[Roadsters] 1600 v 2000?

[James Fogg]

> I've seen several ground up restorations of 1600s and 2000s. All
things
> being equal, the cost is very similar. So, other than "because it's
been
> in
> my family for years", or "because I like 1600s better than 2000s", why
are
> some people pouring a ton of money into restoring a stock 1600? Why
not go
> with a 2000? Same car, but with more gears and more power.
>
> Just curious.


I greatly prefer the pre-1968 models, and I'm not alone in that. If I
want a 2000 I have a 6 month period in which they were made, and parts
are incredibly rare for certain items (find a 67.5 headrest, if you
can).

I find the low windshield lines far more attractive, and I love the flat
metal dashboard. The "look" of the pre-1968's combined with the higher
displacement engine is what makes the 67.5 so hotly coveted.