Mini Petrol Powered Corvette 'Go-Kart' For Sale (7ft Long) On UK Ebay

"Snappo" > wrote in message
.. .

> Corvette is an American car and they had model years which were not equal
> to production dates. It is laughable that some people in UK are arguing
> that the date it was registered determines the model year.

Um - nobody's arguing that at all. If you think they are, then you've missed
the point rather well.

clive

Snappo > wrote:

> That's why we kicked their asses in 1776 and 1812. They walked on the wrong
> side of the trial and wore "sissy red". LOL

You've not done too well recently, though, have you?

Lost in Vietnam (although you insist on calling it a tied match), bailed
out by the UK in Gulf War I and you've ****ed up big time in Gulf War
II.

> Corvette is an American car and they had model years which were not equal to
> production dates. It is laughable that some people in UK are arguing that
> the date it was registered determines the model year. If that is true;
> they got 90% of the years wrong on their registrations; as General Motors
> often starts building in a way that does not conform to the calendar year.

No-one said that the year of manufacture determined model year. Just
that they're 2 totally unrelated facts.

Hence, GM built many thousands of Corvettes in 1983.

Please note the term 'built' because that's the important word here.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Clive George wrote:
> "Snappo" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> Corvette is an American car and they had model years which were not
>> equal to production dates. It is laughable that some people in UK
>> are arguing that the date it was registered determines the model
>> year.
>
> Um - nobody's arguing that at all. If you think they are, then you've
> missed the point rather well.

With all due respect, I am calling *bull***** on this: From the thread:


>All Corvettes first registered in 1983 will say they're 1983 cars. They
>won't say that it's an '84 car. "


>> Registration date <> model year.
> Tough, it does over here.
> There is no such concept as "model year" on a UK registration"




--
_____________________________________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from
extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the
bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed
on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our
sunset years telling our children and our children's
children what it was once like in the United States where
men were free."
>> Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:54:43 +0000, (SteveH)
wrote:
>>
>> So PikeyVanMan was wrong?

>Read his post again.

OK, I did. He says you only *ever* refer to a car by its
model/type/designation. You're contradicting him.

>Or was it too complicated for you?

It's too complicated either for you or for PikeyVanMan, that's for
sure.

Maybe you and he need to get together and come up with a unified
theory of some sort? Get back to us when you've decided what it is.

Snappo > wrote:

> >All Corvettes first registered in 1983 will say they're 1983 cars. They
> >won't say that it's an '84 car. "

Which is 100% true over here.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:08:02 +0000, (SteveH)
wrote:

>Snappo > wrote:
>
>> That's why we kicked their asses in 1776 and 1812. They walked on the wrong
>> side of the trial and wore "sissy red". LOL
>
>You've not done too well recently, though, have you?

Wow! This thread can't be far away from a Godwin now.

It's been entertaining.

Dean Dark > wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:54:43 +0000, (SteveH)
> wrote:
> >>
> >> So PikeyVanMan was wrong?
>
> >Read his post again.
>
> OK, I did. He says you only *ever* refer to a car by its
> model/type/designation. You're contradicting him.

Jesus ****ing christ. It's like arguing with a child.

> >Or was it too complicated for you?
>
> It's too complicated either for you or for PikeyVanMan, that's for
> sure.
>
> Maybe you and he need to get together and come up with a unified
> theory of some sort? Get back to us when you've decided what it is.

Right. We don't have a 'model year' over here. It's a marketing ploy -
hence you'll see references to '1988 BMW 320i (E30)' - that is, a BMW
3-series, with a 2lt engine, E30 body shape, first registered in 1988.

Sometimes we may make reference to a 'facelift model' - this is where a
manufacturer carries out a significant change to an existing model - as
an example, the Alfa Milano had a facelift in around 1989.

We don't have 'model years' to signify some minor tweak to specs for
marketing purposes.

--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:25:42 +0000, (SteveH)
wrote:

>> >Read his post again.
>>
>> OK, I did. He says you only *ever* refer to a car by its
>> model/type/designation. You're contradicting him.
>
>Jesus ****ing christ. It's like arguing with a child.

Yes, I was getting that feeling myself.

>Right. We don't have a 'model year' over here. It's a marketing ploy -
>hence you'll see references to '1988 BMW 320i (E30)' - that is, a BMW
>3-series, with a 2lt engine, E30 body shape, first registered in 1988.

But PikeyVanMan says you never use the year for *anything*.

Please just tell me if you think he's right or wrong, that may help to
clarify things.

Dean Dark > wrote:

> >Right. We don't have a 'model year' over here. It's a marketing ploy -
> >hence you'll see references to '1988 BMW 320i (E30)' - that is, a BMW
> >3-series, with a 2lt engine, E30 body shape, first registered in 1988.
>
> But PikeyVanMan says you never use the year for *anything*.
>
> Please just tell me if you think he's right or wrong, that may help to
> clarify things.

Wo don't use a 'model year', we use a 'year of registration' - which is
what he said. In fact it's what everyone has said.

You really are as stupid a race as you come over on telly, aren't you?
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

"Snappo" > wrote in message
.. .
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Snappo" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>> Corvette is an American car and they had model years which were not
>>> equal to production dates. It is laughable that some people in UK
>>> are arguing that the date it was registered determines the model
>>> year.
>>
>> Um - nobody's arguing that at all. If you think they are, then you've
>> missed the point rather well.
>
> With all due respect, I am calling *bull***** on this:

You'd be wrong. HTH.

>From the thread:
>
>
>>All Corvettes first registered in 1983 will say they're 1983 cars. They
>>won't say that it's an '84 car. "

Talking about the title - ie the V5. Yes, that's entirely correct. Note
that's not your concept of 'model year'.

>>> Registration date <> model year.
>> Tough, it does over here.
>> There is no such concept as "model year" on a UK registration"

I'll concede slight carelessness on Adrian's part there. He wasn't actually
saying Registration date = model year, he was saying registration date =
year on title - which was what the rest of the relevant message is referring
to.

ie

>>> Find a Vette title that states it's an '83.

is easy, contrary to what you have been arguing.

Just think, if you'd not been so obsessed about model year that you
completely missed the original point, you wouldn't have had to go through
all this argument...

clive