Woodruff@caen.engin.umich.edu asks us:
> The frame in my spitfire is bent and I'm considering a change to a GT6
>frame... The frame is not bent that much, it just won't let the hood and
>body line up very well... It came from New Mexico and has no rust.
It sounds like you should have that frame straightened. A good, unrusty
frame is worth keeping (at least to anyone who wants a good Spitfire). The
misfit between the bonnet and the door and valence panels is exactly like a
problem I have with mine. It's on one side only, right? It is probably due
to a bend in one of the extensions that hold the bonnet hinges, 6 to 7-inch
protrusions of the frame ahead of the forward-most crossmember. They have
no structural purpose except to anchor the forward end of the bonnet and the
bumper. (The cosmetics don't bother me, so if it was mine, I'd just ignore
it. Or have a frame shop work on it.)
> I'm sure a unibody straightener could put it right.
If it really bothers you, I'd consider it. At least have a shop check it out.
> Did the GT6 come with an overdrive transmission?
Yes. Also different rear ends, depending on the year and whether it had O/D.
> Was the handling of the GT6+ the same, better, or worse than the spit?
In a word, yes. It depends on the Mk numbers. The Spitfires 4 (Mk1), Mk2,
and Mk3 all had the original rear end. So did the first GT6, though with
recalibrated spring and damper rates. In 1969 the GT6+ (Mk2) got the rubber-
donut IRS, which fixed its rear end. In 1971, the Spitfire MkIV got the
swing-spring, which more or less fixed it too. In 1973, the Spitfire 1500
got 1-inch-longer halfshafts (on both sides!), which made it better still.
Also in 1973 the GT6 Mk3 lost its rubber-donut IRS and got the Spitfire
swing-spring arrangement (which is why the Spitfire got those longer GT6
halfshafts), but no one seemed to be bothered by a reduction of handling.
Then again, that may be because by 1973 no one figured the GT6 to be a
serious performance competitor anyway. If there is/was a problem with the
swing-spring for the GT6, it would be in handling the GT6's power advantage
over the Spitfire.
>A guy around here says there was really no copmparison, the GT6+ was vastly
>superior.
Yes and no. I've never owned a GT6 so I can only speculate, but I do know
the later Spitfires. To me the GT6 would be a very different kind of car.
It certainly had more power. Compared to the earlier Spitfires it was more
luxurious, but then, the later Spitfires were pretty spiffy, with a lot of
the rough edges smoothed out (as smooth as a B-L car could ever be). On the
other hand, the GT6 has a fixed roof (unless you put a Spitfire body on it),
and was heavier. Though you can't really compare the 50's-60's technology
of either to today's cars, it is fair to compare the two. The intented use
and market-segment of each at that time was pretty straightforward, and was
accurately reflected by the names. The Spitfire was a Sports Car, light and
agile (except for that damned rear end), with quick responsiveness and good
gas mileage. (Should you scoff at the gas mileage business, I'll tell you
of some of my romps through the isolated mountain roads in central Virginia,
back in my more-carefree bachelor days. Ever hunted for a gas station in a
remote village at 6PM on a Sunday evening with your Fiat's gas-gauge warning
light on constant-red status?) The GT6 was a GT (i.e. Grand Touring), meant
to be comfortable, smooth, and fast on superhighways, able to carry one or
two people for hours on end at high speed, though not necessarily able to
leap tall buildings at a single bound. Of course, all performance-oriented
cars today are GT's, and fittingly so because the most demanding driving, at
least when long distances are involved, is done on roads suitable for GT's
instead of Sports Cars. (I often wonder what the archtypical Uhmurricin Car
would look like if Henry Ford had grown up in the Appalachians instead of
the Great Plains. It might be closer to an Alfa or a Porsche or even a TR
than the Ford or Chevy that we know.) So is the GT6+ "vastly superior"?
Yes and no. If I can't drop the hood of my Sports Car and feel the wind in
my face, then it ain't a "real" Sports Car! And though I like putting my
foot to the floor, it doesn't bother me to be a bit short of power, provided
I have enough. How much is enough? It doesn't really matter unless I do
something stupid like pull out in front of an approching vehicle, or unless
I'm in a race against another car or a stopwatch. So for me, the agility is
the important thing. You'll have to decide why you are bothering with one
of them thar' anachronisms in the first place, then decide whether you want
the GT6 or the Spitfire...
Jim Muller, Spitfire pilot
|