Rob Schuck writes
>All,
> Understanding the lists understandable bias towards Triumphs, I have
a
>question. I know that several of the listers have or have had a MG.
>
> Next month I will be returning from Indiana with my high school and
>college sweetheart (a 1974 1/2 MGB). Presently, my daily driver is a 1980
>Spitfire. The MG will take some work to get it running, but is otherwise
in
>good condition. It has been garaged for about eight years.
> I would like to do a frame up restore of one of these cars and use
the
>other as my daily driver. My question: Should I restore the MG or the
>Spitfire? What are the pros and cons of either? Expense? Ease of
>restoration? Other considerations?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob Schuck
Rob,
If you are asking "Which car is will be the more profitable restoration?"
then the answer is "Either one is a losing proposition." Even Austin
Healey's are only break-even and the prices for those are astronomical!
But if your question is "Which car will be the more fun, the more rewarding
to restore?" then that is a question of personal prefference and the
relative condition of the car and your own personal inclinations. For
example, if you like doing body work you might prefer to restore a car
that has some body damage but runs well. However, if you are like me and
hate body work, you might be better off doing a car that has a solid body
but needs mechanical attention.
I recommend restoring the MG. By doing so you will drive the spitfire
more! ;-)
You will be loath to drive the restored car least yo get a scratch!
But most of all, have fun. That's what it is all about.
Dave Massey
St. Louis, MO
|