SD1 were
the most aerodynamic cars in their class with great drag coeffecients
at the time.
I think the arrival of the new Audi 100 in '82 (ish) shot them down in
flames though on the aerodynamics front..
--
The bBfish
Popex.com monster 69484
Zap the _donkeys_ to reply
Currently listening to:
Paul OakenFold ( Hynotise (Talisman & Hudson Remix) )
Dan
> Used to drive an XJ6 Sovereign (4.2) into London every day. Averaged 16mpg.
> Briefly owned a 3.5 SD1 (not Vitessse) and it did 9 mpg over the same
> journey.
Someone forgot to take off his lead boots I reckon. ;-) But that sounds
about right for the Jaguar. I know someone with an XJ12 and it usually
shows about 9 if you punch up the computer to annoy him.
The SD1 must be a heavy thing also, which tends to make urban vs cruise
MPG disproportionate.
Dan
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:32:00 +0000, Dan <danb...@email.com> thought
> for a few moments, giggled and wrote:
>> Quite fantastic if they're accurate. Must have been an aerodynamic
>> beasty to get that 75mph figure.
> I seem to recall someone saying that the Citroen CX and the SD1 were
> the most aerodynamic cars in their class with great drag coeffecients
> at the time.
The CX was intended to be aerodynamic but I don't think it was by any
modern standards, although it looked it. I assumed the SD1 was similar
- penned with drag in mind but no serious theory or tunnel testing.
> I think the arrival of the new Audi 100 in '82 (ish) shot them down in
> flames though on the aerodynamics front..
And the BX was a lot better. It always seemed a shame to me that the
very beautiful, flowing cars were not as aerodynamic as the more angular
ones.
Richard Kilpatrick
dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>modern standards, although it looked it. I assumed the SD1 was similar
>- penned with drag in mind but no serious theory or tunnel testing.
Actually, the 1974 CX has a very low Cd of 0.31, later models got worse.
Not sure about the SD1.
>And the BX was a lot better. It always seemed a shame to me that the
>very beautiful, flowing cars were not as aerodynamic as the more angular
>ones.
The BX was only as aerodynamic as it's predecessor, the GS - it's harder
to make small cars aerodynamic. FWIW, the Audi's figures were achieved
without passenger side mirror or licence plates, and the Cd of 0.30 only
applied to the base model.
The Citroen XM has exceptional aerodynamics, but still has a similar Cd,
because the mirrors were designed as part of the car. Part of why an XM
can a: have the window open with minimal buffeting, even at 115mph, and
b: will return nearly 50mpg on a steady run - without the diesel engine.
Geoff Mackenzie
first or second gear. Now doing the same journey in a BX Diesel at 42mpg!
Geoff MacK
Dan
> Actually, the 1974 CX has a very low Cd of 0.31, later models got worse.
> Not sure about the SD1.
My mistake; I read that once in a book about Citroens. Did they manage
it through good luck or good judgement? It's very impressive.
> The BX was only as aerodynamic as it's predecessor, the GS - it's harder
> to make small cars aerodynamic.
For some reason I was under the impression that it was a big
improvement. Probably that same book about Citroens. :-)
> The Citroen XM has exceptional aerodynamics, but still has a similar Cd,
> because the mirrors were designed as part of the car. Part of why an XM
> can a: have the window open with minimal buffeting, even at 115mph, and
> b: will return nearly 50mpg on a steady run - without the diesel engine.
That's pretty good. I like the XM, anyway. It was a nice car. They go
for peanuts now, but the only one I'd have would be the V6 and they
aren't common (were they auto only?).
Geoff Mackenzie
Purely personal view - thought the CX was a far better looking car, let down
by the engine - if only there had been a V6 version.... (and don't tell me
there wasn't enough room under the bonnet, as was conventionally held at the
time). CX with a V6 could have been a Jaguar beater - and I'm a Jaguar fan.
Geoff MacK
Richard Kilpatrick
<geoff_m...@acsysindia.com> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>Purely personal view - thought the CX was a far better looking car, let down
>by the engine - if only there had been a V6 version.... (and don't tell me
>there wasn't enough room under the bonnet, as was conventionally held at the
>time). CX with a V6 could have been a Jaguar beater - and I'm a Jaguar fan.
But Geoff, there /wasn't/ enough room. Seriously! There's a massive
crossmember that really couldn't be designed out of the car.
I'm torn between XMs and CXs. I prefer CXs, but they have little
fragilities (like the door frames) that spoil what is otherwise an
exceptionally solid car. If they'd given it frameless windows, it would
have been perfect.
Dan
> Purely personal view - thought the CX was a far better looking car, let down
> by the engine - if only there had been a V6 version.... (and don't tell me
> there wasn't enough room under the bonnet, as was conventionally held at the
> time). CX with a V6 could have been a Jaguar beater - and I'm a Jaguar fan.
The CX is better looking, but the XM looks pretty good except where the
side window line goes up towards the back - spoiled it, made it look
fat. I've never driven a CX but the XM is lovely to drive or ride in;
very quiet, excellent ride and to me it always felt like piloting a
spaceship. And electric everything but I suspect some of that is
getting pretty ropey by now.
Willy Eckerslyke
> No lead boots, just real world where the cruise from Horley to W1 is mostly
> first or second gear. Now doing the same journey in a BX Diesel at 42mpg!
I think we should all have a whip-round so that you can carry on
using the E-type. I mean who are we youngsters going to have as a
role model now? And who are we going to use as an example when
arguing with our spouses about how much our classics cost to run?
--
Regards, Willy.
PTO
Geoff Mackenzie
"Willy Eckerslyke" <ku.ca....@801sso.backwards> wrote in message
news:3C3F53...@801sso.backwards...
Help the Aged?
Geoff MacK