1750 parts availability, and 'original' vs. "original" original

["John Hertzman" <johnhertzman@domain.elided>]

In AD8-1198 Biba wrote "Unless I'm mistaken (might well be), believe even
stock pistons / liners for the 1750 aren't all that available - or possibly
won't be in the not too distant future." I think that should probably not be a
worry; the 1779 cc engine ("1750") was in production as late as the 1962 cc
("2000") engine, and eyeballing the listed production figures over the years I
would doubt that appreciably fewer would have been built. For the 75/Milano,
e.g., there were 102,500 1.8s )"1750s") compared to 86,500 two liters and V-6s
combined. (Later: a rough tally of rounded-off numbers gives 554,000 1779 cc
engines against 512,000 1962 cc '2000' engines.) USA parts suppliers may have
limited incentive to stock parts for an engine last offered here thirty years
ago, but owners who are willing to order from overseas sources probably should
find 1750 mechanical parts available for just as long as 2000 mechanical parts
are. (Decades longer than Spica parts are, BTW.)

Biba also said, in a separate post, "I also received another off-digest
comment / comments, suggesting this was basically a 'NAC' subject. I didn't
fully understand the comments / criticism, but will ask (off-digest)." I think
he was referring to a note I sent. His A/B choice hypothetical question
started with a premise: "You've always wanted an 'original' '69 Spider", and
then asks would you, given the choice, chose a perfect original '69 Spider or
a car which in every respect was an 'improvement' on a '69 Spider. I
suggested, perhaps too elliptically, that was not really choosing between two
'original' '69 Spiders, it was making a very different kind of choice between
an original car and a customized car similar to what might have been built for
a different market, a different culture, a different economy, with different
resources available. The distinction won't be significant to many people, but
I have a personal hang-up about historians, whether writers, museum curators,
collectors or whatever, presenting sanitized, idealized fictions as historic
truth, which is unfortunately very common. I have nothing against modified,
customized, or derivative constructs if they cannot be confused with something
they aren't. YMMV, of course. I will leave it at that, which is a lot more
than I should have said in the first place.

Cheers,

John H.
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided