Which ones would fit for starters, gearstick position would be second, I'd suppose. Originality / usability.
It really depends if it will be a keeper or sell on later. Do you want to open the bonnet to impress?
I'd suggest you go and see Gerry before you plan to much and discuss options. You may get something in your head that turns out to be a none starter. JMHO
Hello - New member, Kent
- StewbieC
- T289R Committee
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:50 pm
- Location: out in the sticks, Shropshire
Re: Hello - New member, Kent
________________________________________________
Stu
Hawk 289, 66 Mustang Fastback with a 289 maximum smiles per mile..
Stu
Hawk 289, 66 Mustang Fastback with a 289 maximum smiles per mile..
-
- Posts: 2077
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:20 pm
- Location: Leicestershire, UK
- Contact:
Re: Hello - New member, Kent
Many people embark on a project like this with a mindset of not being too bothered about originality, but many (most?) of them, certainly on this forum, end up wanting it to be far closer to original than they initially intended. Part of the enjoyment of these cars is the period feel, which is a world apart from the vast majority of modern daily drivers.
Paul
Paul
Re: Hello - New member, Kent
Hi, Richard,
I echo Paul's and Stewbie's comment above. If you like the sleek sided Ace shape then getting down to Hawk cars will be the best place to start. I'm sure Gerry can advise what 0-60 time a 2.5 straight six will give you.
A newer BMW engine would of course provide potentially more performance and economy than an older Triumph unit but then it would not look very period when you lift the bonnet.
All depends on your priorities.
I built my Hawk Cobra with a 4.6 Rover V8 engine to save 80kgs in weight following advice at the time. It didn't take long to wish that I had used a Ford V8 as per the original Cobra. E.g. Note Paul's comment.
Peter C
I echo Paul's and Stewbie's comment above. If you like the sleek sided Ace shape then getting down to Hawk cars will be the best place to start. I'm sure Gerry can advise what 0-60 time a 2.5 straight six will give you.
A newer BMW engine would of course provide potentially more performance and economy than an older Triumph unit but then it would not look very period when you lift the bonnet.
All depends on your priorities.
I built my Hawk Cobra with a 4.6 Rover V8 engine to save 80kgs in weight following advice at the time. It didn't take long to wish that I had used a Ford V8 as per the original Cobra. E.g. Note Paul's comment.
Peter C
Re: Hello - New member, Kent
Cheers - noted.
Thank you to everyone who has replied on this thread.
Thank you to everyone who has replied on this thread.
Re: Hello - New member, Kent
Hi Richard, I'm a new member too, just ordered the 289 body, with Ace sides as described above and can't wait. Gerry is very helpful and of course knowledgeable and helped a lot with spec etc. I can't say much about the build experience yet but wish you good luck with your decision.
Regards
Ken
Ken
- Roger King
- Posts: 4396
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:29 pm
- Location: St Ives, Cambs
Re: Hello - New member, Kent
Be warned - this can be a very expensive journey.Paul Blore wrote:Many people embark on a project like this with a mindset of not being too bothered about originality, but many (most?) of them, certainly on this forum, end up wanting it to be far closer to original than they initially intended. Part of the enjoyment of these cars is the period feel, which is a world apart from the vast majority of modern daily drivers.
Paul
Personally, I think that Ford-engined Hawk Ace that Nik posted is the best option I've ever seen. It really hits all the right bells. The Triumph would come a reasonably close second, with the added advantage of cost and overdrive options etc. I personally wouldn't use a BMW engine - I'd buy a Z4 instead. I don't want my classic fun sportscars to purr like an electronically-controlled modern which I can't fix without a laptop.