Is the recent devastating report on the deliberately shoddy construction of the English motor car, which every thinking motorist knows to be true in respect of the bodywork, to be allowed to die at the assertions of innocence by spokesmen of the motor industry? The motorist has been led into believing over the years that certain shapes and methods of manufacture are in his interest, when in fact this has only resulted in an assortment of fancy-shaped rot boxes that will not last out the mechanical components. If a motorist had a good car he would not need to change it under normal circumstances, but with the stuff marketed today he must if he wishes to keep mobile, thereby helping to support an industry by which he is so cynically bled.
Let’s have s return to sanity, please; if we must have the wheels slung on four corners of tin boxes can we, please, have it made from something thicker than steel flashing and weatherproofed properly to prevent rust over, say, 20 years.
But I doubt if this is the best form of construction as with one or two exceptions, this results in atrocious inaccessibility, no doubt calculated to discourage any owner from doing anything but the most paltry items of maintenance.
What is needed is a sound, reliable engine on a chassis with bodywork in bolt-on sections and accessibility to mechanical parts without the aid of a lift.
Where have the startling handles, ammeters, oil pressure gauges, sliding roofs, opening windscreens, one-shot greasing systems, etc., gone that used to be on the cheapest of cars?
[Hands up those who still build cars with separate chassis frames!—Ed.]
Ask any driver in the British Formula Three Championship which is the race to win — and the Grand Prix support race is the one. The thought of scoring a…
My Le Mans hero
“Three things: Derek Bell, Porsche 962 and Rothmans. That does it for me. I grew up watching Derek wrestle the 962 and he was a master at it. His record…