Well, of course, to each their own, but I think you'll find many Spitfire
owners love their cars so much greatly because they AREN'T modern - rather
they're classics. And somehow "classic" and chrome just seem to go
together like a hand in a glove. Also, anybody that appreciates handling
knows that heavy outside weight - here in the form of those huge '79 and
'80 bumpers - works against you. I have a limited background in racing
Datsun Z cars SCCA, where you rarely see any Z other than the 240Z (as
apposed to it's successors, the larger engined 260 and 280 Zs) because
their bodies (especially 70 and early 71s) were exceptionally light -
including bumpers so light that the only purpose they served was asthetic.
I just wonder what cars (and their bumpers) would look like today if the
automakers weren't so limited by safety standards.
-Tustin
'67 Spit
'70 240Z
-----Original Message-----
From: Conn [SMTP:conn@wctc.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:30 PM
To: spitfires@Autox.Team.Net
Subject: Ugly? Black Bumpers
KEVIN EDDINS wrote:
> Rear chrome mounts perfectly. I was going to do the same, but after I
> saw how much more the ugly rubber one (with a lot of aluminum
> underneath) would protect the expensive paint job on my '79 spit, I
> decided to sacrifice the aesthetics.
I realize that I'm a newbie here, but I just thought I'd share this
observation.
I see so many references to "Ugly Black Bumpers" on '79 & '80 Spits and it
struck me as sort of odd, in as much as I specificly looked for an '80
*because* it had no chrome. To me the black bumpers make the car look
sleeker
and more modern. I seem to be in a minority, perhaps unique. Does anybody
else
*like* the black ones?
I have to say that the first car I bought for myself was an '80 Spitfire
that I
got in late '81, and perhaps that bit of nostalga sways my sentiments.
BTW, I just got done spraying Bumper Black on my "new" Spit this morning.
-- Conn (conn@wctc.net)
History shows again and again,
how nature points out the folly of man.
|