My 74 RWA car, that came with those cute big black overriders (since removed
and available for sale if anyone wants them) has significantly more frame
work in the boot of the car than the earlier cars. This is a link to a
picture of my trunk, and although dim, the bottom right hand corner you can
see the extra bracing that runs from the back panel at a 45 degree angle to
the frame rails. It is designed to transfer the impact energy from the
bumper overriders to the structural framework of the car.
http://personalweb.sunset.net/~davidr/Midget%20Web/Stereo%20Web/trunk.htm
This is all before everybody figured out that cars that crumple are safer
than cars that are built like battering rams. Perhaps the RWA would be
safer after all, as it would fold and absorb more energy!
David Riker
74 Midget
63 Falcon
70 Torino
http://personalweb.sunset.net/~davidr
----- Original Message -----
From "Frank Clarici" <spritenut at Exit109.com>
To: "Spridget List" <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 3:53 PM
Subject: RWA vs SWA
> I just looked in the boots of a 67 SWA and a 73 RWA car. There is no
> difference in any structure, infact, they are identical.
> I too have read that the revert back to SWA was due to accident damage.
> I know I read it but I can not remember where I read it. Horler, Dymock,
> Clausager, or Healey.
> I believe the original SWA (1961) was due to the 2 different designers
> of the car. MG played a roll in the rear end styling.
> --
> Frank Clarici
> Toms River, NJ
> The bug in the rice bowl
> http://www.exit109.com/~spritenut
|