Brian Evans wrote:
>
> I love to see things as they were, too. But should we encourage the
> creation of a new V8 engined MG-TD? Or should we insist that it had to be
> that way in the period? I tend towards it has to have the history to run as
> a modified car to that extent. (same goes for recreations of Sebring
> Sprites, BTW).
>
> Brian
>
> At 10:48 PM 7/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >John Roper wrote:
> >> You guys are assuming that just because you aren't familiar with it, >
> its somehow strange or wrong. When I got my first TD in the fifties,
> >> the flat head V860 was a well known conversion.
> >
> >Agreed. And Skip Gunnell, now of Florida I believe, had a TD with a
> >small block Chevy that ran C-Mod in the '60s. Jack Meilan (sp?) had a
> >big Healey with a Chevy that raced with us regularly at about the same
> >time. Both were fast and dependable club racing cars. As a just barely
> >converted hot rodder I applauded them then, and I'd love to see that
> >Ardun MG now. It can race with me any time.
> >RossFos
> >
I agree. I do not agree with the reprodoodad movement in Vintage,
whether it be a newly created V8 TD or a SWB built fron a 250E. I do
not , however, agree with the originality at all costs mentality.
Having lived in the golden era(the 50s)and still being active in the
neat car world today, I cannot abide those who just have to tell others
what they can do with their machinery. I have good friends who are
committed to originality. I respect their right to approach their cars
that way, but the truth of it is that much that is passed off at
original is not even close, i.e. many over restored trailer queens.
When these old tubs were new many were modified to improve on the
factory efforts. IMHO true originality recognizes that and respects
change for the purpose of making the metal better fit the owners
wishes. John Roper
|