My wife’s dream car in the early 1990s was a Spitfire. Thank god. ( she could have dreamt of a Ferrari ) And i searched for a good one for years. Back then, you saw them for sale all over for around $1500. And a surprising number of adverts ominously stated, “comes with spare Spitfire, for parts.” Which gave the impression they had already cannibalized the parts most likely to fail. I finally found a 1500 that the owner had done a pretty good restoration on. In near showroom condition for $3500. When i went to test drive it, it would not start because of a glitchy fuel pump. The guy said he had a new one to put in…but hadn’t got around to it yet, so he literally suck started the engine by having me turn the key while he pulled the fuel hose from the carb and sucked fuel then quickly shoved the hose onto the carb. It was a lot of fun to drive. Not super fast, but it sure Felt fast so close to the ground in so light a car with the wind in your hair. Alas, the car, the wife, and the hair are all long gone, now.
@@saleplains Bought a 2005 Audi TT Quattro with 3.2L DSG with paddle shifters and stability control. WAY faster than the Spitfire and a LOT more secure in cornering and flat out acceleration. Still have it. Best car I’ve ever owned. ironically enough… the Ex got the Spitfire in the divorce, but just a few years later she didn’t have it insured or registered because she wasn’t driving it, but her brother had told her to take it out and run it once a month just to keep in in working order. Unfortunately, she would “run it” by just putting it in the driveway, starting it, and letting it idle for half an hour. The upshot… it overheated, melted the fuel line and sprayed gasoline all over the overheated engine and she came outside to see her Spitfire literally Spitting Fire.
@@b8888whale Nah- her brother took the car and restored it again… that was decades ago, tho, I’m sure he’s sold it since then. Chances are someone else is struggling to keep it running now.
Great to see a Spitfire. I have a 'B but am always surprised how little you see about these - they are such good looking cars and should get more attention.
I had a '64 Spitty that I loved. It had the front bumper that was located lower on the front which made the grill more visible. I think that feature is much nicer than the later "raised" bumper that was a result of government mandates to try to make bumpers be at a regular height. The lower bumper made the front look more aggressive and gave the little car a shark-like stance. My car was a fun drive but was in great need of a total restoration so I ended up selling it because I just couldn't do the work and I was not in a stable work environment plus I couldn't leave it out because people would steal parts. I lost tail light lenses and even the generator and once someone took the new vinyl top but I really miss that car. One nice feature of my particular car was that I could put the soft top up and then roll the front flap back on the support frame and get a "T" top look with the back top still up. This also cut down on wind turbulence and in cold evenings helped maintain some heat for comfortable cruising. DAMN......I MISS THAT CAR!!
Sounds like a Mk1 or Mk2. The Mk2 was quite rare - not too many made - and was especially sought after as it still had the smaller (1147cc) engine of the Mk1, but with a multi-branch exhaust manifold and, I think, a sportier cam for more power at higher revs.
Having been an owner back in the day, I owned a Mk3 and a few years later a Mk4. My feelings are that the Mk3 1300 engine felt responsive for its time and it was a pretty car to look at, I did experience the rear tuck under and I seriously thought I was a goner. The Mk4 which also had a 1300 engine felt to me like it was detuned and throttle response was a disappointment, I toyed with the idea of putting in a dolomite sprint engine in it so I upgraded the rear drive shafts and installed the GT6 lower arms so could not comment on its road holding ability and yes the body styling was slick. in all the 3 and 4 were good in the day and the 1500 was probably getting there as a sports car.
mg's are tighter as they are unibody.... but god dam triumphs are so much sexier. i loved the spitfire so much i went out and bought one. hard to believe a car this slow can be so much fun to drive. in summer i use it to drive to work and it's the highlight of the work day. in a way i like midgets too more so than B's. B's seem more relaxed than a midget.... midget is a car that seems more hyper and tossable. but the spitfires looks just got to me.
I had a 71 Mk4 while at university...same color as this ^^ one and in just as good condition. It's my understanding that the Mk4 with it's lack of N. American pollution control gear and a higher compression ration had more HP than the 'Spit 1500.
We had one in the 80s and I'm afraid to say it was dreadful and it was in good nick. The ride and handling was all over the place and it felt weak and floppy. We changed to an (admittedly class above) MGB which felt vastly better (and even that had little real world Road- covering ability compared to our Renault 16 TS).
