I'm loving this....
Discussion
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tribute-Automotive-A352-...
As long as you don't blatantly try to pass this off as a Jag and stick Jag badges all over it, as a generic 60's style sportscar with IVA exemption, I think this is very nice thing . What do you think?? Shame it hasn't got an MX5 underpinning it though.... :-)
As long as you don't blatantly try to pass this off as a Jag and stick Jag badges all over it, as a generic 60's style sportscar with IVA exemption, I think this is very nice thing . What do you think?? Shame it hasn't got an MX5 underpinning it though.... :-)
Much as I love kit cars I do think this effort (?) is misconceived.
As others have said the body proportions are very suspect. In addition basing a kit car on an outmoded fifty year old design with notoriously suspect handling, seems to me absolutely lame brained. Just as suggesting a new kit on the VW Beetle chassis would be daft. At best.
I think this is ALL about avoiding the costs and difficulties of IVA. Frankly, I do not think the project has any merit in its own right.
An MX5 based car might be a better project. Even then I do question the reality of effecting a really good looking vaguely E type appearance project. Surely the wheelbase and width of both an MX5 and Triumph are fundamentally much smaller than the E type? Not my cup of tea anyway.
As others have said the body proportions are very suspect. In addition basing a kit car on an outmoded fifty year old design with notoriously suspect handling, seems to me absolutely lame brained. Just as suggesting a new kit on the VW Beetle chassis would be daft. At best.
I think this is ALL about avoiding the costs and difficulties of IVA. Frankly, I do not think the project has any merit in its own right.
An MX5 based car might be a better project. Even then I do question the reality of effecting a really good looking vaguely E type appearance project. Surely the wheelbase and width of both an MX5 and Triumph are fundamentally much smaller than the E type? Not my cup of tea anyway.
as its a rebody its not subject to IVA...this is the one and only advantage, imo....i also must agree: the base (spitfire) has quite a suspect handling.. the front double wishbone axle is fine...but that rear thing is not doing its job well.
its more or less similar the sammio design....a nice, sportive body...but on a totally un-sportive chassis incl. a very suspect handling!!
its more or less similar the sammio design....a nice, sportive body...but on a totally un-sportive chassis incl. a very suspect handling!!
Steffan said:
Surely the wheelbase and width of both an MX5 and Triumph are fundamentally much smaller than the E type.
The origial MX5 had a wheelbase very close to that of the D Type, about 0.8 of an inch less, later versions were bigger.Overall it is very close.
The triumph spitfire was about seven inches less.
Taste is personal: To some people this may be the bees knees, and the following should not be taken as criticism of anyone who likes this kit or of the designer. However, IMHO it should not be implied by anybody that this is anywhere near being related to a D type Jaguar, as it states in the Ebay advertisment. Dimensions, stance, bonnet & boot arrangements - all not just different, but not even faintly close. The original designer may have been influenced by the lines of Mr.Sayer's masterpiece, but I would be surprised if he has ever claimed that it was a replica of D type. It's just an interesting kit - as one contributor noted, a nice change from the usual 7-alikes.
If you want a vastly superior take on a GRP D type, talk to Adrian at Realm Engineering (realmengineering.com). However, it will cost you about 15 times as much!
If you want a vastly superior take on a GRP D type, talk to Adrian at Realm Engineering (realmengineering.com). However, it will cost you about 15 times as much!
greenrat said:
..... However, IMHO it should not be implied by anybody that this is anywhere near being related to a D type Jaguar, as it states in the Ebay advertisment. Dimensions, stance, bonnet & boot arrangements - all not just different, but not even faintly close.........
......If you want a vastly superior take on a GRP D type, talk to Adrian at Realm Engineering (realmengineering.com). However, it will cost you about 15 times as much!
fully agree!!!......If you want a vastly superior take on a GRP D type, talk to Adrian at Realm Engineering (realmengineering.com). However, it will cost you about 15 times as much!
but hey...there is a kind of retro design even with a seven possible. it combines retro-design AND good handling!!!:
but it seems not selling really well?
Edited by GinG15 on Monday 12th November 10:16
greenrat said:
GinG15 said:
fully agree!!!
but hey...there is a kind of retro design even with a seven possible. it combines retro-design AND good handling!!!:
but it seems not selling really well?
That's so bizarre I think I like it!but hey...there is a kind of retro design even with a seven possible. it combines retro-design AND good handling!!!:
but it seems not selling really well?
Edited by GinG15 on Monday 12th November 10:16
Seanick said:
Whist the early Triumph chassis with the transverse leaf did have issues when hard pressed, the last design, incorporating the swing spring solved 99% of those issues.
One can slide the back around with out any chance of tuck under. How fast do you want to go???
I'd agree with that, I've ragged a Mk3 around the lanes on many occasions and NEVER had a problem. Perhaps these people who have experienced it are driving overtyred cars?One can slide the back around with out any chance of tuck under. How fast do you want to go???
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff