Top 5 project cars

I have seen 3 people sat in a 911, heck knows how, maybe the one in back was a midget. Never seen 4 adults in one, they fit easy in any Skyline, it's a big car a model up from the old Bluebird 1.8GL coupe and that had the same back seat as the 4 door saloon. Feck all luggage space on the GT-R thou - less than 1ft deep - all petrol tank.

4 door 4 seat booted saloon is not at all comparable to a 2+notquite2 coupe with f*ck all luggage space unless you use the back seat and make it a 2+0.

Dunno much about them, you've got me there. Are there any Intergale still running? How many did they make? Was anyone in the UK actually stupid enough to use a Lancia let alone an Integrale as a daily driver?

Doubt very much if you could get a gents racing bike or 2 6ft glass shower doors in an M3, it's lacking a hatch and fold down seats. Or are you talking about the 200SX S14?

If you had ever had a car with Japanese made electrics you would know the difference. The TR7 was the pinnacle of Joe Lucas's attempt to destroy the UK's motor industry. They had done for the bike industry and had moved on to the car industry by failing to develop and supply electrical system that worked reliably for a competive price. Also the TR7 was made by a workforce intent on making rubbish. Landlords wife had one when I was at college about 25 years ago, it was s**te then and can't have improved with age. Pop up's did or didn't at random, always in the garage for one thing after another. It looked the part. Now if they had put the Dolly Sprint engine in it instead of that gutless BL POS, that would have been something - fast and fragile the 16v heads are reported to crack. The Michelotti Triumphs still look right even now. Dad had 2 Triumph 2000's in the late 60's, lovely leather and walnut with nice chrome rimmed dials and that neat

8 light tell tale, clunky Lucas switches let it down. One snapped it's crank while running in, so he got an Audi 100S coupe. Having stopped buying British he got a Datsun in the mid 70's, had one Rover (6 month old current plate bargain) in the 80's learnt his mistake when it started doing silly things like CV joints at 60K miles and has now gone back to Jap.

Possible fair cop if you mean the early 80's Celica Supra 2.8i (MKII) both have become rust but the Toyota engine will still be running and oil tight unlike Fords. I had a '84 2.0XT liftback Celica it was petty much a Japanese 2.0L Capri. Only it went from 65K to 124K miles in 5 years on 1.5 exhausts, a wheel bearing, a set of brake pads and shoes, 2 sets of tyres, alternator bruhes, starter motor (burnt out by prior owner using undersized battery and excessive cranking) a clutch and a battery. Just had DIY oil and filter changes. At 15 years old everything still worked just as it should. 2 liter Fords tended to eat camshafts and everything electrical was broken tat by that age and mileage. Ford from those days were great cars that never go wrong so long as you keep them up on axle stands.

HA HA Ha get some new rose tinted specs.

Reply to
Peter Hill
Loading thread data ...

You're living in a different world to me. There are no 4wd 300ZX anywhere on the planet or universe.

Reply to
Peter Hill

innit

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

Reply to
Carl Smith

There is one that turns up at York regular. Martini colours. Nice.

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

Reply to
Carl Smith

Revolting things, I still say that's the ugliest car ever made.

Reply to
Depresion

I sat in the back of a 911 at the motorshow. I hurt myself.

I sat in the back of one of them to, might have been a 7, but that was ok :)

Intergrale's ROCK.

My mate has an M3 Cabriolet, luggage space in the 'boot' is amusing :)

I was about to say, the standard interior in my friends RX7 Twin Turbo is nice :)

Reply to
DanTXD

They are admired but less so by those who owned them. I often think it's the rallye pedigree along with the sheer brutallity of the front that are admired. A bit like Graham Hill claiming Lotus was the best car in the world not mentioning that his car was taking care of by his Lotus F1- mechanics...

I've got a few friends who had Integrales EVO 2/3 and drove it like it was supposed to be driven.

The first switched rather quickly to Porsche and still can't believe how cheap Porsche maintenance is compared to Lancia.

The second (has his bureau in Brussels but factory is in the Ardennes) now drives a 450 HP Supra twin-Turbo which sees twice a day *every day* a high speed run of about 160 km (one way). The car has over 380.000 km, it refuses to die, it refuses to break down, the only thing apart from normal maintenance it receives is new oil every 2500 km. The only big invoices to this car are those at 100.000 km-intervals: new turbo's, new distribution and clutch. The orginal cams are still on the car.

With his Lancia(s) (Integrale , Thema 8.32 and similar) he was every 2 tot 3 weeks in for major repairs, often having to miss the car for a week. I have seen the bills: his cars were maintained with disregard of money. Everything went: engine (several), turbo's, clutches, gearbox, rear LSD (1 month waiting for such one).

The 1992 Intergrale EV03 had spent (in the first year of ownership) more than the new-value of the car on it. In fact I still receive a box of 12 bottles champagne every year for recommanding the Supra TT.

Tom De Moor

Reply to
Tom De Moor

Just remembered I saw a TR7 in a scrappy 2 months ago and it had a slant engine in it like half a V8. I thought they used a BL engine but those slant ones are Triumph and were the basis for SAAB's too. So why didn't they use the 16V engine?

formatting link

Reply to
Peter Hill

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Peter Hill decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

Gutless BL POS? The "V8" means nothing to you? Rover V8. Not that s**te Triumph thing

Dunno, it's a popular conversion, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to convert something that was designed for a V8, put a V8 in it. After all, the TR7 was originally meant to use the Rover V8, used the Rover V8 in the TR8, and if it hadn't been for the "oil crisis" of the early 70's I shouldn't imagine it would have ever had that nasty little four pot in the first place.

Reply to
Pete M

Ooh, sacrilege... Triumph actually had a 3 litre v8 engine that was used in the Stag, was more powerful and torquey than the rover 3.5 v8 used in the TR8.

Wasn't very reliable, though.

By the time the TR8 was being produced, BL had axed the Triumph v8 and so the TR8 got the rover block instead. Course, I doubt the Triumph v8 would have had all the upgrades and performance kit added by aftermarket suppliers so it's probably just as well.

I don't reckon the 4 pot was all that bad an engine, given the options, budget, etc. They're surprisingly grunty, rev well, etc. Not in modern league, sure.

American legislation did for the original design, there was going to be a ban on convertibles, the bumpers had to take 5 mph impacts, emission laws, etc.

For my money, they wouldn't have been such a success with the triumph v8 engine, because they'd have had reliability issues. The four pot was pretty solid. As would the straight six from the TR6 have been, if it had fitted.

It really comes together with the SD1 engine though, no error there.

Reply to
Questions

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.