I had a Spitfire 1500 FH that I kept for 25 years. Great car. I traded it 10 years ago for an MGB. There is no way you can compare these two cars. The MGB is far more superior : Engine, trans, handling, performance... And again, I loved my Spit.
rusty, slow with terrible handling. In the wet they are lethal. MG had much better suspesion, a fair bit more power. Power and handling. The controversy is non existant. I would pre a Midget to a Spitfire due to the Midget's great handling.
I've owned both an MG Midget 1275 and a MkIV Spitfire. On the road, the Midget was the better car. The A-Series engine is much more revvy than the triumph lump, which is a little wheezy. The Midget also handles better and has better steering. Loved both cars, but they were very different, despite being competitors at the time. The Spitfire is the more comfortable/civilised of the two, but the Midget is more sporty.
I've had both too, and you're quite right. The MG Midget (Austin-Healey Sprite) was of monocoque construction, but with zero rustproofing in the box sections, and rotted from the inside from day 1. But a nice, stiff body, so handling was good. The Spitfire had a separate chassis and wasn't particularly rust-prone. Handled well enough, despite the slightly dodgy swing-axle independent rear suspension...
Nice to see a review on a Spit as most focus on MGs and other British brands. I've had my 1500 Spit for as good as 8 years and completed a full nut and bolt rebuild. Awesome to drive and super easy to work on. I actually had Joe follow me out of the nec classic motor show last month haha
Back in the 90's I was in the Air Training Corps and one of the officers drove, yes you've guessed it. He had a MK4 Spitfire. I've liked the look of the Spitfire and the the Herald and Vitesse fir a while.
Had a MK3. They were by far the best version looks wise. Great fun. Didn't have the rear axle problems but I think that was made worse by poor drivers. Very easy car to work on, rebuilt the engine. Didn't like the MK4, it lost the essence. They should have concentrated on launching a Spitfire 6 instead. As regards MG I tried a midget and couldn't fit in, even if I could get my legs in my head was above the windshield! The Spitfire was more civilised but the four pot MG engine was better but I don't think it could be stretched to 1500 easily?
Having driven and worked on one they are alot of fun for such a moderate engine.The engine and front suspension is literally naked with the bonnet up.With the hood down they are in old mini territory for pure fun and rear wheel drive always makes more fun to boot.Shame they rotted like pears in a puddle.
Had a Spitfire MK4 and MG Midget 3. The spit was the better looking of them more comfortable, but MG was much better on twisty roads. That rear suspension. . . . .
No, not better, just different. The Midget and the Spitfire have different characteristics - if anything, I find the Spitfire more exotic and novel than the Midget. But, it’s a superb looking car, novel construction - although based on the Herald’s slightly frightening rear suspension. The GT6 is the pick of the bunch for me - what a wonderful little thing that was! I still don’t quite understand why BL got rid of Triumph - the brand in my opinion would have made a great BMW competitor in the 80s and 90s.
Disregarding the composition of the transverse rear spring, the last of the 1300 MkIVs and the 1500s received a wider track and a negative camber (from about Feb 1973). This was a detour from the rubber doughnuts of the GT6 and Vitesse. I had a bit of fun with my Spitfire (with this spec) as a young man but never any issue with the tuck under rear axle. Upgrading mine from 1300 to 1500 with overdrive made a very welcome improvement. The back of a Spitfire is light. It is not good in snow. Snow bears almost directly on where you can drive it and whether you want to drive it. The steering lock is fabulous but I guess it can exert extra stresses on the kingpins. If in doubt, I would suggest the routine replacement of kingpins.
had one of these in 1990 which i restore over 2 years .. sold in 2010,, was rubbish them and rubbish now .. dangerous car with scuttle shake worst thatn a car crash.. get a gt6 if you really want one, miles better classics out there .. fond memories none the less
I've got a 76 TR6 and a 79 Spitfire and the TR6 is a better and nicer car in every way... except for the driving part. The cheap little Spitfire is hands down much more fun to drive. I see the TR6 as a real car and the Spitfire as a street legal go cart.
As a spit owner, the only real downside of these cars is the motor. They’re reliable enough, but for how fantastic the driving experience is, the engine feels a bit like a tractor. Die hards will swear by the older 1300 motors for higher output, but ultimately the spitfire’s motor simply leaves you wanting more. A spitfire with a lightweight twin cam would be the perfect sports car. Other than that though, there isn’t really a more chuckable car for the money. The balance and steering is so superb that rotating the car and catching it with the throttle is almost instinctual, and in a car so small going around a corner at even 40mph feels like light speed.
