triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Is a Spitfire for me?

To: blindvilet@mindspring.com, triumphs@autox.team.net, vtr@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Is a Spitfire for me?
From: Herald948@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:17:16 EDT
To all on the lists: I've added my comments to Steve's questions. Feel free 
to augment, supplement, contradict if you like; just make sure Steve is at 
least included as a .cc in your replies!

--Andy

Andrew Mace, President, The Vintage Triumph Register

In a message dated 09/14/2000 12:22:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
blindvilet@mindspring.com writes:

> To whom it may concern,
>  
>      I've wanted a sportscar ever since I was a kid, riding with my dad in 
> his '72 MG. Now that I'm older, I've just bought a fantastic 1996 Mazda 
Miata.
>  I love it . . .and expect to keep it for several years.
>  
>      My problem is, since I've gotten the Miata, I've been really noticing 
> what other cars are out there, ESPECIALLY the Triumph Spitfire. I would 
love 
> to eventually own one of these beautiful vintage British sportscars, but 
I've 
> been doing some research and it seems like this is the type of car only a 
> mechanic could enjoy. I'm not a mechanic, but on the other hand, I've heard 
a 
> Spitfire is fairly simple to maintain (one that is in good shape), and the 
> parts are easy to come by as well.

Well, no...and yes, respectively. Most important to keep in mind is the fact 
that even the very last of the Spitfires of 1980 are basically the same as 
the first ones of Fall 1962. All were based on a chassis developed over 40 
years ago for the Triumph Herald, and used an engine derived from a 
"brand-new" circa 1952 design. In that and many other somewhat less tangible 
ways as well, it truly is a product of another era. I mention this not 
because of the car being hopelessly out-of-date; in many ways it was well 
ahead of its time. But it is not a new car and does not benefit from the 
refinements of the last 30-40 years of automotive engineering in terms of 
performance or comfort. The philosophy really was quite different back then!

Oh, yes, parts ARE relatively easy to come by, in some cases more so than 
10-year-old American sedans. :-)
  
>      My question is: Is this type of car going to be frustrating to own?   
Or,
>  with some patience and research, could this be the type of car that I 
could 
> have fun learning to maintain myself  -without already being a certified 
> mechanic? (I am naturally curious on how these cars work under the hood so 
it 
> wouldn't be a question of interest;  just actual mechanical ability.)
  
It is very, very much the latter. It takes primarily the investment of $20-40 
or so in a good workshop manual, be it the original factory manual (also 
found as a Bentley reprint of same) or a Haynes or Autobook or other 
"aftermarket" manual. In truth, the owner's handbook (also included in the 
Bentley reprints) give a great portion of the maintenance/repair advice 
normally needed.

In my opinion, so much of what one hears about the unreliability of Triumphs 
and other British cars is somewhere between myth and lore! Yes, there are 
some areas that required more attention than those of other cars of the era; 
at the same time, the Spitfire and the Herald on which it was based required 
much less chassis lubrication than did a majority of the other cars on the 
road in the early 1960s.

Where that "myth/lore" comes in so often (again, in my opinion) is where the 
cars were neglected and/or abused; then people were quick to complain about 
how unreliable the cars were. Remember that this 40- to 50-year-old design 
predated 70-80mph freeways; that's NOT what these cars were built for! They 
were built for twisting roads and country lanes and not having to constantly 
look out for SUVs and minivans. :-) :-) And don't fall for all the horror 
stories about Lucas electrics and such. There are too many of us who can 
point to original Lucas generators, voltage regulators, wiper motors, etc., 
on our 40-year-old Triumphs. But you yourself made the comment about "one in 
good shape"; that was the key when these were three-year-old or ten-year-old 
used cars, and it still is key now. There is no shortage of abused and 
largely worn-out Spitfires out there even today. A good one might be a little 
harder to find, but it's out there, too! (Shameless plug: that is where a 
national club like VTR and also its many local chapters and zones can be so 
beneficial, with club members advertising cars for sale and those same 
members willing and able to assist in assessing, purchasing and maintaining a 
car. END of shameless plug!)

All in all, one could not find a much simpler car than a Spitfire, in terms 
of ease of maintenance and accessibility. Heck, the whole front end pivots 
forward and out of the way, leaving you a tire to sit on while performing 
most engine maintenance, tuning and repair. And if that isn't enough out of 
the way, you can unbolt it and toss it over onto the lawn next to the 
driveway in about 10-20 minutes!

There is very little on a Spitfire that can't be disassembled, repaired, 
replaced or renewed using little more than a few basic hand tools. And most 
fittings and bolts are "conventional" UNF or UNC fittings, taking regular 
sockets and wrenchs (little or no metric). Frankly, if you can change a tire 
on your Miata or just about any other car, you can easily learn to perform 
much of the maintenance and repair on a Spitfire yourself. Again, that 
maintenance might come more often than it does in an age of 
computer-controlled ignition and fuel management systems, 100,000 mile spark 
plugs and ABS, but it's key to keeping the car running well. And with that 
proper maintenance comes a car that will last just as long as anything being 
built today.
  
>      Also, I never really hear about people driving their Spitfires year-
> round. Is this just "not done"? I want to use mine as my main car. Am I 
> REALLY asking too much from this little car?

Not at all. Many folks use Spitfires as daily transportation. Where you hear 
of folks putting the cars up for the winter, it is usually because a: they do 
not wish to subject their cars to the harsh winter conditions, including 
heavily salted roads; and b: frankly, the cars aren't really all that great 
in the snow (although I know I'll probably hear arguments on that point).
  
>      I sincerely appreciate any input you have to offer.
>  
>  Thank you,
>  Steve
>  Blindvilet@mindspring.com

There you have it, Steve. I could go on, but I hope you get the point. Just 
don't try to compare a Spitfire directly to the Miata, or you'll likely be 
disappointed to some degree. The Miata owes its existence to all the 
Triumphs, MGs, Austin-Healeys, Fiats and even Datsun Roadsters of the 1950s 
and 1960s; Mazda seems proud of that fact. But the Miata owes its current 
popularity largely to the fact that it is a great car in itself, benefitting 
from resources and engineering developments never dreamed of by the British 
manufacturers way back when.

--Andy

Andrew Mace, President, The Vintage Triumph Register

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>