To: Triumphs List, Inet
On Tues, Tom Tweed wrote:
My very first car was a (very used) '69 Spitfire which over 2 yrs
taught me much about cars in general...plus I even got invited to
a girl's high school prom in part because she thought it was a
Corvette !! It was great fun to drive, cheap on gas, and I'd get
another one if I didn't already have my current TR-250, which I'm
very fond of for very different reasons, and maybe age has
something to do with it...the Spit was best for me when I was 19,
and now the 250 is best for me at 40... since it runs and rides
smoother, and doesn't sit quite so low to the ground. The bottom
line is, which one do YOU like best ? It really doesn't call for
any justification. You might also prefer '56 Hudsons.
Also, to `second' Tom and Mike, Drive 'em. Trailer queens get
only fleeting, obligatory respect, such as that given to a
motorcade of expensive limousines. They look impressive, but
would you really want one yourself ??
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks like I touched a raw nerve with my comment about "driving
the sh_t out of a TR-6 versus a Spitfire". Simple
misunderstanding going on here. I am in the same camp as
everybody else on this list - these cars should be driven, not
trailered. I simply meant that if you want a beater (and I mean a
REAL beater), the Spit is probably a better and cheaper choice. I
did not mean to imply that TR-6s (or any Triumph) should be so
"over-restored" as to make it unplesant to drive due to the fear
that it may get some mud, dirt, road grime, or God forbid a ding
in the fender! I say "Drive 'em!"
Ross D. Vincenti
64 Spitfire 4 (undergoing surgery)
|