I had a '71 Mk IV, and it was great! Affordable, fun handling at modest speeds. And beautiful! Loved it! Not all that reliable, but it was always a pleasure sitting behind that wheel. Thank you for the review --- I may need to dig one up now and recapture those feelings :-)
I'd take a spitfire over an mg any day. Main reason being, it has a normal steel H-frame. That monocoque frame can be a royal pain in the arse to fix and work on.
Back in the day when I could drive a Spitfire from the dealership parking lot, the scary thing was that rear swing axel. It was deadly. Was that ever corrected? I would not buy one for fear of flipping the car. I did get a 1969 Datsun 2000 for $3,225 out the door. It handled very well once I put Perrelli radials on it.
I had a Datsun 1600. Loved it. My friend had a spitfire for a short time. I remember being behind him on a winding road and watching the tail end start hopping around when pushed. Scared me seeing it. Beautiful styling tho
@@FromTheNard Damn swing axel made the Spitfire dangerous and deadly. Why the Brits did that is beyond me. A solid axle would have made far more sense. Those early Datsun sports cars were great. I drove the heck out of it in the mountain roads between San Jose and San Francisco. Glad you enjoyed yours. BTW, I heard that the MBG body design was influenced by the Datsun 1600.
In the mid-seventies my Universty friend turned up for the new term with a used Spitfire. Invited to go for a day out in the car we set off into the countryside. By accident he turned into a cul-de-sac requiring us to turn around. Loose gravel had been recently laid and when he turned the steering wheel the car was so lightweight that it wouldn't follow the front wheels but ploughed forwards or back on the gravel. He was beginning to worry about how to get around when I got out to investigate. Seeing how the front wheels were "floating" over the gravel I did the only thing I could think of- I sat on the bonnet to add weight. We got the car turned around and had great fun riding about until sunset. It made a real impression on me how lightweight these roadsters were relative to the small sallon cars on the road at the time.
If only the the Triumph marque were still around today. Desirable cars of all types, e.g. Herald, Spitfire, 1300, Dolomite, 2000/2500. You could rely on them to be classy and understated rather than ostentatious or vulgar. Always a more interesting brand than Rover, to me anyway.
My first love was the MGA, even though it had been out of production for 15 years. The styling still captivates my imagination. But a very close second is the Triumph Spitfire.
These are now beginning to take traction price wise, the MK1 & 2 are really becoming quite sought after. I have to say the MK2 in white with red interior for me is the nicest looking of them all.
@@richardgraham1175 good to know. Still wouldn't mind taking one on a ride. I just got home from work in my '64 B roadster. It's 33 degrees F in Detroit and I can vouch for the reliability as well as the heater. 😆 Cheers.
Lovely little thing. And presumably if the GT6 was built on the same platform with that inline 6, conversions to straight six power should be relatively simple...
Yes - I have a GT6 convertible/Spitfire 6. Mine is a GT6 chassis with a Spitfire body - very smooth engine and plenty of torque. Wonderful noise from the engine. I have mine with a 3.27 diff and overdrive so very long legs and good on the motorway. Had it now for 24 years and continually doing things to it.
They nake a lovely car a merger of the GT6 and the Spit. I had a GT6 mk2, lived it, so wish I still had it. I've always liked the amalgamation name of "Gitfire" 😁
@@-triumphgt667 I really liked my GT6, and after the TR6 was quite happy not to have a soft-top! Surely you would need to mod the Spit body, though? isn't the GT6 chassis slightly longer? and wasn't the 3.27 ratio the stock GT6?
Fantastic car I has the 1300 mk4 and the 1500, the 1300 was magenta and the 1500 was mimosa great bonnet arrangement easy maintenance and good reliability
My dad had one in the 70s that he still talks about . I have a mk2.5 mx5 entry level 1.6 I love it! Its not the fastest but it drives and handles amazing
I bought a new Mk4 Spitfire in 1972. Loved it! It gave me a lifelong love of open 2-seat sports cars. I now have a (bought new) 2021 Soul Red MX5! But mine was an L reg 1972 car., 1200cc.This is a later 1300cc car - so why has it got a K reg? Or is it really a 1200? What a pity they never put the 6-pot into the lovely Spitfire. The saloon GT6 got it, where it was wasted!
