[ROVERNET - UK] Glen et 3500S factory options
rovercar at comcast.net
Sun Mar 30 11:50:52 BST 2008
I've caught a couple of mistakes in Taylor's stuff over the years, but
with so much published there are bound to be a few errors. If he's got a
doctoral degree, he has the right to call himself Dr. Taylor. But I
don't think he is the incontrovertible authority. However, he apparently
HAS taken the time to do some serious research and has looked at what is
available in terms of documentary evidence. For me, half the point of
citing a book like Taylor's is that it gives someone who cares about
accuracy and truth and knows something an opportunity to speak up, offer
a correction, tell the basis of the correction and share the "new &
improved" truth with us.
Let's remember where all this started. I stated that that the Rover
documentation specified what the factory options for the Federal 3500S
were. Not a real broad issue.
I'm still not sure why there is so much confusion between factory
options, dealer options, and what one person's car has screwed onto it
35 years after it left the factory. All I've been saying is that what
represents a "factory option" (please read those two words) is not a
matter of opinion or personal religious belief. The factory options are
what Rover offered for sale as specified in the sales brochures and
price lists available to the customer. My comments were limited to one
model of Rover for which there is sales documentation that very clearly
states what the options were. I can't state it any more simply than that.
Now, if someone has another price list or a copy of a Rover internal
memo (and I know there are people on the list who have this sort of
thing), it would be very interesting to have this information shared.
That's what I am trying to draw out.
I tried to limit this statement as narrowly as I could to one specific
model of which only 2000 examples were ever produced and sold. These are
points of fact, and I was taught that it is less than intelligent to
argue over points of fact that can be proven with hard evidence.
So, now it's been said that I believe that only I am ever right, and I
think that's too broad a statement. The truth is that I'm only
definitely right in this one particular instance regarding what the
factory options were on a Federal 3500S. The evidence is in the Rover
Company documents, and no one has brought any new documentary evidence
to light. When I'm dealing with the Rovernet brain trust, if it isn't
offered, than I have to conclude that it doesn't exist. Therefore, the
factory options were what the Rover Company said they were.
Now, if someone wants to argue semantics and say that changes made by
the dealer at the time of sale or modifications made after the car left
the dealership constitute factory options, they are free to state that
as an opinion but there's no logic to support such a position. Further,
if a car left the factory with a TC rear seat squab instead of the
box-pleated Ambla 3500S rear seat, that doesn't make it a factory
option, and which of you would have accepted a car with mismatched seats?
Who cares what was standard or optional? I don't think it is only me,
and it's not all that anoraky, either. I don't know how many times I
have heard people say that a leather interior was a factory option on
the Federal 3500S, and it simply isn't true. So, why do we perpetuate
this incorrect information and pass it on to new people by not pointing
out that it is not true? A forum like this is not intended to pass along
unfounded rumor as established fact. If members don't speak up, the
inaccuracies get the Rovernet Seal of Truth applied to them.
JULIET KEILER wrote:
> Couldn't belive it when I logged on this morning....62 emails ALL Rovernet...if nothing else Glen increases traffic. :)
> Having had a few run in's over the years with the fella I hope I may be allowed a small two pennyw'th.
> First Tames Taylor is not GOD, not only Richard Dawkins but none of us believe in him. :) (apolgies in advance to any deeply religious netters, my comments are tounge firmly in cheek)
> His books all contain mistakes and he is not as good as he thinks he is. My P4 colour scheme (definately original I have the proof) doesn't exist according to his book! Whilst intteresting his books are in no way definitive and adding Dr to his name just confirms my belief that he is only interested in his own self importance. Dr of what? mistakeology perhaps! he just happened to know the right people and be in the right place/right time.
> I actually think BOTH sides are probably right, Glen is quoting how a car should have left the factory Patrick how it arrived in the USA. If there's one thing I've learn't over the years my perception of how I thought the Rover Co was run (and probabaly was in the early /mid 50's) is nothing as to the reality of 1970's industrial Britain. This is probably why over the years I have graduated away from post 1971 facelift models to earlier P6's and other models. Now if only they hadn't fitted that dam American V8.........;) ;)
> No doubt the A post trims are 'wrong' according to the book and tech stuff but converseley if they were on the car when it arrived this also makes them right.
> Hope we can all be friends now and please don't worry about the oil, with the British in charge of the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow you can see a future of thousands of cancelled flights and irate travellers staying at home and not flying cos they know when they get to the airport thats where their holiday will start and finish. Nice to see some of that 70's incompetence still exists.
> Me I'm gonna holiday in good 'ol blighty. !!!! :)
> Alan francis (partviking)
> rovernet mailing list
> rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com
> To unsubscribe, go to this web page, look near the bottom and follow instructions:
> Back-up list and photos at:
More information about the rovernet