Baby elans??
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Post by: purplepete » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:23 pm
Hi,probably a stupid question,but what is meant by the term "baby elan"?? are people talking about a sprint?? thank in anticipation of an answer! peter.
- purplepete
- First Gear
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Post by: types26/36 » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:11 pm
64 S1's iterpretation is correct BUT I refuse to call an Elan "a b--y Elan" ! 
to my way of thinking there is an Elan and there is an Elan Plus Two!
Thats the way they were made and named and if it was good enough for Colin it's good enough for me!
Brian.
ps: new Elans are Elan M100's
pps: actually it's not that serious but lets be PC correct.
to my way of thinking there is an Elan and there is an Elan Plus Two!
Thats the way they were made and named and if it was good enough for Colin it's good enough for me!
Brian.
ps: new Elans are Elan M100's
pps: actually it's not that serious but lets be PC correct.
Brian
64 S2 Roadster
72 Sprint FHC
64 S2 Roadster
72 Sprint FHC
-
types26/36 - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 3877
- Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Post by: elansprint71 » Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:02 pm
Totally with Brian on this, although I have been known to refer to it as a +0 on occasion!
Pete
'72 Sprint +0
Pete
'72 Sprint +0
-
elansprint71 - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 4437
- Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Post by: nebogipfel » Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:02 am
I prefer the term REAL Elan
John
No longer active on here, I value my privacy.
No longer active on here, I value my privacy.
-
nebogipfel - Coveted Fifth Gear
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Post by: purplepete » Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:04 am
O.k.,thanks guys-just wanted to make sure!It obviously makes things easier to know which model i'm talking about.Thanks for the clarification!
- purplepete
- First Gear
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Post by: Jon Eckman » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:30 pm
Doesn't it seem logical that since the S1-4 is older than its Plus 2 sibling, the Plus 2 should really be considered the "baby"?
- Jon Eckman
- Second Gear
- Posts: 189
- Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Post by: Si_130/5 » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:03 pm
Hi Jon,
[quote][/quote]Doesn't it seem logical that since the S1-4 is older than its Plus 2 sibling, the Plus 2 should really be considered the "baby"?
True the S1 - S3 elans predate the Plus Two which appeared in 1967 but the S4 appeared in 1968.
Even so that is a new and interesting way of looking at it.
Pardon the pedantry,
Si
[quote][/quote]Doesn't it seem logical that since the S1-4 is older than its Plus 2 sibling, the Plus 2 should really be considered the "baby"?
True the S1 - S3 elans predate the Plus Two which appeared in 1967 but the S4 appeared in 1968.
Even so that is a new and interesting way of looking at it.
Pardon the pedantry,
Si
-
Si_130/5 - Second Gear
- Posts: 222
- Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Post by: Jon Eckman » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:38 pm
Hi Si,
Thank you; I should get my facts straight. That does blur the concept somewhat.
Jon
Thank you; I should get my facts straight. That does blur the concept somewhat.
Jon
- Jon Eckman
- Second Gear
- Posts: 189
- Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Post by: Si_130/5 » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:23 am
Hi,
Yes, that's quite right. In fact I read that Chapman wanted the bigger car to be known simply as the '+2', denoting the ultimate in lightweight and efficiency - funny that by the end of its run it had become the Plus Two S130/5.
Si
Yes, that's quite right. In fact I read that Chapman wanted the bigger car to be known simply as the '+2', denoting the ultimate in lightweight and efficiency - funny that by the end of its run it had become the Plus Two S130/5.
Si
-
Si_130/5 - Second Gear
- Posts: 222
- Joined: 27 Jan 2005
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Total Online:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed