So...they've got us all beat...
|
Preform Resources Dave Craddock Redford,Michigan (359 posts) Registered: 12/20/2008 05:46PM Main British Car: 72 MGB V6 3.4 |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Man, this is serious as a heart attack !!
Dave |
|
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Been following this build for a while. Equally implausible as it is amazing.
A lot of ideas that I've seen discussed on this forum being used - such as the Lotus heads being used on the rover block. The twin turbo motor looks like it belongs in an 80's F1 car. 1000hp GT3 MGB? Yes please. |
rficalora Rob Ficalora Willis, TX (2764 posts) Registered: 10/24/2007 02:46PM Main British Car: '76 MGB w/CB front, Sebring rear, early metal dash Ford 302 |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Quote: I was thinking it reminded me of a steroid infused MG version of Phil's Spitfire. |
HealeyRick Rick Neville (490 posts) Registered: 12/19/2007 05:01PM Main British Car: 1963 Austin-Healey 3000 Ford 5.0L |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Very impressive! Going to be interesting to see how it handles the 'ring.
|
roverman Art Gertz Winchester, CA. (3188 posts) Registered: 04/24/2009 11:02AM Main British Car: 74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
1,000 hp. RV8, I "might" consider a Coscast/Cosworth, block. I hope this doesn't go the way of the $1 mil., 70's Cuda, that was built to beat an "Enzo". It got too much lift at about 170 mph., without aero tricks. Likely to be the fastest RV8/907 headed motor-ever. roverman.
|
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Mmmmm I would prefer Jim S choice of engine and design. Much better chassis which high speed requires.
|
Spitfire 350 Phil McConnell Perrysburg, OH (Toledo area) (257 posts) Registered: 01/11/2010 09:19PM Main British Car: 74 Spitfire 350Chevy |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
|
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
|
Jim Stabe Jim Stabe San Diego, Ca (829 posts) Registered: 02/28/2009 10:01AM Main British Car: 1966 MGB Roadster 350 LT1 Chevy |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Except for the grille and tail lights, not much recognizable MGB there. Nascar does a better job with brand identification than that.
|
|
MGBV8 Carl Floyd Kingsport, TN (4512 posts) Registered: 10/23/2007 11:32PM Main British Car: 1979 MGB Buick 215 |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
What are you saying, Jim? Have we finally found the answer to THE question, "When does a MG cease to be an MG?" ;)
|
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
That hood..... visibility has got to be greatly reduced
|
Jim Stabe Jim Stabe San Diego, Ca (829 posts) Registered: 02/28/2009 10:01AM Main British Car: 1966 MGB Roadster 350 LT1 Chevy |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Well Carl, we may be looking at something that is on the far side of the demarcation line but we still don't have the precise location of the line. I'm still not sure on which side of the line my car sits.
|
BlownMGB-V8 Jim Blackwood 9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042 (6470 posts) Registered: 10/23/2007 12:59PM Main British Car: 1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS |
Re: So...they've got us all beat...
Based on styling cues Jim, your car is still very much an MGB. Jason's car obviously pushes that line way out there, but it is still recognizable. So my opinion is that as long as the car can be recognized as having evolved from an MG, then it is in fact an MG, and likely as not CK would have been proud of it. Consider the factory Specials. Often they deviated at least this far.
I would base that line on several points: Is the OEM recognizable from the body lines, the trim, the character, or an aggregate of those and other related factors? If so, I think we claim it. Does it maintain the original vision in terms of what CK would have liked to have been able to build (and we do have adequate documentation thereon) given what is now availlable to us? And does it promote the image of the MG Marque in some way, be it competition, spirited driving, or even strictly appearance? Obviously here the full line must be considered includng pre-war cars and specials. We should also consider the owner's intent. Then I say the ONLY time we exclude a car from our fraternity is when it has been taken so far from those considerations that not only does it have virtually no recognizable vestage of MG remaining, displays more stying cues of another very recognizable manufacturer and indeed would be far more likely to be recognized as such, is directed towards a segment of automobilia that CK would never have even considered, does not promote MG in any way and may even work in opposition thereto, and the owner has no desire for it to be seen as an MG or to include himself in the fraternity. Under those conditions and no others would I consider exclusion. It is important to us as upholders of the original dream to stand united against the tide of Puritanicalism. CK was first and formost a converter, as are we all. So I say, Jason, you are welcome here. Many of us could only wish we had the time, money, skills and other assets to indulge our fantasies in such a manner as you are very cleverly doing. So we do what we can, and proudly show our friends. Most of who are right here. And they stand by us, admiring what we have wrought, however simple it may be. To my mind, that, and the spirit of the driving experience is what we are all about. Jim |