Hi MM >My 2 cents:
Will you take 2 yen for it? :-) >Awhile back someone in the biofuel group mentioned in a tongue-in-cheek way >something about his Land Rover and whether that is an SUV. Indeed, it is >something I think of as a true SUV, in the sense that I so often >have seen them >on TV being used in very challenging environments. > >In any case, I want to say that while there are some complexities to the SUV >"debate", I am not categorically anti-SUV and I think that many many of us are >not, and the mention of the Land Rover was a reminder of this. > >One thing is this: I see some of the SUVs as an attempt to return to >a time when >vehicles were designed with a certain spaciousness and style, much as the >vehicles of the 20s or 30s (I'm not quite clear when this "golden" age would >technically fall). I think we all tend to stop and look at one of the really >old cars if it goes by, and one of the thoughts is "but why do today's cars >sometimes seem to lack that elegance"? Now, we see anything from a >Prowler to a >Honda Element to some of the other SUVS exploring some interesting >style trends. Once long ago I had a 1937 Chevrolet Coupe. A friend also had one. That was in Johannesburg in 1969. Quite a sight, the two of them driving together. Wow, what a car! It was a two-door with running boards, one long seat and a long, sloping trunk (is that right? - what Brits call a "boot"), plus a "dickey-seat" above the trunk - it opened up two more seats outside, with the wind in your hair. Very comfortable, very nice to drive, very stylish, yes, and solid, built to last. They were 32 years old but in great condition. I don't recall the mileage, but it wasn't low, those cars had worked hard. There's a picture of one here: http://members.tripod.com/cruzzencarz78/bigcar/37ChC.htm 1937 Chevrolet Coupe It had a straight-six engine, big, loads of torque. Joe might know about this - I think GM (or whatever) used that same motor for a long time, just kept on developing it. A few years later I had a 6-cylinder Chevy pick-up for awhile, nice beast, and the motor seemed basically the same. This seems to be one of the things that's changed, along with the style and the wedding of fashion to cars (does more fashion mean less style?). I like this kind of technology development, where a good basic design just goes on and on being improved. Volkswagen is another example - they developed the Beetle for more than 50 years from Hitler's original "People's Vehicle" for everyone. My mother also had a 1937 Chevy, a big sedan, the car of my childhood, or one of them (my father had a 48 Ford sedan). She bought it new for 235 pounds sterling, and sold it 19 years later for 275 pounds. There's inflation for you. But again it was in great condition, high mileage but no problem. She only sold it because she wanted a smaller car. I'm inclined to think some of that old style came from the fact that they had real quality, or at least if not directly, it was a product of a mindset that would have been scandalized ast the idea of built-in obsolescence. Quite right too. Waste waste waste. Best wishes Keith <snip> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
