Call it "The Missing Link." ;^)
I agree Jon. Bodystyle usually is the key.
Richard in San Antonio
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Jon <jon@twistedbits.net>
writes:
>
> I've been meaning to post about this, but haven't gotten around to
>
> it yet. With the recent Gen I, II talk, I was reminded of it.
>
> I was wondering if we could possibly come to a consensus regarding
> Gen I and Gen II. Since we're the ones who originated the term, I
> don't see why we can't define it further. :-)
>
> Anyway, Gen III is pretty clear cut. They start in '97 due to the
>
> bodystyle change.
>
>
> The problem is Gen I vs Gen II. I don't think there is any doubt
> that '87-90 Daks are definitely Gen I, and '92-96 are Gen II.
>
> The problem year is '91. In that year, Daks had a pre-mag engine,
> but with the updated (Gen II style) bodywork.
>
> The question is, do we call a '91 Gen I or Gen II?
>
> Personally, I'm leaning toward Gen II. The reason is, the
> designation appears to be directed more towards bodystyle than
> engine. The Gen IIIs have basically the same drivetrain, but a
> different bodystyle. Therefore, I think we should call a '91 a
> Gen II, based on the bodystyle.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Jon-
>
> .---- Jon Steiger ----- jon@dakota-truck.net or
> jon@twistedbits.net ------.
> | Affiliations: AOPA, DoD, EAA, NMA, NRA, SPA, USUA; Rec & UL
> Pilot - SEL |
> | '92 Ram 150 4x4 V8, '96 Dakota V8, '96 Intruder 1400, '96
> FireFly 447 |
> `------------------------------
> http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ----'
>
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:53:22 EDT