Spitfire Thinking about a Spitfire

[glemon]

I have owned a few British cars, the current TR250, several Sprites, couple MGBs, a TR4A, but I have never owned a Spitfire (have driven a couple briefly, never a really nice one though).

I will admit in my early days I was a "Sprite Guy" with a littl bias against its competitor, but that is long gone.

I love small cars, but the last Sprite I owned was maybe a little too cramped.

I would think a nice 1296 from the late 60s would be a nice compliment to the TR250.

Any thoughts on my chosen year/model or the cars in general? what to look for when buying, what to fix or upgrade for reliability? Will also add that I am not planning on buying one this weekend, just future research for the wish list.

Greg

 

[Andrew Mace]

A Mk3 is what some folks would tell you is THE Spitfire to have, and I'm not sure I can argue that point, although I like just about all of them. I would just Google the car and also check the obvious sites such as triumphspitfire.com, VTR and probably here on this Forum. Really most advice wouldn't be much different from any other prospective Triumph or other sports car: buy the best you can afford unless you enjoy projects, watch for rust, etc., etc.!

 

[HerronScott]

I'm with Andy and if we were to own one again it would be a 1968 Mk3 which is what my wife had.

Good things in my book about about the Mk 3 (and some that are specific to a 1968).

- Older rounded rear end styling (1970 added side reflectors)
- Gauges in the middle of the wooden dash (changed in 1969 to in front of driver)
- Dual brake master cylinder (might have changed mid-1968)
- Raised front bumper (Personal preference as I think it makes a sharper looking front end over the Mk 1 and Mk 2)
- Highest rated engine (either 1969 or 1970 had slightly less horsepower due to federal emission controls)

Scott

 

[Trevor Triumph]

I concur... The MkIII has the more powerfull engine if you have the twin SU engine. I agree the raised bumper looks better than the MkI and II. I beieve the brakes are improved also.

T.T.

 

[71MKIV]

they are simple honest cars. Sounds like you already know how to work on them, so you already have the 1/2 and 9/16 wrenches and a hammer.

I personally like the look of the roundtails, but they are starting to get expensive for one that isn't a project.

Early squares can be had a little cheaper, have all the upgrades and can be made to make power.

 

[tomgt6]

I can't argue with anything said above. Even though I have mk1s, one of them has a mk3 engine and that really made the car. As for the rest of the stuff I like the low seats and rounded look so an early mk3 would be a good choice I think.

 

[Bob Claffie]

Another .02 worth. My preference is the later body style BUT with a 1300 engine. But to do that I think the tranny has to be changed also. I would never buy another one with Stromberg carbs either, yuck. My history: I owned a '76 for a couple years and liked everything about it except the engine/carbs. You should have seen the flame show coming out the tailpipe at night. Also raced a Mk2 1968 for several years, loved that one, soooo simple to work on. Can't go wrong with any early car but watch out for the rear u-joints and trunions. Bob

 

[TheAssociate]

I think it's important to get the body syle that you like. I prefer the edgy looks of the MKIV. Try to get overdrive, a header pipe and dual SU carbs.