• 

  March 24, 2010 10:08 p.m. Art Fanter None

  In my new May issue, Peter Brock wrote about the "most archaic of all the cars it raced against". I have to agree, but I ran one in DP and it was very competitive. We had the close ratio gear sets and the engine was superlative. We kept it down to 8000 rpm and we could pull the 2.2 liter (or more) six cylinder Triumphs down the straight. For the rest, it cooled and stopped; what else did you need? It was also easy to work on. We couldn't afford to run a lot, but we did well when we could.

• 

  March 25, 2010 1:52 p.m. tuna55 HalfDork

  You know, I was wondering about that too. Specifically he mentioned the track/wheelbase ratio. Then he mentioned the 240Z as being far superior, apparently in this regard. I looked up the numbers.

  WB: 240Z 90.7", 2000 89.8"

  Track F/R: 240Z 53.3/53.0, 2000 50.2"/47.2"

  So the rear is narrow, but not hugely so. Fender flares can easily take up that disparity. Wasn't that allowed, such that the two could be basically identical? I was confused, as I always thought those care did fairly well, especially given their slick transmissions and ample power for the age.

• 

  March 31, 2010 9:25 a.m. wcelliot Reader

  I always thought the engine was head and shoulders above anything in its class while the chassis, etc was not as good as the average (which were rather archaic themselves). The engine is what made it competitive IMO...

• 

  March 31, 2010 10:37 a.m. Tom Heath Marketing / Club Coordinator

  I've got a very soft spot in my heart for the Datsun Roadster. This one looked like a lot of fun at the 2010 SCCA Dixie National Tour autocross. He won the class by a pretty solid margin against a field of newer Miatas.

  

  I tried drag racing, but kept blowing the apex for turn 2... Xbox Live gamertag— GRM Tom

You'll need to log in to post.