Andy,
I knew you didn't mean any disrespect to Tom.
I'm a car guy from almost infancy. I always liked to keep them as original
as possible. But, that's just me!<g>
Hope you had a good T-Day!
Laura G. and Nigel
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Mace <amace@unix2.nysed.gov>
To: Scions of the Spitfire <spitfires@Autox.Team.Net>
Date: Friday, November 27, 1998 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: Rotary Spitfire
>On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 DANMAS@aol.com wrote:
>
>> The point is, you are happy with your car, others are happy with their
Spits
>> just the way they are, no mods at all, and others, like Tim and myself,
get a
>> great deal of joy from modifying them...
>
>Absolutely! Opinions and tastes are what this discussion is all about.
>
>> Yes, you can count HP/$, but that's irrelevent. If you insist on making
>> such factors part of the equation, then we all lose....
>
>I have to ever-so-slightly disagree here. Cost really IS a factor in some
>cases. It's one thing to blithely say "drop in a pair of SUs and a header
>/ Triumph 6 / Ford 302 / Mazda Rotary / Allision V-16 /Pratt & Whitney
>Turbine...." But the hard fact is that one has to be mindful of the costs
>or each swap itself AND the associated costs of drivetrain, chassis, body
>and other modifications -- and benefits -- as each decides what might be
>done and what each of us is capable of doing or paying someone to do.
>
>In my original comment to Laura, I meant absolutely no disrespect to Tim
>and his rotary Spitfire project or to anyone else who has ever done or
>might yet contemplate any such enhancement. In short, I think it's great
>to see the ingenuity and craftsmanship and engineering that go into such
>projects. (Although I flat-out admit that I personally cringe when I hear
>of such a car, OR a "completely restored from the ground up" car, that
>started out as "a clean, low-mileage original"! :-) But it's more a
>quantum leap than a mere step from adding headers to effectively
>re-engineering the entire car.
>
>As a teenager, I read _Rod & Custom_ almost as faithfully as I read _Road
>& Track_ and _Motor Trend_. Back then (1960s -- gasp! He's OLD!), I was
>just as fascinated by the creations of George Barris, Gene Winfield, the
>Alexander Brothers and the like as I was by new or old "stock" cars. Not
>to mention the classic "hot rodders" and endless variations on T-bucket
>roadsters and Deuce Coupes. Apparently I wasn't alone back then; it's as
>prevalent today as ever, with new legends such as Boyd Coddington and, of
>course, the major manufacturers doing a bit of hot rodding themselves AND
>putting those products right out there on the Plymouth show room floor
>(just one example).
>
>On Fri, 27 Nov 1998, Ken Bertschy wrote:
>
>> ...Who's right? Technically, the snootiest original owner is. So
>> what? What a dull world this would be if we all had to drive or even own
>> "stock" spitfires in order to be on this list. I say "viva la
difference"....
>
>And as Dan had noted:
>
>> There's no argument here - you're right, I'm right, Tim's right, we're
ALL
>> right. We're speaking of personal opinion here, not facts.
>
>I think that pretty much covers it! Mostly, we've got anywhere from 30-40
>years of hindsight now, so it's easy to say "they coulda/woulda/shoulda
>done this, and that, and...." "They" didn't (except for Carroll Shelby and
>a few others!) for a lot of reasons. Fortunately, we CAN if we choose to!
>It doesn't make Tim wrong for envisioning a well-engineered and very quick
>"updated" car based on a shape he truly loves. Nor is Laura wrong for
>keeping her car pure UK (more or less) under the bonnet. Nor am I wrong to
>enjoy a bone-stock Mk.IV wheezing its way up a steep hill. :-)
>
>Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving (or a great Thursday to those
>outside the U.S.)!
>
>--Andy
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>* Andrew Mace, President and *
>* 10/Herald/Vitesse (Sports 6) Consultant *
>* Vintage Triumph Register <www.vtr.org> *
>* amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
|