[sorry, no rodent content follows]
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Joseph Sholtes wrote:
> I went to look at a 1972 vintage Spitfire that I MAY get
> for cheap... I took a peak under the back of this Spit, and I saw
> the frame ended right at the suspension mounts, and the section
> leading upwards to the rear bumper was not there. Is this the way
> the Mark IV frame is supposed to be, or is it some sort of a DPO
> botch job?
That is correct for the Mk.IV and, in fact, all Spitfire chassis frames
for U.S.-destined cars from the beginning through 1973. From 1974 on,
when various bumper standards had to be met somehow, the rear extensions
were added. And, from what I've seen over the years, it is those rear
extensions that seem to rust and, in turn, promote the other potential
frame rot that you fear. I've seen little or none of it in the earlier
"short" frames.
> What should I look for by way of potential major problems, specific
> to the Spitfire? I mean besides floors, trunk bottom, battery box, front
> valence corners, or engine thrust wear? I already know about the usual
> car stuff like top, interior, tires suspension, etc., but am wondering about
> any other Spifire weak areas.
That, and whatever else might be listed at the VTR Web site, pretty much
covers it. Just remember, you don't necessarily need to be put off by a
shifter that feels like a wooden spoon in cake batter (or worse). Bushing
wear in those shifters (earlier three-rail transmission) is extremely
common and about a $20 fix. Of course, if the gearbox is also toast,
that's a bit more expensive....
Don't forget differential, u-joints and all (if you haven't already
lumped that in with suspension).
--Andy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace, President and *
* 10/Herald/Vitesse (Sports 6) Consultant *
* Vintage Triumph Register *
* amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|