Re: Non-AMC powered cars in AMO, and another 'irk'.

["John W Rosa" <JohnRosa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, John W Rosa wrote:
> Just as a qualification, tho- I dislike all inter-
> marque engine mixing.

"See, there's this primary and heavy emphasis on engines 
as 'the car'. To me, engines are far less important than 
sheet metal and chassis and other design criteria..."

'To me' being the operative term. To many, myself 
included, the engine is the heart while the body 
is the soul. Separation of the two is an injury.

"In any case, I don't care so much about non-AMC engines; 
why is everyone so hung up about that tiny subset?"

This I explained in my prior note. It's not about hard 
logic. It's about knowing we've got good stuff while
others claimed and still claim our engines are junk.

As long as there are ninnys out there calling our 360 a 
Mopar V8, and our 390 a Ford, those ignorant statements 
will be backed up when they see actual non-AMC plants in 
our cars. And those that know we made our own will still 
see it as an improvement...'The original motors in those 
cars were junk, so the owner stuffed a 350 in there'. It
is, even if misguided to your eyes, a defense of the faith 
to keep the Rambler engine in there. The more converted 
AMCs there are, the more their history and reputation 
suffers.

However, again, I agree that a completely separate class
for non-AMC engined vehicles wouldn't be unreasonable.
But I do understand the resistance.


...and going off-topic for a second, a peeve I've had 
with most shows (not a major one... just an irk) is the
separation of models. I realize it makes judging easier, 
having the same cars bunched together, but it breeds a 
mild 'auto-racism' of sorts...perhaps an elitist feel
when the 'high value' or 'reputation' cars are grouped 
well away from their 'property depreciating', bare-bones 
cousins.

Other negatives are that, to the visitor, putting two 
cars of the same model next to each other invites 
comparison to an Nth degree. Suddenly, your rare, 
excellent car is something less because the one next 
to it has one more option or one less nick in the paint.

I think a mixing of the models, accomplished easily by 
simply letting cars line up as they arrive, would act 
to 'clean the palate<sp?>' between similar cars. And
it would foster more connection between owners of
vastly different models by placing them in close 
proximity, and visitors that might only know about 
certain, well-poublicized models would see different 
ideas on their way between their 'known' models, rather
than congregating around the ones they know best.

A kind of 'forced-intergration' (that'll go over big,
using that term!) would get folks moving past all the 
cars, not able to avoid the 'less-bally-hoo'd' models, 
or dismissing them because they aren't 'with the big 
dogs'.

I know, I know, not everybody is a 'classist'- I'm
not suggesting that. I am saying that, being at several 
shows, I've seen large disparities between the foot 
traffic thru the Hurst cars section and the Matador
and Ambassador areas. I'm certain it can be discouraging
for some of these owners. If the cars were properly blended,
foot traffic would equalize all over the field, and such
'less-known' cars would get a few more glances, questions
and comments. Certainly, the 'top dog' cars would only 
flourish by comparison with a stripped 4-door sedan on one 
side and a beige wagon on the other. Yet, those other two 
cars might get some more kudos, too.

Beyond easier judging, there may be other solid reasons 
for keeping them grouped that I'm not seeing. Feel free 
to educate me. :)

Anyway, just spitballin'.

John