I'm very demanding of my vehicles. They must perform well, do it for several
hundred thousands of miles, and do it reliably. Now people might look at me
strangely for saying that with a Fiat and a couple of Spitfires in the driveway.
But truth of the matter, the Spitfire has proven to be one of the most reliable
cars I've owned. Yes, I've had rock solid reliable cars like Toyota's and
Hondas
and such, so I really do have a perspective on reliability. The Spitfire has
been able to hold its own against them.
BUT..... The Spitfire is much more demanding of routine maintenance. It is
also
far more temperamental and balky. You can drive a Honda for years with nothing
more then oil changes. A Spitfire will demand much more. Strange things too,
like cleaning electrical contacts, lubricating carburetor(s), oiling trunions,
etc. If you enjoy *regularly* maintaining your car, a Spitfire is just fine.
But if you want a car to be appliance reliable like a Honda, the Spitfire is not
the car for you.
>From your description of yourself, I think you just might have a ball owning a
Spitfire as a second car.
David Page wrote:
> I understand Triumphs are not famous for being ultra-reliable,
> but I would plan on driving it several days a week (in the warm
> months), mostly short distances. I'm fairly handy with a wrench
> (have to be with two Land Cruisers), so I don't mind working
> on it.
///
/// spitfires@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe spitfires
///
///
|