>This relates somewhat to the subject of re-introducing a new Triumph marque.
>It would be neat to have a very inexpensive sports car. One that would be
>the opposite of the new sports cars now made such as the BMW, Boxter, and
>Mercedes. This would be offered without any amenities even including radio,
>carpets, electrical windows and maybe even a heater. These could be
>options. Then in the area of engine, drive train, suspension and the fun
>goodies many sporting options would be offered and the emphasis would be on
>simplicity so that the owner could order and upgrade himself with simple tools.
>
>This would put the sporting back into sports cars. The styling would also
>have to get away from the jelly bean look and get back to some sharper lines
>or pick up some of the TR-3 and Spitfire lines. A racing program could be
>started just as they do with the Neon, and that price range would be
>appropriate also.
What you're describing is my 77 Spitfire! You can't really go home again
when designing new cars because of all the emission controls and safety
features.
New cars are much better than old cars. The engines are more fuel
efficient, more powerful, less polluting and last a hell of a lot longer
than the four-banger in my spit. Engines are now lasting upwards of 200,000
miles before you have to replace them. My Spit lasts about 50,000. Can you
imagine not tuning up a triumph engine before the first 100,000 miles? As
far as safety goes, give me that airbag, those side impact beams and those
rubbery bumpers If I'm going to hit something. All those innovations jack
the cost of the car and they're worth every penny.
But for pure driving pleasure, give me my Spitfire with the top down, clear
weather and a winding mountain road.
|