They likely did it just because it's cheaper/easier than making it weatherproof(take GM for instance, it certainly isn't because it can't be done well, or is emphatically a better practice). Number one rule in tier 1 auto manufacturing, wisdom passed to me and on to you, if there is no obvious overwhelming reason why, the answer is usually money. If it still doesn't make sense, it's just a matter of re-evaluating the direction, flow, and path of the money. Cynical? Yeah. True? I think so. The only times it seems this doesn't occur are usually regarded as mistakes later on.. but sometimes not. Jim Akiba
On 12/11/07, Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote: > 2.1 engine in 86. They didn't do it to use up more wire; they did it > because it's an improvement. > Scott > www.turbovans.com |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.