My two cents on engine swaps: I don't see the point in most cases.
Aside from the "natural" swaps like TR7 -> V8 or possibly Spit 6,
which may still not make any sort of financial sense, there's little
to be gained by making a hybrid. Why not just enjoy the car for what
it is, a bit of automotive history, tied to a particular time and
culture. Sure, a Spitfire isn't as fast or as refined as a (new) 911,
but it wasn't meant to be. On the other hand, none of the cars commonly
discussed on this list is inadequate for any type of driving encountered
on the roads of the U.S. Uncomfortable, perhaps, but not inadequate.
Some of our members have made the point before (Scott Fisher, I think,
among others) that engines are systems, and need to be treated as such.
I agree, and would add that the entire car is a system as well. Changing
one thing tends to put stress on something else, and so on.
If you must modify a historic car, the best approach would probably be
to do the things that are known to work from historic experience. All
British cars (and Datsuns) have factory racing or fast road upgrades,
or psuedo-factory stuff. I have or had a bunch of it on my Datsun, and
I've removed some of it because I didn't want a race car to drive on the
street. Like most of you, I grew up thinking that dual Webers, headers,
stiff suspension, and hot cams were the way to go. Now I think that
the way most of these cars (at least pre-74) came from the factory makes
a lot of sense for street driving.
All that said, not everything in one's hobbies has to make sense. I
admit to an occasional moment of weakness in which I lust for a roadster
with a 240Z engine, or a 240Z convertible. But more often I wish for
an Alfa Giulia, a car which is really fast only if pushed very hard,
but which is beautiful and well-integrated.
Wayne
|