4 ms·
I agree. And fuel injection too - carburettors meant that every car had its own 'personality' and you had to get used to how it wanted you to drive it.
by rahoulb 5y ago
I agree.
And fuel injection too - carburettors meant that every car had its own 'personality' and you had to get used to how it wanted you to drive it.
- BoxOfRain 5y agoThere's a huge part of me that wants to buy something like a Triumph Stag, Triumph Spitfire, or MG MGB for this reason. Yes they're practically hygroscopic, they're Biblically unreliable in every possible way (particularly the few rudimentary electronic components they have), they have a safety profile more akin to motorbikes than modern cars, they universally need either the valve seats replacing or constant fuel additives because they were built for leaded petrol, and on top of that pretty much anyone with a screwdriver can steal them but come on - look at it! [1]. There's literally nothing between you and the road either, almost everything is mechanical and unassisted. In a world where most ordinary cars are bland appliances like washing machines or dishwashers it'd be a breath of fresh air. [1] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pwm9E2bP1K8/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pwm9E2bP1K8/maxresdefault.jpg
- rahoulb 5y agoI had an MGF and an MGTF (late 90s and early 2000s) - so they had an ECU but it was all 80s technology in there (the MGs were basically Austin Metros with the engine replacing the rear seats and the roof cut off). Both died when the electrics got wet after a heavy rainfall, but they were the best things to drive.