Most undeserving / overrated classic?

I'm sure the 2.8i Cologne V6 would have been a better choice - they were vastly better than the Brit-engine.

It would be _very_ tempting to put the 24v Cosworth in there.

Andrew,

Be careful, anti-fouling is nasty stuff, doesn't buff up very well and never really dries.

Mind you the car would be waterproof!

Richard snipped-for-privacy@epbyr.bet (ROT13 to e-mail me directly). See

for most things to do with caravanning.

Damn,

That means that the Ford Focus is a classic, by your definition.

Richard snipped-for-privacy@epbyr.bet (ROT13 to e-mail me directly). See

for most things to do with caravanning.

Nothing difficult about it. I have done 3 now and the finish is superb. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about?

I had an idea that the last of the line *were* fitted with Colognes.

They got them in the end - the SE6b had the Cologne, though only in Carb'd form - some of the final Middlebridges had the 2.9i, I think, but by that time the Scimtar had lost an awful lot of its charm.

People have used the current US-ford (Yamaha) V6 in conversions and it's said to be good. Me? I'm not sure that a revvy engine wouldn't be very out of character for a Scimitar and would be inclined to say they got it right in the two pre-production cars with the Mustang 4.6 V8- just the right combination of lazy grunt, and in such a light car

Give me silly money to spend on an upgrade and I'd be inclined to draw up a shopping list starting with a 5.0HO catalysed Mustang V8 and 4-speed autobox, suspension rework, bigger brakes and the four-beam dipped headlight conversion. And a full rewire. And the repaint.

We can all play this game, can't we - what we would to to improve if someone else were paying the bill :)

On 25 Jan 2004 04:30:23 -0800, Ian Johnston wrote: RE Citroen DS

A major re-design, I think I did see some photos. They also had a twin-cam 2-litre four with 145 bhp and a 5-speed box, but that was intended for a Panhard based on a DS floorpan and 24CT styling. Never came to much, they built the SM instead.

SteveH was seen penning the following ode to ... whatever:

Heh. So you checked one of the obvious things last...

You haven't attended one of my fault finding courses, have you?

:) and don't I know it. The final coat of antifoul on the boat is next weekend's project, and I fully anticipate getting covered with it. Again. T'other project for the day is the non-slip paint on the deck. Wasn't thinking of using that on the car, either.

Which would be a first for a 60s or 70s British sports car.

-- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales.... Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about alcoholic drinks."

Was that with epoxy? I'm interested..

The problem I've got is - quite simply - the lack of a garage or anywhere else the car can be worked on under cover, hence the need for someone else being involved..

Cheers Andy Jones

1959 Austin A40 Farina 1971 Morris Marina mk1 1.3 Saloon (J reg) 1971 Morris Marina mk1 1.3 Coupe (2) 1972 Morris Marina mk1 1.8 TC Coupe (2) 1973 Austin (Marina) 7cwt van 1098cc 1976 Rover 3500 SD1 (5 speed)

I respect your views. Classic cars would be a dull topic if everyone liked the same two or three vehicles.

As far as looks are concerned, I've always considered the XJS as one of the most stylish and distinctive cars ever designed, alhough not quite as cool as an e-type on the drive perhaps. I simply don't understand why I failed to notice or get excited about e-types when there were quite a few around in the 1970's. But when the XJ-S came along it took over from the Triumph Stag as my favourite car, style wise. I still reckon the XJS had more to say in the 1970s and 80s than the XK8 has now.

The XJS is certainly inefficient in terms of space but I guess that's what makes it look special.

Regards George

Nor did it have a sloppy gearchange when in good condition - it was pretty ok of its type. It's not fair to assess a car on driving a 40 year old example without knowing what has and has not been bodged or whatever.

I'd hardly call the MkII a face lift of the MkI either - although some of the mechanics were the same, the body was totally different.

Like what?

I suppose you could count Jaguar and Rover in that. But I wouldn't really call them 'BL' cars.

I suppose.

I have driven both, and from a standing start in the first two gears you are probably right.

But on the open road I wasn't at all impressed with the Cortina. I know which one I would prefer to be driving to overtake a caravan uphill!

Jim

Yeah, I know...bit of a problem, that :-)

What else would you call them? Leyland originally did make cars, but were better known for trucks. Before Leyland got involved, it was BMC then BMH.

Donald Stokes - an accountant all the way with no interest or feel for the motor industry - started out at Leyland. His first takeover was Albion, which he virtually closed down and simply badge engineered Leylands as them. He then took over Standard Triumph.