Re: Scout versus ScoutII

[MikeIIDC@domain.elided]

Dan-

You see, I always looked at it the opposite.  I viewed the 80/800 as the
more "manly" vehicle, because it was not making concessions to be
comfortable/safer/more widely accepted.  You want power steering?  You
want power brakes?  What are you, some kind of girly-man or something?!?
The Scout (let's just call it Scout, as that is what it is-not a Scout
II, just a Scout) was shorter, narrower, and thus could get places that
the Scout II couldn't.  Maybe didn't ride as smoothly, or have the
luxuries, and may tip over easier, but it's a REAL man's truck, not like
those prissy Scout II's!  That's why I looked and looked to get a Scout
rather than pay to fix up my Scout II.  It was nice to have while I was
shopping, and I got it very cheap, but it's definitely not "macho" enough
for me.
Kind of like JEEPS.  There are those of us that feel like JEEP went out
of business when the last CJ5 came off the line.  The CJ7 was the
beginning of the end, as it was trying to be safer!  Boo!  Hiisss!!!  If
a vehicle is made for four-wheeling, make it for four wheeling!  Don't
make it for highway cruising.  The Scout was used to plow fields out
where I came from.  he Scout II was made to drive on highways.  Thus, I
see no conflict at all in deciding which is the MANLY vehicle of the two!

Ahhh!  Variety is the spice of life, no?

Michael

Daniel Nees wrote:

> Well, in a simple form the Scout is more primitive than the Scout II.
> The Scout didn't have power stering, AC, power brakes. The Scout II's
> body is slightly longer, and it's wheel width is wider.
> I think the 80/800's are cute whereas the scout II's are manly! (That
> should start something.)
>
> _____Dan Nees_____
> cookiedan@domain.elided
> http://members.tripod.com/~IHCaholic/scoutindex.html
> http://www.triplediamond.org