I just can't avoid a comment.
In my opinion Trevor has it right about the strength of a B unibody. I
have dis-assembled several of each in the last 20 yrs. In 1968 & '69 The
South West Division SCCA G Production Champion was Tom Waugh's 1147 Spit. I
helped to build and maintain this car.
Just pay for the re-building either front or rear suspension of a Spitfire
and tell me it is cheaper to maintain than a B. Which would you rather
drive across Death Valley in? An 1800cc. B or a 1500cc. Spit. (or Midget
for that matter). Depending on your preference, you can debate the
strength and "rustability" of either marque, there are pros and cons for
either. With proper engineering you can make either one of them handle. I
still want someone to explain why so many 1500 Spitfires drop #3 rod. I
think that I can show to almost anyone's satisfaction that the earlier
Spitfire engines, or the 1275 A series for that matter, were more
dependable than the 1500. The front suspension on a B is easier to work
than that on a Spit. I wouldn't say that it was necessarily better, as most
of the sports racers in England used that suspension for years, but I
certainly couldn't say it was simpler than a B. The rear suspension is
something else. How many people drive around with the driver's side lower
than the passenger side? I honestly don't think that you can say that a
Spitfire is stronger or cheaper to maintain than a B. It all depends on
personal preferance. I'd rather have my '55 356 Speedster. That brought
cries of shame from my wife and daughter who both drive Bs and wouldn't
have it any other way (except for the MkII Jag).
Fisher
>At 09:04 PM 4/27/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Atwell Haines wrote:
>>> Seriously, Spits are cheaper than MGBs and are more likely to be safe for
>>> the road (rusty MGB unit-body vs Spitfire body on frame).
>>
>> All conclusions aside, this point isn't really valid.
>>
>> I have seen MANY frame cars that had undriveable frames, but
>>surprisingly few unit body cars that have actually caved.
>>
>> The MGB bodies are phenomenally strong, you might be amazed at
>>some junkyard cars that are missing most of the undercarriage
>>and still will not break. (no matter how hard me and another
>>person jump on the sills, not that I know or anything).
>>
>> Realistically, what Triumph calls a "frame" is a pretty frailly
>>constructed arrangement. It works when new, but doesn't tolerate
>>nearly as much rusting as many other cars before it becomes
>>unstable.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Trevor Boicey, Ottawa, Canada.
>>tboicey@brit.ca, http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>>[ Seeking some miscellaneous MG parts, see the list on the web page... ]
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|