<VV> Marketing vs. Engineering

[Bill Elliott]

All production car design is compromise. Power, economy, handling, 
braking, materials, cost, etc... You move too far in one direction you 
lose buyers at the other... that's why I've never been a purist... you 
can keep the basic design of a car but push some of those compromises in 
directions that change the balance... think about what Yenko did with 
the Stinger... no substantial changes to the basic design... just small 
tweaks that changed the nature of the car. If Yenko could do that much 
given a compromised base to work with, just think what GM could have 
done had they set out to build a sports car...

Uncompromised cars are few... and the ones that are street legal still 
have compromises due to safety regs... Lotus Elsie, Ariel Atom, etc...

Bill

Borrrris at aol.com wrote:

>The discussion here about moving the battery up front for  f/r balance 
>improvement got me thinking once again that Chevy coulda/ probably  shoulda done it 
>that way all along.  Same deal with the spare  IMO.
>   So I wonder, what other no cost/low cost engineering  decisions could 
>Chevy have made if their perception at the time was that the  market demanded 
>better balance over more trunk space? And how close to ideal do  you think they 
>could have come (at about the same cost) if that had  been their top priority?
>  
>  I've noticed that, counting me, there seem  to be at  least 3 Matts here, 
>so I'll start signing my posts....
>  Matt from L.I.
>  ('66 Monza coupe 110/PG)
> ____________________________
>  
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006