I owned a yellow Spitfire MkIV 1300 in the early 1980s. Fun to drive. But rear suspension could be deadly, especially if the road surface wasn't perfectly dry. Front brakes also had a tendency to lock up. I got into trouble and scared myself a few times. I paid top dollar for mine, but it cost me what I paid again in repairs. 'Twas the only car I've owned that was a money pit. And my next car was a Mazda rotary! However, I still think they look great. Much roomier and nicer inside than a Midget. And with the front-hinged bonnet, like an E-Type, was very easy to maintain. Would I buy another? No! And I wouldn't be happy for my wife or child to drive one, either. You can also get something much better for the money, so no good reason to buy one.
I don't own car but I do like visually pleasing ones. This car is obviously such a one, pretty rather than handsome. I have always thought that the swing forward bonnet is a splendid idea. I also imagine that the chassis build means that the Spitfire is less susceptible to rusting.
The cills are a structural component. They will begin to rot at the wheel arches and when they cease to be closed off, the rust will travel along the cill. Failure means the car will sag and in extreme cases, trap the doors shut.
I owned two of these. One for street(MK-3) and a track(MK-2) only race prepped car. Much fun. i also had the Midget and also fun, but didn't have the handling of the Spit.
I had a 1969 Triumph Spitfire mark III in 1978. Vastly underpowered, extremely tippy in turns (I almost flipped it many times (no rollbar)). Luckly I was working in a gas station as it needed almost daily fixing (I pulled the tranny many times). It looked nice but it truly was a stinking POS! Kind of like a Fiat.
Fair enough if you are short enough to get into the car using half a door. Don't expect to take her out twice either, when the young lady rips her skirt on the hood irons as she tries to get in.
The spitfire should have had the gt6. Engine. Or the TR6 engine. Imagine 150 bhp in a car about half the weight of the TR 6. 130 mph and 0 to 60 in about 7 seconds. Not many cars at the time would catch it.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
My wife’s dream car in the early 1990s was a Spitfire. Thank god. ( she could have dreamt of a Ferrari ) And i searched for a good one for years. Back then, you saw them for sale all over for around $1500. And a surprising number of adverts ominously stated, “comes with spare Spitfire, for parts.” Which gave the impression they had already cannibalized the parts most likely to fail. I finally found a 1500 that the owner had done a pretty good restoration on. In near showroom condition for $3500. When i went to test drive it, it would not start because of a glitchy fuel pump. The guy said he had a new one to put in…but hadn’t got around to it yet, so he literally suck started the engine by having me turn the key while he pulled the fuel hose from the carb and sucked fuel then quickly shoved the hose onto the carb. It was a lot of fun to drive. Not super fast, but it sure Felt fast so close to the ground in so light a car with the wind in your hair. Alas, the car, the wife, and the hair are all long gone, now.
wow this comment was a rollercoaster. hope youve found new fun in one form or another.
@@saleplains Bought a 2005 Audi TT Quattro with 3.2L DSG with paddle shifters and stability control. WAY faster than the Spitfire and a LOT more secure in cornering and flat out acceleration. Still have it. Best car I’ve ever owned. ironically enough… the Ex got the Spitfire in the divorce, but just a few years later she didn’t have it insured or registered because she wasn’t driving it, but her brother had told her to take it out and run it once a month just to keep in in working order. Unfortunately, she would “run it” by just putting it in the driveway, starting it, and letting it idle for half an hour. The upshot… it overheated, melted the fuel line and sprayed gasoline all over the overheated engine and she came outside to see her Spitfire literally Spitting Fire.
@@christopherpardell4418 dang, the rollercoaster got even more radical after that comment
RIP 😔
@@b8888whale Nah- her brother took the car and restored it again… that was decades ago, tho, I’m sure he’s sold it since then. Chances are someone else is struggling to keep it running now.
What a pretty thing the Spit is. I had a yellow one many years back but I never managed to get it on the road. I've always promised myself another.
Great to see a Spitfire. I have a 'B but am always surprised how little you see about these - they are such good looking cars and should get more attention.
Great to work on, too. The whole front hinges forward for very easy access - you sit on a front wheel while you adjust the points and/or carburettors!
