Mark Sedlack wrote
>However, I personally have never liked the "flat" rear-end panel on the
>Roadster, and have always suspected it was due primarily to ease of
>manufacture, rather than a planned styling detail.
I've wondered about the back recently myself. Perhaps it's a cost thing,
perhaps the roadster was ahead of its time, anticipating the Kamm-back
styling of the late 60s. I used to think the taillights were stuck
on...items pulled from the Nissan parts bin, but they're unique to the
roadster. If they'd used Bluebird (311) taillights of the era (which
look like they might fit) there'd be much more of an MGB resemblance. I
know the Roadster had its debut a year earlier, but it's hard enough to
convince folks of the order of appearance as it is.
Marc Tyler TDROC Sisterdale TX
1970 1600 #SPL311-31016
1965 L-320 #L320 013642
/// email@example.com mailing list