As has been said many times before on this discussion - there are
different strokes for different folks. Personally, I actually believe in
both sides of this point. For instance:
I have a stock TR3A (bought in '72), MGA Twin-Cam (bought in '84), and
XK150S (bought in 1984) which I have tried to keep just that way. That's
not to say that they aren't somewhat rough - they are. In the TR3A I
even removed the TR4A o'drive gearbox (which I had installed in the
mid-'70s) and put the old non-synchro o'drive gearbox back (after new
synchros and other stuff) - that's putting character back into the car
:-)
On the other hand, my MGA coupe contains a mid/late '80s Camaro EFI 2.8
litre V6 and auto-overdrive transmission and my Jag Mk2 runs rack &
pinion steering and a '86 Mustang EFI 5 litre HO with 5-speed
transmission. Why did I convert these cars and not the others? First and
foremost - I prefer the looks of the '50s-'70s British cars and do not
have much interest in hopping-up American cars of that vintage, although
I once owned a nice '70 Firebird with a built 455 but that's another
story.
Well, the MGA coupe was parts car material when I bought it in '81,
although I drove it for a year or so afterward. (Anyone remember a very
rough blue '57 coupe at the '81 NAMGAR meet in Spokane, WA?) The drum
brakes leaked, the engine smoked and rattled, and the transmission
whined, rattled, and jumped out of 1st gear. I have rebuilt both of
these last items and still have them but the car now runs Twin-Cam disk
brakes front and rear. The body and frame have been more-or-less
repaired but certainly not to show condition. I suppose I could put the
drivetrain back into the car, but I will likely keep them for the next
owner of the car (if there ever is one). If he/she doesn't want them,
then I'll just have some more good spare parts!!
The Jag Mk2, on the other hand, came to me as a result of a
multi-person, many-angled swap agreement. What I ended up with was the
Mk2 with refurbished woodwork and a good body but with poor
leather/headliner and without a drivetrain. I did/do have spare engines
(for my XK150) but no extra gearboxes. I just made the decision to
convert the car into a more modern daily driver. As Dan Masters has said
about his converted TR6 - many of the character traits of the car remain
but it goes like stink, doesn't leak oil, steers well, and shifts fast
and smooth.
So, what's my bottom line: my so-called 'rare' cars or relatively
original and complete cars are being rebuilt back to original
(eventually), but I have had no hesitation in mechanically converting my
otherwise terminal or expensively incomplete cars (ie. 'crusher
material' cars). Additionally, I have tried to keep a 'period' ambiance
(character) with respect to the interiors of the converted cars. Again,
to each their own.
Dave Q.
Neuhorst, SK
> <snip> On the other hand, a conversion like sticking a Chevy V8 in a TR6
>seems strange to me. I respect the amount of work and effort that goes into
>such a conversion, and it is impressive to see the final product, but I wonder
>why the builder didn't start with an American car in the first place to build
>his hot rod. That way, the final product retains a certain amount of the
>character of the original car.<
> Let me stress once again that I am not snobby keep-it-original kind of guy
>(my Spitfire is far from stock and it's fine with me), so don't flame me if
>you've got a killer Ford V8-powered Austin Mini. :)<
|