I think if you read Hugh's message carefully you'll see he makes provisions
for those kinds of modifications under his so-called Rule of Invisibility
(okay, I made up that name, but he mentioned invisibility as one of his
criteria). In other words, if the average person can't really see it or tell
the difference it's not that bad . . .
As you say, it would be just about impossible to use a car on a daily basis
and keep it all truly original.
"D. Dardalis" wrote:
> Hugh, its easier to maintain originality on a car you do not drive
> daily. Many of us are combining our "hobby" with daily transportation, so
> we do not have to "waist" our money in modern cars (which I have expressed
> few times how much I respect them!). In this case, functionality is more
> important. Most 68's are equipped with Carters rather than the original
> Holley (in fact my LeBaron has a Rochester). I 'd rather have reliable
> Carter (my Sedan's Carter never had any problems through the 70K miles of
> my ownership) rather than a leaking Holley. There are many other examples
> of deviation from original. Imperials were good cars from the factory, but
> not perfect. On the other hand, there is a practical reason to try to
> avoid excessive deviation from originality. The reason is that the
> after-market parts are often not comparable with OEM in terms of
> reliability. So, that's one of the reason I drive Chrysler products:
> because they were properly engineered from the factory and meet my needs
> better in terms of performance, handling, etc. So, the need for
> "improvements" is relatively small, compared to say a Chebby.
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network