Kirk said: "Thanks. . I appreciate the warning."
And now for a slightly
different take...
Frank - You are the last person in the world I would
ever question any LBC quote
from, and I'm not suggesting that you didn't have
a really bad Spitfire
experience, but wasn't a '73 Spitfire powered by the
1500? and a relatively
early one at that? That was not a drivetrain exactly
known for it's excessive
robustity or racelyness... (yeah I know, but they
kinda got the idea across,
didn't they?) The MK IV Spitfire was quite a step
down from the MK III in other
ways too - higher suspension to meet minimum
bumper height, bigger & heavier
bumpers, smog-pumps and other emission
garbage, etc.
I restored a 1970 MK III many years ago that was as reliable as
a Midget and an
absolute blast to drive. I believe this was about the end of
MK III production
and probably the most desirable of all of the 18 or so
years of production. The
'70 was powered by the hot little 1296cc. They also
have independant rear
suspension and a gorgeous curvy body by Michelotti.
Mine had twin SU's
mounted in place of the original single Stromberg. I
built the engine with a hot
cam & valve springs, added a header, had a little
bit shaved from the head, then
smoothed up the rough-looking parts with my
Dremel and did few other other
little trick bits. The place that made the cam
told me the modifications should
have put me somewhere close to 100 HP but I
never dyno'd it so have no idea. It
sure felt fast, though.
The really
earlier Spitfires tended to get tail-happy in a hard corner - at
least till
you strapped the half-shafts to make the equivalent of a home-made
rear sway
bar. Anyway - my point is that I personally think some Spitfires are
better
than others. I really got enjoyment from mine and never broke too many
things
in the process. Of course if you don't break something at least
occassionally
on a sports car, you probably aren't having enough fun, are you?
- David
Long Island
|