If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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') |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|