spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [now electric] Grins

To: Susan Hensley <susan@bearcom.com>
Subject: Re: [now electric] Grins
From: Andrew Mace <amace@unix2.nysed.gov>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:36:05 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Susan Hensley wrote:

> I can see it now... "POWERED BY LUCAS"
> 
> No-o-o-o-o-o!  Tell me it's not so!!!  

Well, I found the article, in _The Vintage Triumph_ #51. Oddly it does 
not mention the origin of either electric motor or batteries. Hmmm. :-)

Meanwhile, it dates the car as a dark red 1979, with the four-speed w/OD 
gearbox kept in place. Apparently the swap wasn't such a bad idea, 
cutting some three seconds off a published 0-60 time in a _Road & Track_ 
test of a more conventionally powered Spitfire (12.4 sec. v 15.4 sec for 
the gas-powered Spit). Top speed with the electric motor, though, is only 
72 mph, down from 94 mph with the gas engine.

> Atwell Haines wrote:
> > 
> > >...$4K doesn't seem too bad,
> > >actually, for a "PC" Spitfire. :-)
> > 
> > But Andy, if it is a Microsoft PC Spitfire, don't buy it.   Next year it
> > will cost half as much, go twice as fast, but crash 3 times as often!

Perish the thought, Atwell. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines 
of a politically correct sports car, not a piece of cr*p, er, personal 
computer Spitfire. Oops, Freudian slip; wonder why grammar check didn't 
catch that. :-)

> > Then there is the Y2K problem....

Y2K? Because most people thought 4K was too much?

I'll stop now....

--Andy

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>