With a name like Spitfire, you’d expect it to look a bit fierce and even intimidating. But most of them are nicely restored drivers with wood-rimmed steering wheels and seat covers made from the wool coats of English sheep. Not this one: a 1979 Triumph Spitfire has turned up at one of our favorite sellers of donation vehicles here on eBay and to say it looks ready for a stunt double role in Mad Max is an understatement. It’s also cheap: bidding is at $320 with just over a day left.
The camouflage paint job has aged better than expected, but the rest of the car needs plenty of work. The old-school California blue plates provide some context for how long this Spitfire has been sitting. It doesn’t currently run, for one because it has no battery and for another, the seller notes there is obvious damage to the wiring – presumably the wiring that feeds the engine harness. And as seen in this photo and the one above, the top is rough and needs replacement.
Engine-wise, we don’t know much other than a rudimentary hole has been carved into the hood to aid with breathing, I guess? Due to not having a battery and the aforementioned wire harness issues, there’s no way to tell if this one has any chance of running again. But as our own Josh Mortensen showed us a few years ago, dropping a new replacement motor into a Spitfire can be done in your own garage, should this one prove to be past the point of repair.
Surprisingly, the interior looks quite tidy with bucket seats showing clean, untorn upholstery and a sharp three-spoke steering wheel. The floors appear solid as well. Spitfires aren’t worth huge money even in restored condition, so my guess is this one will sell well under $1K. With some indications that it’s been cared for – and other signs it just became someone’s blank canvas – the next direction for this Spitfire is a mystery. Is it a parts car or restoration candidate?
My good God. The top appears to be made out of a shower curtain, and I’m not being facetious.
Yeah, that was my first thought as well. It could also use a few zombie spikes and maybe a decorative skill or two to be complete.
After looking closer I realized the top was real. Got the back corner opera window thingies. Got snaps along the bottom edge. The only thing missing is the absorbent cotton towel to wipe off the sweat if you are sitting in the car with that top on if it is a day the sun is shining. It’s gonna get toasty warm fast.
Ah, it’s the old Colin Chapman philosophy: “Simplify and add lightness.” The top is both simple and light. Attractive? Not really.
With a v6 and Tinny brakes, just get more life insurance and your wife will say “go for it”. Maybe add brakes and a hood from a GT6.
You won’t have to worry about the brakes, this thing will never pass the smog inspection needed to register the car so it can be driven on public roads.
Steve R
Looks like somebody put a V6 in it – not sure which one. :|
Just a side note that I didn’t see made clear — that is not a Spitfire engine. (edit, apparently there were three of us saying similar things at the same time :-))
That looks like an early Chevrolet 2.8L V6, like out of an early 80’s S10 or Camaro. I imagine it needs to be completely re-wired.
I saw one with a V8 in it. It was parked In the street at a house. I assume it ran but I didn’t see it running personally. I like radical stuff like that though It had headers and side pipe kinda of like a baby Cobra
Look up Triumph Stag. “Fancy” hardtop spitfire with a V8 from the factory. :)
v6 ford probably capri 2800 74-76 vintage. where’s the radiator? also, looks like maybe the oil filter is sitting on the frame. do you suppose it ever ran in this configuration? could be pinto, as they used a right angle filter adaptor to point it down vs the capri which came straight off the block.
Did Pintos come with a v6? I don’t recall ever seeing one. I remember 4s in them and they were extremely slow. If I ever drove one with a v6 it would have changed my thoughts about them which weren’t very good at the time
I sent the seller a note about the V6 swap. The engine looks to me like one of the V6s that Ford made in the late ’70s/early ’80s. The carb is the tip-off, unless that’s been swapped, too.
Someone gave up early – didn’t even TRY to solve the radiator problem.
And, Spits don’t need V6s. My buddy Bill owned and autocrossed a nice ’79. He posted some really good times with that car and embarrassed quite a few upmarket sports cars.
I used to autocross a Spitfire. Trust me, the Spitfire didn’t embarrass a few upmarket sports cars. Your friend Bill, and his driving skills, embarrassed a few upmarket sports cars.
Chomp chomp..too close to crusher. Go ahead and feed it!
I have heard that a good engine swap for these little cars is to yank that big lump of v6, and install one of those nice little Inline 4s that Standard and British Leyland used to make. Slots right in, and gives good power for such a little car.
Reluctantly, I may have to stop following this site. Lately, most of the cars that pop up in my daily email notifications are ridiculous (like this one), ugly, uninteresting and not desirable. Please focus on the good stuff, guys. There must be real barn finds out there waiting for you share!
Thanks.
I like the way the ad says “4 cylinder engine” when this thing has a V6.. This thing would never smog in CA, which is probably why it is not driven.
I once saw a Spitfire with a Honda S2000 engine and trans. It looked scary fast.
pinto’s did come with a v6. the 2800 from the mustang ll. they only came with an automatic. my son had one in a ’75 hatchback. pretty quick for a kid. they were available from ’75 til the end ’80 i guess. the engine sat just a little to the right, which may be why they had an oil filter right angle adaptor.
I say, ol’ chap, there’s a bloomin’ ‘ole in yer bonnet. Looks like someone didn’t measure too carefully. If that is the Ford V6, a poor choice for power. Must have got it for nothing.
If it sells for under $1000.00 you could easily make a profit parting it out, regardless of how it was cobbled together or what engine it has in it. .
The top looks like it’s made from tinfoil, to keep out the cosmic rays.
The original Spitfire motor from 1975 – 1980 was a modified 1300cc engine, enlarged to 1493 cc, resulting in the Spitfire 1500. Horsepower was rated at 71 and the torque rating was improved. With the Marina gearbox the Spitfire 1500 was able to break the 100 mph barrier. These cars weighed a little over 1,800 lbs., the power-to-weight ratio made these little cars pretty nimble.
Back in the early’70s, I was driving one of these knuckle-draggers and ran over a cat; front and rear tire. Thump – thump! The cat just ran off, apparently unhurt. I would source a stock motor and keep it original. 71 HP is enough to have fun with in a car that light and with fuel consumption of 22 city/33 highway, it would be cheap fun.
And if you simply must have a 6, at least use the motor from a GT6. That at least comes close to fitting without major structural rearrangements.
That is a Ford V6. Telltale EGR Valve and sensor. But I am confused as to which year. And the valve covers don’t look like 2.8 I suspect the last year of the Colonge engine. (1984?)
Part of the reason for the offset to the right is the thermostat housing sticking out to the left. It gets in the way of everything. ( I put one in my MGB with a T5 5 speed) It would have been easier to install a 3.8 than the 2.8. ( assuming you are sticking with a Ford motor)
Could the top have been made clear for use in the movies? A rolling camera dolly could have followed this car or the driver during stunts, or a camera mounted on one of the top bows, or CGI used later to make the scene look like the top was down. Just spitballin’ here.