Escadrille Ecosse Posted July 25 Posted July 25 8 minutes ago, andymcp said: At this point, I should confess I built a Lomax 224 in the 90's! Which was my daily driver for 2 years. Quite liked the Lomax mainly on acount of it being bonkers. Well done for using it as a daily driver! Almost went down the Marlin route, but in the end I built the glassfibre Spitfire six on account of being slightly more practical.
andymcp Posted July 25 Posted July 25 Sold the Lomax to a teacher in Scotland who had a collection of microcars (he wanted something more practical). I later saw it on TV in a local news feature whilst visiting my SIL in Edinburgh. It's still registered. The proceeds funded a 1500 Spitfire.
Escadrille Ecosse Posted July 25 Posted July 25 10 minutes ago, andymcp said: (he wanted something more practical)
PaulAA Posted July 25 Posted July 25 23 hours ago, Escadrille Ecosse said: Which may actually be more attractive than the Spartan I'll second that opinion. John's acquisition set me searching for a period kit car that (a) didn't look like a kit car, and (b) looked as if somebody had given some thought to the design. Aside from the Lotus/Caterham 7, it's astonishing how many companies set about turning half- (and more than half-) decent production cars into assorted carbuncles, monstrosities and Frankenstein's monsters. Some of them even make the Spartan look reasonable. 1
JohnD Posted July 25 Author Posted July 25 (edited) Oh, dear! I rather like the look of the Spartan! It's no carbuncle! And surely I'm not alone? Someone above said that over 4000 kits were sold. Sure, many more Sevens/Caterhams/Westfields, but how many Lomaxes/Marlins? John Edited July 25 by JohnD
Escadrille Ecosse Posted July 25 Posted July 25 8 minutes ago, JohnD said: And surely I'm not alone? Someone above said that over 4000 kits were sold. Sure, many more Sevens/Caterhams/Westfields, but how many Lomaxes/Marlins? The 4000 is for all the various kits from Spartan cars not just this one John although this is was the most popular model. The three biggest selling points for the kit were that is was quite well engineered, there was a pretty comprehensive set of components available and it was quite cheap. All of which made it quite easy to build. I strongly suspect that this was the main sales driver rather than looks given how difficult and/or expensive many other contemporary kits were.
andymcp Posted July 25 Posted July 25 It also helped if the chosen donors body had a propensity to dissolve before the mechanicals were completely clapped out.
mossmonaco Posted July 25 Posted July 25 I was originaly planning on building a Marlin-quite well engineered and elegant |(to my eyes). https://forum.retro-rides.org/thread/227043/1982-marlin-roadster-1275-somerset the windscreen surround looks a little 'heavy' but by design its strong enough to act as a roll hoop. then the Burlington Arrow was tempting (they didnt sell a kit, they sold plans) It managed to look right whilst having no compound curves except for the fibreglass radiator surround and the (standard trailer) steel mudgueards. The body was assembled from marine ply, skinned with thin ally I bought a set of plans.... https://www.bidspotter.co.uk/en-gb/auction-catalogues/gwa-auctioneers/catalogue-id-gw10254/lot-5195f1ec-a54b-41cc-b698-af8e00c402e5 then I saw the Moss Monaco, spent a fortune on new beefed up 3.27 diff, new beefed up gearbox and tuned 2.5 engine on webers, scrapped my rusting GT6 mk 2 and bolted on the glass fibre bodyshell (all 50lb of it) expecting it to have good acceleration. No windscreen, no softtop, no hardtop, no heater. It was my daily transport for quite a few years. It turned out that I was correct about the acceleration, but over 120 the wind buffeting was tiresome 1
Nick Jones Posted July 25 Posted July 25 4 hours ago, mossmonaco said: but over 120 the wind buffeting was tiresome Only over 120? Your fur must be very well attached ….
mossmonaco Posted July 25 Posted July 25 50 minutes ago, Nick Jones said: Only over 120? Your fur must be very well attached …. not anymore! 3
JohnD Posted August 11 Author Posted August 11 HA! And double HA! To the doomsayers above who said I'd never sell it. I have a buyer for the Spartan! He's new to Triumphs, already has a "Frazer Nash-ish" special, and is in a very useful business (not motor cars). I'll not say any more about him, wouldn't be fair, but I'll encourage him to come here and tell us how he gets on when I deliver the car tomorrow. Halleluia! Another soul car saved from the burning! John 1
Hamish Posted August 11 Posted August 11 (edited) John hope you are a dog lover, be nice to the Labrador with the special harness. And don’t trip over the blokes white stick. congrats on the sale Edited August 11 by Hamish 2
JohnD Posted August 11 Author Posted August 11 Hmmmmm,yes. He has bought it sight unseen, but for a song. My intent was to find someone who would use it, either to restore or in some other way. I couldn't. But mission accomplished! John
Escadrille Ecosse Posted August 11 Posted August 11 Great result John To be fair I think our comments were more about the Spartan's inherant ugly sister properties rather than the likelihood of you managing to shift the thing. Sight unseen. As Hamish aludes, one can only hope you have the money and he doesn't bring his guide dog with him when he comes to collect it But well done for saving the beastie. 1
JohnD Posted August 12 Author Posted August 12 No probs! I took it to him, for the cost of transport, and he paid up in cash, natch. I am the Arfur Daley of Triumph! 1 2
andymcp Posted August 13 Posted August 13 Perhaps he mis-read tadvert and thinks he's collecting a Sparta! images.jfif
PaulAA Posted August 14 Posted August 14 John, just stumbled across this fellow traveller: https://www.thefrenchspartan.com/ According to his Instagram feed, he's touring the UK at this very moment! Paul
TimBancroft Posted August 15 Posted August 15 Fair play...but my word, they really are ugly. Still our French cousins love a Citroen Dyane and that is an ugly car, so if any particular race is going to like them..... I just don't get it though.
PaulAA Posted August 15 Posted August 15 Tim, I think you're on thin ice there I would suggest that we British are world champions in automotive fugliness, both directly and indirectly. As well as the kit car mayhem, we export the madness to other countries - Ken Greenley, who designed most of the Ssangyong horrors, is responsible for some of the ugliest car designs the world has ever seen. 1
Escadrille Ecosse Posted August 15 Posted August 15 13 minutes ago, PaulAA said: Ken Greenley, who designed most of the Ssangyong horrors Ssangyong always made me think of Kaa in the original Disney film Trusst in mee, jusst in mee... Which is still one of my all time favourite films. In spite of some revisionists trying to manufacutre an issue to put the story onto the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. I digress... 2
RedRooster Posted August 15 Posted August 15 All of which makes the Ssangyong Rodius, voted "The World's Ugliest Car" on a British website last year, something of a puzzle. The Rodius, you see, was designed by Ken Greenley. Imagine a minivan exposed to toxic levels of radiation, and it would probably mutate into something like the Rodius. This giant Korean-built seven seater features a gaping fish-mouth grille and a bizarre roofline that looks like someone built a glassed-in porch on the back of the Jestons' house. There is some Mercedes-Benz DNA buried deep within the Rodius, a legacy of DCX's early 1990s fling with Ssangyong, but no-one's going to want to get close enough to find out. Ken Greenley's designed a number of other Ssangyong vehicles, including some SUVs. None is as awful looking as the Rodius. Thankfully.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now