omplete valve job on my 63 3.8l e-type. Started right after work
>>> at 5 and got done about 2 AM. Drove it home slept and was back at work at 7
>>> the next morning. Course trip time was only about 10 min. Was only about 23
>>> at the time so had
st
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Mercedes-Benz SL Returns to Its Lightweight Roots
I liked those 70s Ford Granadas, just like a Mercedes!
I would take a nice E-Type, maybe a V12
--R
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To searc
homas
> To: Mercedes Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [MBZ] Mercedes-Benz SL Returns to Its Lightweight Roots
>
> I liked those 70s Ford Granadas, just like a Mercedes!
>
> I would take a nice E-Type, maybe a V12
>
> --R
>
>
-0500
From: Rich Thomas
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Mercedes-Benz SL Returns to Its Lightweight Roots
I liked those 70s Ford Granadas, just like a Mercedes!
I would take a nice E-Type, maybe a V12
--R
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For ne
> Dan Penoff wrote:
> I question that statement, as I can go back and look at cars
> in the 70s or 80s and see some pretty significant differences
> between the brands design-wise.
Sure _you_ can. But is that an intrinsic difference?
> Sure, there were some similarities, but I challenge someone
I used to maintain a 67 XKE for a former employer. I believe it had the 4.2l 6
cylinder in it. Best thing one could do for that engine was polish and port it
- the fit and finish between the manifolds and head were horrendous.
8 hours for a valve adjustment is a little extreme - I don't recall i
I think the v12 XKE was a caricature. I want a '66 or '67 - synchro first
gear, triple SU's, original bumpers. I'd like it even better if someone
else was doing the maintenance (8hrs flat rate to adjust the valves).
Someone in MB (Uhlenhaut?) was quoted saying something like "elegance is
last year
My brother had a two door Granada. What a POS that car was!
Dan
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Rich Thomas
wrote:
> I liked those 70s Ford Granadas, just like a Mercedes!
>
> I would take a nice E-Type, maybe a V12
>
> --R
>
> On 1/11/12 7:16 AM, Dan Penoff wrote:
>>
I liked those 70s Ford Granadas, just like a Mercedes!
I would take a nice E-Type, maybe a V12
--R
On 1/11/12 7:16 AM, Dan Penoff wrote:
I question that statement, as I can go back and look at cars in the 70s or 80s
and see some pretty significant differences between the brands design-wis
What's funny is that's what been said about every generation of
cars. I suspect it has more to do with the person making the
observation than it does about the cars being observed.
I think things go in cycles, but not everyone perceives cycles
in the same way! I think they're all ugly too, the
I question that statement, as I can go back and look at cars in the 70s or 80s
and see some pretty significant differences between the brands design-wise.
Sure, there were some similarities, but I challenge someone who is not car
savvy to pick out, say, a Jaguar X class from a Hyundai in a group
Ummmnh sorry no that Ford thing is still ugly and will be fugly forever,
curves are nice but you go over the top and...
Hendrik
who points and laughs whenever he sees a Torturous
Scott Ritchey wrote:
I think beauty derives from function. Specifically, great cars eventually
become
I still maintain that the 90's SL (won't even bother to get chassis
code) is the most ugly thing ever to come out of Sindelfingen (did they
even dare to make that there? probably made in a back street factory in
Taiwan).
Hendrik
who would rather push a 107 than be seen in the next gen SL
Fmis
and the Edsel became ugly only after it failed in the market.
-Original Message-
From: mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com]
On Behalf Of Fmiser
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:07 AM
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Mercedes-Benz SL Returns
> Dan Penoff wrote:
> For the most part they all look like jellybeans.
>
> No soul, no panache. Nothing that makes them distinctive,
> like the older models did.
>
> Dan living in the past Man
What's funny is that's what been said about every generation of
cars. I suspect it has more to do wi
As LJK Setright liked to point out, the SL was never leicht, but it did
offer a bit of schport (at least up until the fat, slow early '80s
107s).
The 350SL, as designed, might have been a bit sporty. Surely what
the USA got was crippled, though.
-- Jim
_
Actually I have always been a fan of Jaguar styling, although the
engineering puts me off.
Speaking of jellybeans, the E-type strikes me as being the grand jelly bean.
Hendrik
who has never owned a Jag
Dan Penoff wrote:
For the most part they all look like jellybeans.
No soul, no panache. No
For the most part they all look like jellybeans.
No soul, no panache. Nothing that makes them distinctive, like the older
models did.
Dan living in the past Man
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Dieselhead <126die...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd say all MBs have become ugly in the
I'd say all MBs have become ugly in the past few years, from the hawk
nose SLK through the S and the E and Cs.
The profile of this new SL is nice, but the front, and the headlights
in particular, are ugly.
the 107 was hardly a sports car, but at least they were not ugly.
'bout time they dev
'bout time they developed a pleasing design as the SL had become rather ugly in
recent years . . . just an opinion.
G. M. Brown
Brevard, NC
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To sea
Well, they were lighter than a 600 or a 116, or even a 126. Leicht
was somewhat subjective.
On Jan 10, 2012 6:43 AM, "Rich Thomas"
wrote:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/2013-mercedes-benz-sl
As LJK Setright liked to point out, the SL was never leicht, but it did
offer a bit of sch
On Jan 10, 2012 6:43 AM, "Rich Thomas"
wrote:
>
> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/2013-mercedes-benz-sl
>
As LJK Setright liked to point out, the SL was never leicht, but it did
offer a bit of schport (at least up until the fat, slow early '80s 107s).
Alex
__
22 matches
Mail list logo
