If you are looking for a door mounted mirror, check out
http://falconparts.com/displayfaq.asp?PRODUCT_ID=C3RZ-17696-R
The face is 4 1/2" with a convex lense (I think?). It is decent
quality-especially for the price. I think it fits the "era" of the roadster
perfectly, but of course I'm biased. <g>
BTW, I don't know if it would work without modification on the later doors
(the base barely covered the larger mirror mounting hole on my fathers 70
1600).
You can just see a corner of it in this pic:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=123299&a=9876623&p=32832643
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Avery <aavery@rica.net>
To: Andrew Murphy <solex67@hotmail.com>; <Ofarrell.Fergus@hitco.com>
Cc: <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: opinions being solicited, mirrors
> Dennis and I love the look of his fender mounted side mirrors. They
aren't
> stock mirrors (although they are of the era), they aren't in the stock
> fender location (they are centered over the wheel openings, wheras stock
> fender mirrors were about half-way between the center of the wheel opening
> and base of the windshield), but they look GREAT on the car. Some PO put
> 'em on, but we're stickin with them.
>
> Check 'em out at: http://i11.yimg.com/11/1297b20/h/20103fa/roadster2.JPG
>
> At 10:07 AM 12/13/00 -0800, Andrew Murphy wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >Fergus' question about mirrors brings up some questions of my own. I also
> >have some ridiculous mirror on my driver door that is about 5 inces wide
and
> >REALLY ugly. I think the PO put it on because of the need to clear the
> >window wing so you can actually use it.
> >
> >I have seen both door-mounted and fender-mounted mirrors. I am partial to
> >going with fender-mounted mirrors when I restore. I think it looks
better. I
> >will have to get used to looking through the windshield when I am
checking
> >mirrors, but I can live with that.
> >
> >As far as correctness, I believe there aren't many "correct" mirrors
left.
> >If I remember, Fergus is right when he says that the later high
windhshield
> >cars had different shapes to their mirrors with the square one on the
> >passenger side.
> >
> >For myself, I like the standard looking oval mirrors with the "swept
back"
> >look to them.
> >
> >Opiions?
> >
> >Andrew Murphy
> >
> >P.S. The meet is on Sunday the 17th, not Saturday! 11:00 am!
> >
> >
> >From: "Ofarrell, Fergus" <Ofarrell.Fergus@hitco.com>
> >To: "'andrew murphy (socalroc)'" <solex67@hotmail.com>, "'roman
> >rist(roadster)'" <ristguitars@yahoo.com>, "'Victor Laury'"
> ><vlaury@earthlink.net>
> >Subject: opinions being solicited, mirrors
> >(5.5.2650.21)
> >
> >Okay Gents, (Roman, let me know if I am sending this to your business
vs.
> >roadster address, so I can change it if necessary)
> >I need to replce my outside mirrors, due to the fact that those Baby
Tornado
> >black things on my car are
> >A: too small (dangerous) and
> >B: not very timely as far as the 60's era.
> >So, I checked around the local Pick-a-parts and the Pomona Swap Meet, but
> >everything I saw was for American Iron, so minimum it was 4+" diameter,
> >which seems kinda big to me. The 510 sites show pictures of a bmw 320i
> >mirror, but when I saw these in the junkyards, they are kind of a "big
flag"
> >and go better with the squared off looks of a 510. I was looking around
for
> >options and found something in an English car magazine.
> >Sounds crazy to import, except my girlfriend and I are traveling to
Ireland
> >for Xmas, so I could have them shipped to her relatives and bring 'em
back
> >myself.
> >
> >I am leaning towards the 'chrome on brass racing mirror, convex glass' at
> >the following website, go into the Shop section, Mirrors,, blah, blah,
blah.
> >
> >http://www.quality-components.co.uk/
> >
> >your input/opinion is appreciated.
> >
> >background:
> >90 mm diameter is 3.6". (a mm is .040")
> >36 English pounds per pair of mirrors is ~45 dollars. New ones were 40 a
> >piece at Pomona, and they were all cowl clamp-on type, 50's era.
> >I know the rectangular shape is correct for the 69, but round ones look
more
> >'60's to me. This company has rectangles as well, but the dimensions are
of
> >a rectangle that must include the stalk, as it is way too huge for just
the
> >lens when you draw it out.
> >I have not yet checked to see how many holes there are in my doors, so
this
> >may be a deciding factor.
> >
> >thanks guys, see ya Saturday?
> >Fergus
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
_
> >_________
|
