RE: Subject: Subject: RE: stirring trouble (kiwi subset)..

[JHertzman@xxxxxxx]

One of the great nineteenth-century historians of ancient Greek sculpture
neatly divided it into an "A-B-C" sequence: Archaic, Best, and Corrupt. It is
a handy system, applicable to many histories- precursor, optimum and
degenerate - especially in aesthetics, not necessarily technology. It works at
both the Macro and Micro level. In Alfas, individuals may differ on the
dividing points, but the A-B-C applies. In the post-war era, the pre-Satta
cars, the 1900 through 162 cars, and FWD stuff; in the RWD coupes, the 750-101
Sprints, the "Bertones", and Alfettas; in the "Bertones", the step-nose, the
1750, and the 2000.

The 1750/2000 "best" debate, and its 1600 appendix, has been interesting. From
a purely formal standpoint I have never been comfortable with the stepnose.
There is nothing at all wrong with the front end, and nothing at all wrong
with the rear end, but (as on the Renault Caravelle, which was angular at the
front and rounded at the back) they contradict each other, whichever end is
right the other is wrong. The 1600 dashboard, concave with a subtle undulating
outline, obviously comes out of the same sensibilities as the 1600 tail-
panels, while the 1600 stepnose came out of the same sensibilities as the
2000's angular stepdash. The pieces of the 1750 all come out of one harmonious
formal vocabulary. Or so it seems to me.

Best and worst details differ but (as Les Singh demonstrates) the cars are
amenable to a mix-and-match approach. The gasket windshield is certainly far
preferable to the US-spec glue-ins, which were not Alfa's decision. The 1750
dash is certainly the winner in its category, as is the 1750 grille. Bumpers
are a closer call; a case can be made for the more rounded series one bumpers,
but the slight angularity of the series two goes well with the body crease.
(Besides, I have good sets of the 'two', and the 'one' are harder to find.)
Tail-lights - license-plate illumination - seats- all easy choices.

Les makes a point about the many variations in specifications from country to
country, mentioning particularly the suspended pedals, saying "Right till the
end of production of the 2000 GT Veloces, we got floor-mounted pedals like
real cars have- and hey! I still have the underfloor tandem mc with twin
boosters ... perhaps Kiwis are better mechanics than some other people...
(heh, heh..)."  Later I will go check the parts books, but I think perhaps we
may be running into the difference between cars built for correct-side-drive
and goofy-side-drive. The books seem to agree that for most of the world the
pendant pedals came in with the second series (1970) 1750 introduced at the
1969 Turin motor show. For the others, squeezing the pendant pedalbox, master
cylinder and booster in among the carburettors and lovely log-type air cleaner
could be a challenge. With the underfloor pedals and master the boosters can
be anywhere- (the trunk might be a good place). 

As Les says, "These Alfas are magic cars in that just about everything
that matters is interchangeable between versions-" From an aesthetic
standpoint, ignoring technical "progress" for the moment, I would be half
tempted to run the floor pedals, underfloor master, discard the boosters
completely, and fit drum brakes off an early T.I. And add the short-stroke
late 1300 - -  Some would see both as retrograde steps, but the drums were
part of what hooked me on Alfas in the beginning, as was an engine which
didn't need cubes to be loved.

John

------------------------------