spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: BMH Body shells

To: "'GT6in@aol.com'" <GT6in@aol.com>
Subject: RE: BMH Body shells
From: "Gambony, Jim" <jim.gambony@eds.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:37:39 -0500
Tom,

Being unit body, the 'B is expensive to fix correctly once real cancer has
set in. In the topless cars all the strength is in the sills. 

Imagine how many Spits and TR6s you've seen happily driving along with swiss
cheese for rocker panels!  

Also, the drivetrain is pretty much unchanged (except emissions of course)
from 1968-1980... so there are a lot more donor cars for a bodyshell.

As to "more desirable", there are a variety of viewpoints, and I won't jump
into that mess.  I'll simply say that each marque has it's good and bad
points.


Jim

and yes... Mini's are nice!  ('60 project, '61 vintage racer, '63 Cooper)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: GT6in@aol.com [SMTP:GT6in@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 5:25 PM
> To:   Brad.Kahler@141.com; spitfires@autox.team.net
> Subject:      Re: BMH Body shells
> 
> In a message dated 8/3/98 12:06:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Brad.Kahler@141.com writes:
> 
> > Am I missing something here or are MG's more prone to needing body 
> >  replacements than Triumphs?
> >  
> >  > 
> >  > TO List
> >  > 
> >  > FWIW,   I just read in Mini Mania's catalog that BMH has produced
> >  >  2750 MGB bodies
> >  > 1350 MG Midgets Bodies
> >  > 250 TR6 bodies
> >  > 
> >  >  and will start producing Mini MK1 body shells, just some
> interesting
> >  > info to pass around.
> >  > 
>   Might also be that they are more desirable.  Although not my thoughts
> exactly just throwing it up in the air.  A mini would be nice however.
> Tom

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