I had a '64 Spitty that I loved. It had the front bumper that was located lower on the front which made the grill more visible. I think that feature is much nicer than the later "raised" bumper that was a result of government mandates to try to make bumpers be at a regular height. The lower bumper made the front look more aggressive and gave the little car a shark-like stance.
My car was a fun drive but was in great need of a total restoration so I ended up selling it because I just couldn't do the work and I was not in a stable work environment plus I couldn't leave it out because people would steal parts. I lost tail light lenses and even the generator and once someone took the new vinyl top but I really miss that car.
One nice feature of my particular car was that I could put the soft top up and then roll the front flap back on the support frame and get a "T" top look with the back top still up. This also cut down on wind turbulence and in cold evenings helped maintain some heat for comfortable cruising.
DAMN......I MISS THAT CAR!!
Sounds like a Mk1 or Mk2. The Mk2 was quite rare - not too many made - and was especially sought after as it still had the smaller (1147cc) engine of the Mk1, but with a multi-branch exhaust manifold and, I think, a sportier cam for more power at higher revs.
@@dogsbodyish8403 yeah, it was the MK2 and had the 1147 4 banger with twin S.U.'s.
I have a 75 Mk 4 but makes an extra 40 hp with a celica engine. It’s a blast
Great Video. That said, I drove my first and last Spitfire yesterday. Good Lord. That swing axle is ridiculous. And dangerous. No thank you.
Having been an owner back in the day, I owned a Mk3 and a few years later a Mk4. My feelings are that the Mk3 1300 engine felt responsive for its time and it was a pretty car to look at, I did experience the rear tuck under and I seriously thought I was a goner. The Mk4 which also had a 1300 engine felt to me like it was detuned and throttle response was a disappointment, I toyed with the idea of putting in a dolomite sprint engine in it so I upgraded the rear drive shafts and installed the GT6 lower arms so could not comment on its road holding ability and yes the body styling was slick. in all the 3 and 4 were good in the day and the 1500 was probably getting there as a sports car.
mg's are tighter as they are unibody.... but god dam triumphs are so much sexier. i loved the spitfire so much i went out and bought one. hard to believe a car this slow can be so much fun to drive. in summer i use it to drive to work and it's the highlight of the work day. in a way i like midgets too more so than B's. B's seem more relaxed than a midget.... midget is a car that seems more hyper and tossable. but the spitfires looks just got to me.
I had a yellow one, when I was 17 , I feel sorry for youngsters now in there boring sensible cars
Couldn't agree more!
I had a magenta (purple) mk4 at 17. Brilliant fun
I had a 71 Mk4 while at university...same color as this ^^ one and in just as good condition. It's my understanding that the Mk4 with it's lack of N. American pollution control gear and a higher compression ration had more HP than the 'Spit 1500.
Especially Great handling lifting off in the corner when u had too much speed, I Love the Elan MGA n the Healy 3000
We had one in the 80s and I'm afraid to say it was dreadful and it was in good nick. The ride and handling was all over the place and it felt weak and floppy. We changed to an (admittedly class above) MGB which felt vastly better (and even that had little real world Road- covering ability compared to our Renault 16 TS).
I had a Spitfire 1500 FH that I kept for 25 years. Great car. I traded it 10 years ago for an MGB. There is no way you can compare these two cars. The MGB is far more superior : Engine, trans, handling, performance... And again, I loved my Spit.
Seating position? I liked the spit for its low seats - I tried a TR6 and TR7 but the Spitfire was more fun
@@dfddwm I am tall, 1m92. I am equally well seated in a Spitfire and a MGB. Awfully in a TR4.
I never think of the Stag when I think of British sports cars…
Definitely not better by any measure and I own a Herald 23/60. The spit is fun but an MGB is better all round.
Chick car .
rusty, slow with terrible handling. In the wet they are lethal. MG had much better suspesion, a fair bit more power. Power and handling. The controversy is non existant. I would pre a Midget to a Spitfire due to the Midget's great handling.
I've owned both an MG Midget 1275 and a MkIV Spitfire. On the road, the Midget was the better car. The A-Series engine is much more revvy than the triumph lump, which is a little wheezy. The Midget also handles better and has better steering. Loved both cars, but they were very different, despite being competitors at the time. The Spitfire is the more comfortable/civilised of the two, but the Midget is more sporty.
