Mark,
Go for the Mk2! While the engine is smaller, it is not encumbered by
all that smog crap. If you are going to be doing much freeway driving,
you will probably want to get an overdrive regardless of which one you
buy.
It's my personal preference, but I am much more keen on the round tail
Spits, particularly those with the low front bumpers. (Mk1 and 2).
However, It's your money so get whatever pleases you. Either one will
be as practical as the other if you get the two in proper operating
condition. And there are things you can do to make both even more
reliable. Since virtually all the 1500 bits fit on the early Spits,
anything the 1500 offers usually can be retrofitted onto the Mk2.
Regardless of which one you get, be sure to register it in the
International Triumph Spitfire Database.
http://home1.gte.net/spitlist/index.html
Regards,
Joe Curry
Mark Gardner wrote:
>
> Hi all - Can I get some opinions please? I'm trying to setup visits to
> look at two cars tomorrow: a '77 1500 and a '65 Mark II. From talking
> to the owners and lookng at pictures, they sound to be in pretty much
> the same shape, for pretty much the same price (although the Mark II has
> more miles, it has had some recent rebuild work done on it, and the 1500
> appears to be more original. I'm looking for a nice street car, no
> racing or autoxing. I'll use it mostly around town, some weekend
> getaway trips on the back roads and desert roads of Southern California,
> and the occaisional 45 mile freeway commute to work (pretty steep 5 mile
> hill in the middle). Can anybody give me the pros and cons of the two
> cars? I like the aura of the Mark II, but I realise that the 1500 may be
> a little more practical. But I don't suppose I'm buying a Spitfire
> because I'm looking for a practical car (G).
>
> Any comments/suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mark Gardner
--
"If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
-- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
|