Ok, some points well taken. But let's say the engine transplant was a
lighter AND more powerful engine. Say the same weight but four times the
horsepower. Would that be OK? They exist. It should handle just as well.
Would that be OK?
I used to think of a sports car as being an open roof, great handling and a
good power to weight ratio. Let's face it a stock Bugeye has a terrible
power to weight ratio. And the square bodies aren't much better. Does that
make them a bad example of a sports car? How many of us have souped up our
cars or swapped engines for more power? At what point does that make it no
longer a sports car?
I have also owned a car that I considered a "sports car", but more
accurately a "GT" car (a 240Z). Is a "GT" car a separate classification or
a sub-classification?
I'd be interested to hear other's definitions of a "sports car".
Let the battle begin!
LAD
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Billy Zoom" <billyzoom@billyzoom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:36 PM
To: "Larry Daniels" <ladaniels@sbcglobal.net>; "'Spridget'"
<spridgets@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: [Spridgets] Another British Engine
> Billy, out of curiosity, what defines a "sports car" and what did the
> addition of the Ford power do to transform the Midget out of that
> category?
It transformed it into a Hot Rod that was only good for burning rubber in a
straight line, or annoying Big Healey drivers at stop lights. The latter was
kind of fun, but the car was no longer nimble nor well-balanced. It did not
corner well compared to real sports cars, and although admittedly each
corner was a hairy sideways adventure, it was not fast through the turns.
It was also no good at the drags because it made lots of smoke, but never
really hooked up.
BZ
_______________________________________________
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Suggested annual donation $12.75
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|