[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Spridgets] Bugeye in Magazine

To: "Timothy H. Collins" <thcollin@mtu.edu>,spridgets@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Spridgets] Bugeye in Magazine
From: Peter C <peter@nosimport.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:14:44 -0500
         I noticed that too, but figured they would have reversed 
them eventually as the wheel wont clear. They probably got around to 
it when they replaced the shocks. ;-)

         I also have a problem with calling the car "restored" as 
among other things, the wheels are wire, has disc brakes,  1275, etc. 
etc..  Do we need another word? It's handsome, and a good job, but 
restored in my mind, something like "returned to original 
specification" or something.  Reconstructed, resurrected, 
reincarnated, whatever, but not restored.

Sorry   need coffee.  But I'm FINALLY commuting in a proper car.

Peter C.

At 06:59 PM 4/14/2008, Timothy H. Collins wrote:

>A neighbor passed along his copy of Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car to
>me - March issue. It contains a story about a restored Bugeye. The
>owner did most of the work himself and it turned out to be very nice.
>On page 68, however, I noticed that he assembled the tie rod ends
>with the nut facing the ground. To do that he must have reversed the
>steering arms so the taper would have the right orientation to match
>the "Up-side-down" rod end. The rod end is bent at an odd angle.  I
>think that's wrong or at least I've never seen that done before. The
>British Leyland shop manual does show the rod end in the
>up-side-down" orientation but that's just an illustration. Or does
>this work OK and if so, what's the reason for doing so?
>Tim Collins
Support Team.Net  http://www.team.net/donate.html



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>