I've had both too, and you're quite right. The MG Midget (Austin-Healey Sprite) was of monocoque construction, but with zero rustproofing in the box sections, and rotted from the inside from day 1. But a nice, stiff body, so handling was good. The Spitfire had a separate chassis and wasn't particularly rust-prone. Handled well enough, despite the slightly dodgy swing-axle independent rear suspension...
Nice to see a review on a Spit as most focus on MGs and other British brands. I've had my 1500 Spit for as good as 8 years and completed a full nut and bolt rebuild. Awesome to drive and super easy to work on. I actually had Joe follow me out of the nec classic motor show last month haha
Back in the 90's I was in the Air Training Corps and one of the officers drove, yes you've guessed it. He had a MK4 Spitfire. I've liked the look of the Spitfire and the the Herald and Vitesse fir a while.
Had a MK3. They were by far the best version looks wise. Great fun. Didn't have the rear axle problems but I think that was made worse by poor drivers. Very easy car to work on, rebuilt the engine. Didn't like the MK4, it lost the essence. They should have concentrated on launching a Spitfire 6 instead. As regards MG I tried a midget and couldn't fit in, even if I could get my legs in my head was above the windshield! The Spitfire was more civilised but the four pot MG engine was better but I don't think it could be stretched to 1500 easily?
Love it, love it, love it, less is more. Thanks for another great video.
Thanks Neil!
Having driven and worked on one they are alot of fun for such a moderate engine.The engine and front suspension is literally naked with the bonnet up.With the hood down they are in old mini territory for pure fun and rear wheel drive always makes more fun to boot.Shame they rotted like pears in a puddle.
Had a Spitfire MK4 and MG Midget 3. The spit was the better looking of them more comfortable, but MG was much better on twisty roads. That rear suspension. . . . .
No, not better, just different. The Midget and the Spitfire have different characteristics - if anything, I find the Spitfire more exotic and novel than the Midget. But, it’s a superb looking car, novel construction - although based on the Herald’s slightly frightening rear suspension. The GT6 is the pick of the bunch for me - what a wonderful little thing that was! I still don’t quite understand why BL got rid of Triumph - the brand in my opinion would have made a great BMW competitor in the 80s and 90s.
I have the wheeler dealer spitfire and the engine has been rebuilt, I can’t wait till the spring and it’s back in Coventry where it was borne
Had one back in 80s...great little car..lost exhaust soon many times for bottoming out at speed..ha.😂
Yup, the pipes are a bit low...
Disregarding the composition of the transverse rear spring, the last of the 1300 MkIVs and the 1500s received a wider track and a negative camber (from about Feb 1973). This was a detour from the rubber doughnuts of the GT6 and Vitesse. I had a bit of fun with my Spitfire (with this spec) as a young man but never any issue with the tuck under rear axle. Upgrading mine from 1300 to 1500 with overdrive made a very welcome improvement. The back of a Spitfire is light. It is not good in snow. Snow bears almost directly on where you can drive it and whether you want to drive it. The steering lock is fabulous but I guess it can exert extra stresses on the kingpins. If in doubt, I would suggest the routine replacement of kingpins.
had one of these in 1990 which i restore over 2 years .. sold in 2010,, was rubbish them and rubbish now .. dangerous car with scuttle shake worst thatn a car crash.. get a gt6 if you really want one, miles better classics out there .. fond memories none the less
I've got a 76 TR6 and a 79 Spitfire and the TR6 is a better and nicer car in every way... except for the driving part. The cheap little Spitfire is hands down much more fun to drive. I see the TR6 as a real car and the Spitfire as a street legal go cart.
As a spit owner, the only real downside of these cars is the motor. They’re reliable enough, but for how fantastic the driving experience is, the engine feels a bit like a tractor. Die hards will swear by the older 1300 motors for higher output, but ultimately the spitfire’s motor simply leaves you wanting more.
A spitfire with a lightweight twin cam would be the perfect sports car.
Other than that though, there isn’t really a more chuckable car for the money. The balance and steering is so superb that rotating the car and catching it with the throttle is almost instinctual, and in a car so small going around a corner at even 40mph feels like light speed.
I had a '71 Mk IV, and it was great! Affordable, fun handling at modest speeds. And beautiful! Loved it! Not all that reliable, but it was always a pleasure sitting behind that wheel. Thank you for the review --- I may need to dig one up now and recapture those feelings :-)
I owned a TR4 and a spitfire, fun to drive but unreliable like all British cars I owned
My first car was a spitfire ( USC 196R ) it was originally Java green but was painted red when I bought it.
