Last post on Jan 24, 2013 at 1:27 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Car Buying, Car Values, Convertible
#79 of 128 Re: Love em! [stickguy]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Mar 07, 2011 (8:39 pm)
The Rover (Buick) V8 is a pig, or *was* a pig at the time of the TR8 (the Brits have since bored it out, redesigned it upteen times and it finally was respectable, if gas hungry). So really, any minivan could smack a TR8 silly. This was no Cobra and no Tiger. This was a pussycat.
However, people do *breath* on TR8s to get them to go faster, but really, if you want a faster car, go buy a faster car. Get a Tiger, be happy.
A Mazda rotary would be a good swap. I've seen them put into MGBs and the result was splendid. I've also seen Volvo B18 and B20 engines used in British cars---these are very sturdy engines but really don't perform any better.
Personally I think a TR7 is hopeless and unfixable. It ranks with the Maserati Bi-Turbo as a car a NASA engineer couldn't live with.
#80 of 128 Re: Love em! [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 07, 2011 (8:43 pm)
series question, but what are the real problems with it that make it such a bad idea?
I know the engine ears head gaskets. So say you swapped in something reliable like a B20, along with the volvo tranny.
what is left that will kill you? the electrics? Can't think of much else, since a TR-7 is still basically pretty simple 60s tech. Not much power or too fancy.
#81 of 128 Re: Love em! [stickguy]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Mar 07, 2011 (9:11 pm)
Well that's a lot of work to put into a car that is basically worthless in the marketplace.
e.g.: TR7 FOR SALE---$625
And really, the build quality is so poor. I just don't see this as a viable project. They should save one TR7 for history and just let the rest of them die, if you ask me.
#82 of 128 Ok, what about . . . .
Mar 17, 2011 (6:00 pm)
Been submersed in the TR6 culture for the last few weeks. There's quite a loyal and knowledgable contingent out there for these cars and I've been learning quite a bit. In terms of a purchase decision, it essentially boils down to this. Do you want a factory stock, no excuses correct car? OR, do you go the modified route? And, let me tell you, there's a very respectable and well-thought of group who favor the latter - even though I know this group here is quick to dismiss them.
I'm torn as to which way to go. Obviously, a car can be original only once. And, in theory, you would think the market would put TR6's that are as pure as the driven snow up on a pedestal. But, there's a reason why guys modify these things. They upgrade the suspension bits and pieces, drop in a 5-speed (a pretty common upgrade), install an electronic ignition, put in a stronger differential, a better cooling system and fiddle with the engine and wheels/tires because doing so makes these cars drive/ride MUCH better - not to mention reducing the oil puddes on your garage floor and minimizing your risk of being left stranded by the side of the road. And, what's wrong with that???
Specifically, I have a line on a very original, 43,000 mile 1974 TR6 who the 2nd owner has owned for the past 26 years and has babied. The paint is original, the seats are original and they look great. While there have been replacements (ie., carpeting, convertible top, some engine bits), they have been done to factory correct standards. Ok, but how long can one maintain a car like this and still drive it? Eventually, its going to reach the fork in the road (stock vs. modified) with respect to how its restored - at which point I might be better off to go ahead and get one that's been modified in a quality way.
Don't mean to make this longer than necessary, but in weighing the pros and cons above, it occured to me that a 10 year old (or so) Honda S2000 might be something I should consider as a viable alternative. Here's a great example of what I'm talking about - an original 15,000 mile, 2001 model Silver one for $15,500. For that price, you could buy a very decent, but not great (whether its stock or modified), TR6. Plus, you get awesome performance, modern reliability and some creature comforts (leather, nice stereo & A/C) to boot.
Would LOVE to get some feedback on these issues. And, what about $15,500 for this low mileage and very original S2000??? It's offered by a dealer, so naturally I'm expecting a "gasp". But, keep in mind how original it is and its low miles.
#83 of 128 Re: Ok, what about . . . . [parm]
Mar 17, 2011 (5:40 pm)
My BIL has a 1st year model S2000 (one of the first in the US), that is probably even nicer. Absolutely looks like new. Stored winters, almost never sees rain, perfectly maintained. Not sure the miles, but they are low. I drove it when he first got it, and it is a very fun car.
But, apples to cantaloupes here. Do you want an old "classic" to putz with, show, etc? Or a newish car to use? A TR-6 would compare to a an MGB, Alfa, etc. An S2000 to a Miata, maybe a late Alfa, etc.
Anyway, my opinion on the originality issue is, if the car is a time warp absolutely authentic museum piece, I would try to keep it that way, especially if you won't be driving it much. But beyond that, I think it only matters if it is a rare/valuable car, unless you plan to get into the "cult of originality".
since this is a TR-6, not a Hemi 'cuda, Personally I would do the under the skin upgrades to make it a better car (tranny, suspension, cooling, reliablity stuff), but keep the looks stock (as in, no cheesy wheels).
#84 of 128 Re: Ok, what about . . . . [stickguy]
Mar 17, 2011 (5:41 pm)
oh yeah, forgot 1 point.
Do stuff that can be reversed easily if you want, and keep the old parts!
#85 of 128 Re: Ok, what about . . . . [stickguy]
Mar 17, 2011 (6:07 pm)
Your apples to cantaloupes point is well taken. Honestly, that's a tough one for me to answer. If I had an S2000, I'd probaby drive it more such as to work, etc. The TR6 would definitely be used to "putz" around with. Don't know which I would enjoy more.
In the event I would lean toward the Honda, I don't suppose you know if your brother in law would be interested in selling, would he?????? I'm serious.
#86 of 128 Re: Ok, what about . . . . [parm]
Mar 17, 2011 (6:18 pm)
From what I understand, the S2000 is kind of a 4-wheel motorcyle, high-revving, low torque, sounds like the opposite of the TR-6. What do you like?
#87 of 128 Re: Ok, what about . . . . [parm]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Mar 17, 2011 (6:20 pm)
I have no problem at all with invisible up-grades to a TR6, but not the boy racer stuff--this is a British car after all. In the same way that you don't put fuzzy dice on a Benz or rally lights on a Cadillac, you don't put oversize chrome alloys on a TR6, nor do you pinstripe it with scrollwork, or put on nerf bars, or body cladding. It's simply blasphemous.
The Honda S2000 requires an entirely different kind of driving than a TR6. The S2000 has little low end torque and to enjoy the car you have to keep it "on cam" constantly. If you don't like attentive, high-revving, frequent shifting driving, then you won't be happy with the S2000. What I mean is, if you are a lazy shifter, this car will torment you. It's like driving a Japanese superbike vs. a Harley. The Harley owner would find the Japanese bike maddening, and the Japanese owner would find the Harley barbaric.
#88 of 128 Re: Ok, what about . . . . [parm]
Mar 17, 2011 (6:29 pm)
Not for sale now, and I told him long ago that I had rights of first refusal! Still mad I did not buy his Integra (gsr? whatever the hot rod model was, in a 4 door) when I had the chance.
Though he does occasionally get a bug for a 911 turbo or a Cobra kit car, but for now, I suspect he is keeping the Honda for a while.