Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Bernard farquart wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were *under*
>>engineered has no concept of what they are talking about.
>
>
> There is that, but I didn't pick on Putney for it 'cause his claim that
> "AMC automatic transmissions" was crying out louder for attention.

Ignoring the fact that I never said they were under-engineered, though I
did point out that they put an automotive tranny in a tank with no
cooler on it that needed fluid replacement every 20k miles. Yeah - I
would call that particular feature under-engineered, though I had not
called it that. Grossly under-engineered here, grossly over-engineered
everywhere else - maybe the correct term for them would be "very
unbalanced" (which is by definition "not competitive" as time proved).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')