Joe Curry wrote:
>
> Ross Vincenti wrote:
>
> > Harris - the general consensus is that it is far easier to simply bolt the
> > Spitfire body onto the GT6 frame, making the relatively minor changes
> > necessary for clearances, etc. Otherwise, no you are not crazy, it is
> > something the factory should have done a LONG time ago. Jesus, can you
> > imagine? A Spit 6 would have been so neat, and pretty damn quick too. A
> > poor man's Jaguar XKE drop head coupe. (sigh) Like a lot of other mistakes
> > made by Triumph, they dropped the ball.
> >
> Ross,
> I doubt that many who were working at Triumph in the later years of its
> existence will argue that point with you. As they were crippled by the
> lack of independence from the other divisions of BL, they couldn't even
> capitalize on the outstanding response to the Spit 1500. John Thomason,
> however cites in his book, "Triumph Spitfire and GT6, A Guide To
> Originality" that the option for a Spit 6 was not even considered.
> Something to do with not wanting to compete with the market for the GT6
> and the TR series cars. Too many players in an already compressed
> market segment.
>
> Joe Curry
> --
> "Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible
> to travel across the country coast to coast without seeing
> anything." -- Charles Kuralt
Right. I mean, think about it. If you were making the production
decisions, would you produce both the TR6, the GT6, and a Spit-6? You'd
be your own worst enemy.
Having a six-banger on a small chassis is a blast, I can say, but it
ain't quite the same car. A maxed-out 1500 is a pretty cool thing too.
--
Martin Secrest
73 GT6
74 Spitfire
Arlington, VA
|