At some point you draw a line.
My line might not be your line.
As long as this list doesn't become full of spam, and self promotion,
I'm good.
Rich, David Nock et al give FAR more than they take.
But when we talk about cars designed in the 1950's, there are just so
many things you can improve. That's where my "line" comes in.... When
do you draw that line???
4 plus litre alloy blocks and downport alloy heads from Dave
Woodhouse/ the Healey Factory? Great stuff.
5 speed smitty conversions? Great Redesigned chassis from Jule or
others? Great too.
But it's now gotten to the point where you can build a "Healey Hotrod"
- using "great" stuff.
So what have you got when you put a jule chassis, a 4.4 litre
Woodhouse block with downport alloy head, a smitty 5 speed Toyota box,
Volvo brakes, and a custom built wide alloy body... Is it still a
Healey???
What have you got? When is a Healey still a Healey and not a
Cobraesque kit car??? ,,
Sure. The chassis was built as a production car chassis. So was the
head/ engine tech.
That's what is great.
Me? I draw the same line as the FIA. Cosworth pistons, high quality
steel cranks/ rods etc. Now that's awesome.
Because it looks standard.
And I'd just to draw another line.
Do the fastest race healeys use this stuff??
Nah. Nice to have if you are lazy & just drive on the road.
Chris
Sent from my iPhone
On 06/09/2011, at 5:32 AM, ATIGHTPROD at aol.com wrote:
> I agree, but I can say that nothing quite feels like a 3000 on the
> open
> road when you flip into overdrive and the car just kinda sucks down
> onto the
> road and hits that cruise note in your head. Much different than the
> 100 I
> drive now. That said, the nimble feeling of my 100 makes my last
> 3000 seem
> "clunky" if that makes sense.
> And then the "style" of the Austin-Healey is second to none in my
> opinion.
> Steven Kingsbury
> BN1 #598
>
>
> In a message dated 9/5/2011 10:32:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> glemon at neb.rr.com writes:
>
> From seat of the pants feel the Healey frame/structure is stiffer
> than a
> TR2-3, but less rigid than an MGA. The 100 was pretty good for its
> day,
> as
> I believe Geofrey Healey noted in one of the Healey books the whole
> thing
> was weakened/compromised by adding the length and weight for the 6
> cylinder
> motor.
>
> The Healey was good to maybe even ahead of its time for its design
> time in
> the early fifties, but auto technology grew by leaps and bounds
> from the
> early fiftes to the mid sixties, and the 3000 was certainly not
> state of
> the
> art in its final days.
>
> Greg Lemon
> _______________________________________________
> Healeys at autox.team.net
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Suggested annual donation $12.75
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/healeys/atightprod at aol.com
> _______________________________________________
> Healeys at autox.team.net
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Suggested annual donation $12.75
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/healeys/austin.healey at gmail.com
|