I had a similar experience.
I purchased a roll bar from Ron Hamilton (great roll bar by the way) and
discovered that my frame was two narrow to use with it. Of course Ron's
explanation was that they don't use tops on roadsters in Arizona so the
roll bar wasn't designed to be used with a top :). I measured the frame
on my other 68 roadster and found it to be 3/4" wider which made all the
difference.
Not sure if the frames are of two distinct designs and not even sure if
they both came originally with the 68's they were on. It could be that
there is quite a bit of variation in dimensions between frames for these cars.
In my case I just swaped frames and everything is fine. Just lucky that
the roll bar on the 1600 is narrower.
Ray
68 1600
68 2000
At 10:10 PM 07/30/2000 -0400, Paul wrote:
> Okay, I took a quick trip with Jim Sloan to Pittsburgh to see Teddy and
>get what was left of the parts car he got with his 2000 ( not much left at
>all!) While I was there, I measured Teddy's soft top frame, also on a 1969
>roadster. The mounting leg on his frame is distinctly different than on my
>1969 1600.. Then Teddy pulled out the from from the parts car, also a 1969
>2000, and it is just like mine. The main differences are a longer frame leg
>that mounts to the body, about 1 1/4"s longer. And the adjustment on the
>rear bow was different. On my frame it is approximately 1 1/2" from the
>pivot to the adjustment knob when the rear bow is collapsed. On Teddy's, it
>was almost 3"?
> So, are there two distinctly different frames for late model high
>windshield cars? I have been told that low windshield cars did not have an
>adjustable rear bow. They adjusted at the point where they mount to the
>body. If that is true, then there were at least two different frames used
>between 1967.5 and 1970.
> Can anybody confirm this?
>
>Paul
>OROC
>Topless in Ohio!
>
>
|