-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Triumph Spitfire
I plan to sell my 1973 Triumph Spitfire which is
in excellant condition with 80K miles and have no
idea of its value. Any advise would be appreciated
in excellant condition with 80K miles and have no
idea of its value. Any advise would be appreciated
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
So it's not the best Spitfire (pre 1971s would be), nor the worst (the 1500 would probably take that title because of very shoddy build quality).
Anyway, all that being said, if you were offered anywhere from $2,500 to $3,500 for it, I'd suggest accepting it.
I usually tell people that the best Spitfire would be a combination of old and new Spitfires...using the suspension and transmission from the newer ones but the older engine and older body style.
I worked at Triumph from 1975 to 1980 (sorry, guys - some of the synchro in the Spitfire gearbox is my design!), and watched a company be torn apart by Unions asking for more money than the company had, laws (primarily in the US) limiting the sale of convertibles, little R&D being done for new models, the recruiting of the best and brightest engineers and managers to other British Leyland divisions (Rover and Jaguar in particular), low pay, poor moral, old equipment, etc., etc. In short, just about everybody (but especially Michael Edwards) had a hand in their demise. I was in Coventry last year, and it was so sad to see the Canley and Tile Hill plants no longer there.
Anybody know why you can't buy cars like that anymore?
On the other hand, I just wonder how much people can reasonably expect to be protected from life. Things happen when you drive a beater, and I can tell you about them. But when the tranny in my Power Hawk went out, did I look to Studebaker, its heirs or successors, for compensation?
Thanks
Thanks for the help. This went for $3100. It was the orginal owner, 56,000 miles, and the clutch needed work. They did start it. Over all it looked good and did not sound bad.
TIA
Mark
However, if you just want to play and learn things, well, why not experiment on this car?
Yes, you need to pay particular attention to the gas tank (drain and flush it) and the fuel lines and water lines and brake lines. Whatever is cracked or rotted needs replacement. You don't want a fire or an overheated engine. Then pump up the tires and drive it around and see what you got.
or, Why do the English drink warm beer? Because Lucas makes refrigerators.
If you buy an old British car with Lucas electrics, you should replace the battery cables immediately, clean the fuse box and replace all the fuses, check for any loose or corroded electrical couplers that join wiring (or junction blocks), and, hopefully, replace the Lucas generator with something like a Motorola alternator (or better yet Bosch). But even with the wheezy old Lucas generator, if you spend a day spiffing up the electrical system it should give much or any trouble from then on. The Lucas generator is really the weakest link, as are the rather crappy couplers and junction boxes.
I've driven MGBs over every terrain for days on end with no troubles, but I attended to the electrics (basically stock however) and added a cooling fan.
The key to reliability with old British cars is maintenance on a higher level than if you were driving a Buick. If you don't like to get under the hood and keep things up, get a Miata.
Are they worth fooling with?
Hal
Hal
Here is perhaps a more considered and historical view of the car, quoted from the "TRiumph Buyer's Guide", written by Triumph guru Richard Newton:
"The 1500 Spitfire was really a patchwork response to American emission and safety standards. When the Spitfire 1500 was new it was unreliable, poorly assembled and started to rust the second week you owned the car. Leyland had given up on the Spitfire. The 1500 changed only in response to the laws, not the marketplace. There was no effort to make the Spitfire a better car".
I think what he's saying here, and what I agree with, is that while the 1500 is a more comfortable and better handling car than the old Mark 1s, it is not a faster, or better, or more fun car. In other words, the Spitfire evolved, but its evolution was not aimed at improvement, just low level surivival. I mean, what other company can put in a much larger engine and end up with less HP as a result? It's kind of sad really.
Then again, you should be glad for the bad reputation. How else could you have bought this car for only $800. You wouldn't get a TR6 for that.
My favorite is really the TR250, which has the TR4 body and the TR6 engine. I drove one for about a year. Had all kinds of trouble with it and loved it anyway.
When I lived in Manhattan, I had a Morgan +4 and my friend Arthur had an early Spitfire. We raced all around the Big Apple, and I always beat him up badly with the Moggie. And sometimes towed him home, too. His revenge was listening to me bemoan the teeth-crashing ride I had to live with.
TR3 drivers were at one with the elements. The ragtop leaked where it snapped to the windscreen and the aerodynamics of the car tended to pull the sidescreens out about an inch or so when you drove over 40 mph. I once drove to a friend's house in a heavy rainstorm. He asked if I swam there.
The TR3 had some unique (some would say terrifying) handling characteristics. The chassis ran beneath the rear axle. The body roll in a fast turn would lift the inside rear wheel. Once you got used to it you'd just keep your foot on the gas and steer into the skid.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. the (optional) heater kept your right knee nice and warm (left knee for RHD cars) while the rest of you froze.
God those cars were fun.
It was a simple, rugged car, but pretty basic and pretty brutal.
The "rule" was that Triumphs were faster but MGs much more civilized, attractive and well-built. I think that generally that was very true, even later on.
TR4 ( I can say that since I drive both cars), and the canvas of the Spit is almost rain tight, the TR4 just looks tight but is not much better than the TR3. But I prefer the TR4 over the Spit for the fun of driving.
The Mk2 is a better car than either the 1 or the 3 or 4 in my opinion. It's the one I would buy. Good rugged engine, (you can even find an overdrive!) and you can even race 'em with the right mods.