Hmm, I wouldn't say a Spitfire is any more "primal" (in the sense of simple
or primitive) than an MGB... they're really almost perfectly comparable in
terms of technology. If anything the Spit is more advanced -- it has IRS. It
does give an impression of being more connected to the elements, with the
low door sills, and even more noise and rattles (therefore "primal" in the
sense of direct or unmitigated). Whether one prefers them to the Spridgets
is mostly a matter of taste, and whether one is over 5'9" in height (the
Spitfire having about 12" more seat travel/leg room)..
I really don't think that old Triumph tractor canard applies to the tiny
engines used in the Spitfire (1100, 1300, 1500), unless Standard made riding
mowers... <g>
on 5/30/02 8:25 AM, Rick Lindsay at ROLindsay@Emeraldgrc.com wrote:
> Andy,
> I have been a fan of the little Spitfire for years and have built
> a number of them. I really like the early ones with the little
> bubble tail lights. Compared to the MGB they are really 'primal'
> if that can be imagined. Perhaps in terms of simplicity, they
> are closer to the MGA.
> The most recent car I built had been damaged in an engine
> <fuel> fire. Many bits were totally ruined. We ended up with a
> Weber DGV carb and a Crane Cams optically triggered ignition.
> The owner wanted rock-solid reliability, not necessarily a
> 'correct' or high performance car. He drove it for the next 8 years
> without a single failure! I mean, the drive train is from a tractor.
> They last forever!
> And you have to like a car that lets you set on the tire while
> you tune it.
>
>> Andy,
>>
>> Check out this guys site.
> http://www.totallytriumph.net/spitfire/body.shtml
>
> Incredible site. Cool!
>
> rick
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|