On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bob Sykes wrote:
> The Honorable Mr. Mace writes:
>
> >Best way to do it is to think not of upgrading a Spitfire to GT6
> >mechanicals, but rather to transplant a Spitfire body tub onto a GT6 frame
> >with bonnet....
> This seems the most straightforward approach to build that
> "Triumph that shoulda been". One day I'd like to make one.
> The steps involved are well known and documented except for
> one that I'm curious about:
>
> Are there pitfalls associated with running rotoflex in conjuction with
> the Spit body tub? It seems that the radius arm mounting
> points would have to be moved. What about the doughnuts, will they
> interfere with the body?
Oh, yeah, almost forgot that one! ;-) You're right. the radius arms mount
further in with the Roto-flex rear end. Some later Spitfire bodies have
the holes already in place, but one needs to use the reinforcing pieces
already there, in the outboard positions. The spot welds could be drilled
out and the pieces rewelded at the inboard position.
Another of those niggling little details!
> I suppose the best candidate would be a very late GT6 with a swing spring
> (oops, perhaps I shouldn't be asking about rear suspensions just now ;-))
> but most likely donors would be rotoflex IMHO.
True. That or the Spitfire 4 or Mk.2 tub on the Mk.1 GT6 conversion
(probably still better to use the swing-spring there). Otherwise, there's
always a narrowed Ford 9" rear end! :-) (I'M KIDDING, FOLKS!)
--Andy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Andrew Mace, President and *
* 10/Herald/Vitesse (Sports 6) Consultant *
* Vintage Triumph Register *
* amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|