I think Fred has the right idea. I was used to U20 performance, having
driven a '69 2000 for 10 years or so. When it came time to either
rebuild the R16 in my '66 or do something else, it was a no-sweat
decision, especially since I had the U20 on hand ;-) To ME, my '66 has
the best of everything - the classic 7 guage flat dash, low windshield,
2 liter motor, 5 speed (I'm not saying anything about the other mods!).
Anyway, it's my car and I'm the only one it has to please, and it
pleases me very much. By the time I'm dead and gone it will be ready for
the crusher. End of story.
That said, there is an article in the July '99 "Auto Restorer" magazine
that picks some collectible convertibles as "good investments". It's
too long to quote entirely, but they do say "A little more obscure and
older is the Datsun 1600 convertible of 1966-70. While the later Datsun
2000... might be more well-known, it is the earlier 1600 version that is
gaining in value." They go on to give some prices. According to them,
the 1600s have appreciated over 16% in the last two years. Something to
think about.
Barrie
'66 2000
San Diego
Fred_Katz@ci.sf.ca.us wrote:
<snip>
> On top of that, I found a number of non-stock changes to the car. I've learned
> my lesson about checking out a car more carefully the next time. I doubt that
> very many of the roadsters out there are stock. So I wouldn't call improving
>the
> functionality of the roadster "destroying" it. It would have been cheaper for
>me
> to go with a new non-Datsun engine than the U20 rebuild (about $2500). Trying
>to
> keep the Datsun roadster "look and feel" is costly. I'm giving up on going 100
> per cent stock. If someone wants to do that, fine. But let's ease up on those
> roadster owners with creative urges.
>
> Fred - So.SF
|