Mark Milotay (and an earlier reader commented on
rubber bumper Midgets vs. Spitfires...
>I've owned a MG RB-Midget and I remember being amazed at how poorly it
>handled. I've driven a few of them from the 60's & 70's and none of them
>handled as well as my Spit. Does anyone know what the wheelbases are of the
>2 cars for comparison sake. I have a pretty good feeling that my '80 Spit
>is longer and lower than my '79 Midget was.
>>... I recently drove a rubber bumpered Midget, Jeeeeeesus, it
>>was a right wibbly wobbly car, I went into a corner at a slow speed and
>>thought the damn thing was gonna fall over. How did they manage to sell
>>the high riding crap handling things for as long as they did!
I have one each (79 Midget 1500 and 78/79 Spitfire) in my garage. The Midget
will run rings around the Spitfire. Both have newly rebuilt engines, Crane
ignition, and Weber DGAV carbs, but the Midget has an improved cam and exhaust,
while the Spit has a stock cam and exhaust. The Midget also has an improved
suspension. The wheelbases are very close, as is overall size. I don't know
their weights, but the Spit is carrying a pretty heavy frame, and feels
significantly heavier than the Midget.
I think if the same improvements were made to the Spitfire, they would be
closer,
but I do believe the Midget would be a better handler, and quicker.
Midgets can get pretty loosey-goosey when the suspension components
are failing. I'll bet this also applies to Spitfires, but I haven't experienced
it. I think the Spit is more rugged, in this respect, and what you're
describing
is a worn-out Midget suspension.
But...I like 'em both!
Merry Christmas...
Ray
------------------------------------
Ray W. James, P.E., Ph.D.
Texas Transportation Institute
Civil Engineering Department
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
Phone (409)845-7436; Fax (409)845-3410
E-mail: r-james@tamu.edu
Date: 12/22/98 Time: 4:27:52 PM
-------------------------------------
|