Practically Classics Forum

Sorry about that, no offence meant. I would tend to go with the spelling seen on that UK importer's advertisement rather than wiki. After all, Wikipedia is the online equivalent of a septic tank but has a much larger capacity. Especially in the field of automotive "facts" and figures, as seen recently in Edith Plasticbath's argument about historic events.

None taken John. You may not have noticed the small print on my post but despite looking it up, my fat fingures still got it wrong! there is no 2nd "o" apparently.

The "t" is still up for discussion though. found both with and without on so say creditable sites. but as you say, uk importor should know best and i shall always use that spelling from now on. Moskvich. Moskvich, Moskvich.

There should be imprinted now. althought that's probably more times than I have ever written that word in my life before now!

It's certainly more times than I've read it!

And on car name spellings; what of the Mitsubishi Starion? Allegedly - depending upon where you look - intended to be called "Star Orion" but contracted to make the name more palatable to buyers in its domestic market. I don't believe that theory though. I think that the car was intended to wear the name "Sour Onion". Bumhats! I made myself hungry just then.

москвитч

There. That's how you spell it.

P45.

Penguin45 wrote:москвитч

There. That's how you spell it.

P45.

There'll be people looking who have no Cyrillic character set installed and, instead of seeing that indisputably accurate spelling, will instead see something like this: ꚤꚤꚤꚤꚤꚤꚤꚤ, the Bamum spelling for "Moskvich"!

hard choice this one......... I would possibly say anything French. Citreons, Peugeots and Simca's from all ages are really bad. although if I was honest, Renaults were better in recent years. all I remember is bad mechanicals, severe rust issues and ugly styling. how can anyone think they are aesthetically pleasing to the eye?

if were going for an old classic, then for me, the E type jaguar. hideous looking thing that's all bonnet. We used to say they were a "hair dressers car". very overrated and over priced. The MK11 jag was so much better looking.

ampwhu wrote:I hereby declare war on everything that's quintessentially French.

Oops, that quote came out the way it did when I read it rather than the way you wrote it..

As for the E Type; have you driven or been carried in one? I've done both in a day and whatever opinion I've formed of the E is based on that day's encounter with a very well kept V12 2+2. I didn't rate its comfort so wouldn't have chosen one as a long distance tool but that's just my dislike for being cramped and having to endure foul odours for much of the trip, but enough of my co-driver's digestive system, the car was adequate. I'd have expected to be aroused by it but didn't come close. The V12 engine was a very lovely thing though.
However I don't believe that my ambivalence qualifies me to declare the E a bad car. They shifted a few over the years so there must have been some redeeming features. Must there not?

I suspect the E-type was under-priced when it was in production and, according to legend, a certain Mr Ferrari rated it as one of the most beautiful cars ever made - so they can't have been bad-looking either! OK, the 150MPH was a myth, created by a specially prepared car on an Autobahn, but they were still faster than an Aston Martin and, when you look back, I think the DB5 was actually quite ugly - and they are rather expensive these days!!

I thought they were pretty good looking when they were in production (especially compared to our Moggy and similar cars of the era). Though I didn't like the later ones (esp the V12) which seemed somewhat bloated. One of the parents had one when I was at school and it always had a crowd around it when the parents came to collect - or see - their son. I can't think of another car that attracted the same attention. I suspect it is people of my age that are trying to recapture that feeling that has caused them to be so collectable (ie expensive).

No, I'm not a fan of the E-type (or most other sports cars of the era), but to condemn it for looks and price smacks of someone who is envious of those with enough spare money to spend on "toys". IMHO the TR6 was one of the nicest looking sports cars of its time (and I never had a Lombo or Ferrari poster on my wall).

I might cause a bit of an argument, but was the Moggy really such a good car? The three we had were all rot boxes (just as much as an E-Type) and none were over ten years old when they were scrapped because of rust. The engines leaked oil and lacked power, the back brake cylinders seemed to need replacing every year as they rusted up (though we lived near the sea, which wouldn't help) and they were noisy and uncomfy on longer journeys (like Carlisle - Bristol in pre motorway days). I know a few people who would agree with me, including one who "inherited" his father's 1959ish (family owned from new) Minor in the late 70's and was only too glad to be able to sell it around the time his mother died in the mid-late 80s for the value the garage put on the number plate (it had the garage owner's wife's initials and an interesting number). There again, I am looking back and comparing them with "modern" or more "classy" machines - like the Herald that followed our Minors!

History wrote:I


But thinking about the design a front wheel drive 3 wheeler is safer than a Robin, not sure why, call it mechanics intuition.

More like blind bigotry I would say. Having driven many three wheelers, I can say that there is no safety issue whatever, unless you drive like an idiot. Bear in mind that the Clarkson bigot had to modify the one he rolled extensively, because it wouldn't do so otherwise.