A Spitfire looks like it's moving even when it's standing still, an MG looks like it's standing still even when it's moving 🤣🤣
I'd take a spitfire over an mg any day. Main reason being, it has a normal steel H-frame. That monocoque frame can be a royal pain in the arse to fix and work on.
Prefer the Spitfire to the MGB... It doesn't have the image of a bearded owner and looks far more crisp modern...
Can't argue with that gorgeous styling!
Back in the day when I could drive a Spitfire from the dealership parking lot, the scary thing was that rear swing axel. It was deadly. Was that ever corrected? I would not buy one for fear of flipping the car. I did get a 1969 Datsun 2000 for $3,225 out the door. It handled very well once I put Perrelli radials on it.
I had a Datsun 1600. Loved it. My friend had a spitfire for a short time. I remember being behind him on a winding road and watching the tail end start hopping around when pushed. Scared me seeing it. Beautiful styling tho
@@FromTheNard Damn swing axel made the Spitfire dangerous and deadly. Why the Brits did that is beyond me. A solid axle would have made far more sense. Those early Datsun sports cars were great. I drove the heck out of it in the mountain roads between San Jose and San Francisco. Glad you enjoyed yours. BTW, I heard that the MBG body design was influenced by the Datsun 1600.
The MKIV Spitfire is such a gorgeous car - the best looking of the bunch in my opinion. Truly a timeless design.
In the mid-seventies my Universty friend turned up for the new term with a used Spitfire. Invited to go for a day out in the car we set off into the countryside. By accident he turned into a cul-de-sac requiring us to turn around. Loose gravel had been recently laid and when he turned the steering wheel the car was so lightweight that it wouldn't follow the front wheels but ploughed forwards or back on the gravel. He was beginning to worry about how to get around when I got out to investigate. Seeing how the front wheels were "floating" over the gravel I did the only thing I could think of- I sat on the bonnet to add weight. We got the car turned around and had great fun riding about until sunset. It made a real impression on me how lightweight these roadsters were relative to the small sallon cars on the road at the time.
The Spitfire had a tiny turning circle - on full lock, the front wheels would be nearly at 90 degrees!
Great review. I have a 71 mk4 as my 1st proper classic and I love it for most of the reasons you highlighted.
If only the the Triumph marque were still around today. Desirable cars of all types, e.g. Herald, Spitfire, 1300, Dolomite, 2000/2500. You could rely on them to be classy and understated rather than ostentatious or vulgar. Always a more interesting brand than Rover, to me anyway.
My first love was the MGA, even though it had been out of production for 15 years. The styling still captivates my imagination. But a very close second is the Triumph Spitfire.
Certainly couldn't go wrong with either one. Both are classic and gorgeous cars
I owned both, Spitfire was a great little car, the MGB GT I had remains the worst car I ever owned.
Minor point - the diff does not move with the swing spring. The diff is fixed and the spring pivots on top of it.
Yes
The beam axle casing is essentially acting as a structural component.
These are now beginning to take traction price wise, the MK1 & 2 are really becoming quite sought after. I have to say the MK2 in white with red interior for me is the nicest looking of them all.
I have MGBs but always wanted to drive a Spitfire. Thanks for the look.
Don't bother they look good but are really awful cars as was the Stag, stick to MGs
@@richardgraham1175 good to know. Still wouldn't mind taking one on a ride. I just got home from work in my '64 B roadster. It's 33 degrees F in Detroit and I can vouch for the reliability as well as the heater. 😆 Cheers.
Lovely little thing. And presumably if the GT6 was built on the same platform with that inline 6, conversions to straight six power should be relatively simple...
Indeed, several people have retrospectively built a 'Spitfire 6'
Yes - I have a GT6 convertible/Spitfire 6. Mine is a GT6 chassis with a Spitfire body - very smooth engine and plenty of torque. Wonderful noise from the engine. I have mine with a 3.27 diff and overdrive so very long legs and good on the motorway. Had it now for 24 years and continually doing things to it.
They nake a lovely car a merger of the GT6 and the Spit. I had a GT6 mk2, lived it, so wish I still had it. I've always liked the amalgamation name of "Gitfire" 😁
@@-triumphgt667 I really liked my GT6, and after the TR6 was quite happy not to have a soft-top! Surely you would need to mod the Spit body, though? isn't the GT6 chassis slightly longer? and wasn't the 3.27 ratio the stock GT6?
