Behold, Fiends. I’ve been flirting with that certain flavor of insanity known as European roadster ownership for a good while now, and the result is what you see above. The keen-eyed among you will recognize this ugly mug from the Fool’s Gold post awhile back. It’s a 1969 Triumph Spitfire, rocking a 1.3-liter four-cylinder with dual SU carbs, a four-speed manual transmission and enough electrical gremlins to make Jim Henson blush. So why fork over my hard-earned cash for such a nightmare? A couple of things made this particular car attractive. First off, it’s a local car. This rig has spent the entirety of its 75,000 miles right here in Knoxville and the last 26 years stored inside. That means this sucker has been off the road and tucked away inside a garage since 1983 – a full two years before I was born. The floor pans are solid, as is the frame, rockers and trunk pan. In fact, the only through-rust anywhere is the battery tray. The rest is intact. By and large, the wiring hasn’t been monkied with by either of its two previous owners. Under the hood, the car looks like a time capsule. there’s still factory paint on the original alternator and nothing’s seized with the type of unbelievable rust that usually accompanies a car this age. Of course, there’s no interior and all that’s left of the top is the mechanism, but I also picked up a parts car for $1,500 for the pair. As soon as the Mark III is out of the garage (hopefully this weekend) there will be more photos. Now the only question is, stick with the stock four-pot or go for a GT6 swap. What about something more sinister?
Posted By: Zach Bowman | 14 Comments »
Tags: 1969 1969 Triumph Spitfire Fool's Gold Spit Spitfrire Triumph
Pretty slick. I hope the restoration goes well for you. And here’s an engine suggestion for you, how about a modern Toyota four-pot? It sounds blasphemous, but it’s what Lotus sticks in everything these days. And assuming you can get the electrics to work, it should prove to be a lot more reliable than the stock engine, or the Mark III.
do not paint it. make it run, swap out mechanics here and there. BUT NEVER PAINT IT!
I like Hunter’s idea. Maybe a little Honda four banger? Why not VTEC it up?
I’ve thought about the temple of TEC, but by and large the B’s and D’s are reverse rotational, which means I’d have to go with an F. And F’s, sirs, are expensive.
An F powered Triumph would scream, I wholly support this proposition.
I’ve seen a few deals on an F. A few totaled S2K’s here and there have yielded a few cheap engines. Still more than a chevy small block.
I may also suggest swapping in something like a Toyota 22R, sorta like Murilee Martin’s godawful Hell Project, but not all half-assed and screwy to start with.
take off that front bumper and throw it away.
Aw, come on. You don’t like the braces look?
only if you get plates that say BRCEFCE
Don’t over power this car. The rear end will not take the power.
No worries, Scott. Something tells me this one will end up keeping the stocker. The parts car, on the other hand…
My $.02–put a rotary in it. And paint it flat BRG–with a rattle can. Get that Battle of Britain look–and sound.
I concur. A rotary-powered Spitfire might be about the most badass way to rock the Lucas that I can think of.
A rotary is a great call for something this sized. The weight and center of gravity will stay about the same so the handling won’t suck. The famous lack of torque will save the rearend and trans from ruin.
The only downside is it’s a ugly motor to look at. But you can mitigate that by hanging a shiny new Weber DCOE45 with trumpets on it.
The only other bit of advice is to plan on a using a healthy resonator with the muffler. Under muffled rotaries are not a pleasant sounding as you’d think.