Fantastic car I has the 1300 mk4 and the 1500, the 1300 was magenta and the 1500 was mimosa great bonnet arrangement easy maintenance and good reliability
My dad had one in the 70s that he still talks about . I have a mk2.5 mx5 entry level 1.6 I love it! Its not the fastest but it drives and handles amazing
Think that car would have had a black plastic dash when new . Best one ever was the mk3. Most refined was the 1500.
The MK2 was the best looking in my opinion, that front end you couldn’t see with the MK3 as the bumper rise over the grill killed it.
Cool little car!
I bought a new Mk4 Spitfire in 1972. Loved it! It gave me a lifelong love of open 2-seat sports cars. I now have a (bought new) 2021 Soul Red MX5!
But mine was an L reg 1972 car., 1200cc.This is a later 1300cc car - so why has it got a K reg? Or is it really a 1200?
What a pity they never put the 6-pot into the lovely Spitfire. The saloon GT6 got it, where it was wasted!
Bought this car France exactly the same got it for 30 years then left to USA got Corvette 1981 , also got TR3 and TR4 loved British cars at this time
My 1st car was a 1964 triumph spitfire in 1966. It wasn't fast; 0 to 60 in 11 or 13 sec., but it really handled well.
I owned a yellow Spitfire MkIV 1300 in the early 1980s. Fun to drive. But rear suspension could be deadly, especially if the road surface wasn't perfectly dry. Front brakes also had a tendency to lock up. I got into trouble and scared myself a few times. I paid top dollar for mine, but it cost me what I paid again in repairs. 'Twas the only car I've owned that was a money pit. And my next car was a Mazda rotary! However, I still think they look great. Much roomier and nicer inside than a Midget. And with the front-hinged bonnet, like an E-Type, was very easy to maintain. Would I buy another? No! And I wouldn't be happy for my wife or child to drive one, either. You can also get something much better for the money, so no good reason to buy one.
Little beauty
Poor respray, but interesting video
I noticed that. More "Orange Peel" than a Satsuma.
Theorange peel is anti stone chip paint - quite a common addition to the lower flanks of classics.@@garysimpson3900
Better than a MG? Definitely better looking, roomer etc in fact the MG Midget would have been scrapped if they hadn’t of put a Spitfire engine in it.
These things cost $30k plus in Australia which is approaching £20k
Oh ! Try going round a corner !,,, MGB is my preferred choice !
It was better than the MG brands
I don't own car but I do like visually pleasing ones. This car is obviously such a one, pretty rather than handsome. I have always thought that the swing forward bonnet is a splendid idea. I also imagine that the chassis build means that the Spitfire is less susceptible to rusting.
The cills are a structural component. They will begin to rot at the wheel arches and when they cease to be closed off, the rust will travel along the cill. Failure means the car will sag and in extreme cases, trap the doors shut.
Many thanks! I learned something from you. @@jonathanlewis453
Rust never sleeps ...😳
Not better than an MGA
I owned two of these. One for street(MK-3) and a track(MK-2) only race prepped car. Much fun. i also had the Midget and also fun, but didn't have the handling of the Spit.
I had a 1969 Triumph Spitfire mark III in 1978.
Vastly underpowered, extremely tippy in turns (I almost flipped it many times (no rollbar)).
Luckly I was working in a gas station as it needed almost daily fixing (I pulled the tranny many times).
It looked nice but it truly was a stinking POS! Kind of like a Fiat.
The Spit is definitely better than a Spridget or MGB; but only in GT6 form! (ok, I'm biased, once a straight six owner , you can't go back)
They definitely handled better than MGB's
Disagree. The Midget is much prettier to my eye, largely because of the horrid panel gaps in the spitfire, so large you can get your arm through them!
Fair enough if you are short enough to get into the car using half a door.
Don't expect to take her out twice either, when the young lady rips her skirt on the hood irons as she tries to get in.
The spitfire should have had the gt6. Engine. Or the TR6 engine. Imagine 150 bhp in a car about half the weight of the TR 6. 130 mph and 0 to 60 in about 7 seconds. Not many cars at the time would catch it.
Didn't handle, didn't go and rusted like buggery. I'll take the 1275 Midget thanks.