FS LaDawri 'Del Mar' 50s kit car body for TR3/4 chassis

[John Bayer]

SOLD - thanks, AACA'ers! 

 

I have a 1963 LaDawri Del Mar - a kit car body produced in the late 50s/early 60s in Costa Mesa, CA, from a 20 year slumber in a heated garage.

Info here: https://www.undiscoveredclassics.com/forgotten-fiberglass/la-dawri-coachcrafts-1963-catalog-a-feast-for-your-fiberglass-eyes/

 

This one fits TR3/4 and other cars with a wheelbase around 88"...in this case, it's been bonded to a TR3 tub, which needs some work; the trunk is solid as well as firewall 

and that area, and I'm including full-length new Roadster Factory TR3 floorboards, which will fix 95% of the rest.

 

I'm sure some of the bonding work needs to be readdressed and the doors need hung, but have been adapted for the TR3 hinges and posts(?) which I believe are bonded in as part of the tub.

 

Ready for your trailer...

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by John Bayer
SOLD (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

That's a great deal, is should sell in a blink. You are way too far away to be interested. Always been partial to them, the original designer/  builder was from my area.

 

Greg in Canada

[mike6024]

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Very cool for a TR owner whose got a rusty body but solid frame

 

[B Jake Moran]

1 hour ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

Very cool for a TR owner whose got a rusty body but solid frame

 

Usually it’s both!  But there are a few frames around and most importantly you can buy a brand new frame anyway.  TR3s and 4s are well supported 

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Yes I had a TR-6 years ago.  Minor rust but still a great, very under rated car.  Sold it locally in 91 for around $4k, guy must have put 10k in it, only time a buyer ever bothered to "come by when I finish it".  I like the earlier TRs but never got back around to one.  I have seen several here in CT with sound frames and toast for a body, MG is worse though being essentially a unibody.

 

AACA I would think would have a class this would fit into, seems more interesting, historically significant to me  than a later factory replicar which are now recognized.

 

[Zimm63]

Interesting, but why?

 

TR3 and 4s are very pretty cars as they are.

 

 

[1912Staver]

In many climates they aged quickly. Rust and general deterioration. Ripped seats and tops. By the time they were several years old they were very cheap on the used car market. A fiberglass body seemed like a quick and practical solution, but a minimized by the marketing dept. ton of work.

More than a few beater sports cars in my youth.

Greg in Canada

[mike6024]

How about putting it on a triumph spitfire, those are ugly anyway

 

 

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/d/sparks-1978-triumph-spitfire/7123788943.html

 

[nick8086]

I sold a part for this car..

[1912Staver]

9 hours ago, mike6024 said:

How about putting it on a triumph spitfire, those are ugly anyway

 

 

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/d/sparks-1978-triumph-spitfire/7123788943.html

 

 

Spitfire frames don't work well with aftermarket body's . They are too integrated with the Spitfire and GT 6 body shell to be adapted to something else unless you use most of the Spitfire body shell as well.

Also apart from the excellent front suspension parts and steering rack, as used on countless Lotus models and purpose built racing cars { all the way up to Formula 1 } of the 1960's and 70's , Spitfires are fairly underwhelming mechanically.

 

TR 3 and 4 frames are a better starting point, particularly the TR 4 with rack and pinion steering. TR 3 's use a conventional steering box .

 

Greg             Spitfire                                                     

 

      TR4,  { non I.R.S.}, TR 3 is quite similar

Edited May 21, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Funny I have always thought a car styled exactly like the little Spit but bigger than a TR, with a nice 6 would have been a great looking car.  

[1912Staver]

Triumph developed the GT 6 from the Spitfire. Which was developed from the largely unloved { North America at least } Herald / Vitesse.  Both the Spitfire and GT 6 were simple , somewhat lovable cars let down by pretty inadequate mechanicals, build quality and general Engineering execution.

But the general concept had a lot of merit. Datsun took the concept; worked out the many shortcomings of Triumph's attempt, and came up with a true winner. The 240Z ! The "Z" had a few shortcomings of its own, mostly related to body rust and low durability vinyl in the interior. But otherwise

a true milestone car.  The only thing Datsun missed was offering both a GT version { the 240 Z as we all know it}, and a roadster version along the lines of Triumph's Spitfire. Some have been built by enthusiasts but Datsun missed a big sales opportunity in my opinion.

Other than being a cheap and moderately cheerful , entry level sports car. The Triumph versions don't have a lot to recommend them for.

 

 

 

Greg in Canada

[bryankazmer]

I'd say the 240Z was targeted one step above the Spitfire/Spridget and more like the MGB/TR.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

18 hours ago, bryankazmer said:

I'd say the 240Z was targeted one step above the Spitfire/Spridget and more like the MGB/TR.

I admire the early Z cars and hate them at the same time for killing off the MG and TRs.  Not Doing a roadster was a miss for sure, mazda proved that.

 

Wonder if seller has had interest in this one?

[John Bayer]

On 5/19/2020 at 9:43 AM, Steve_Mack_CT said:

Very cool for a TR owner whose got a rusty body but solid frame

 

Thanks, Steve.  It will fit a TR6 as well, which would make for a great power-to-weight ratio! 

Also an aluminum block Buick/Olds/Rover V8 has been fitted to early TRs, so that gives potential in the engine area, as well as keeping it to the era.

 

Thanks,
John

[1912Staver]

Personally I would stay with a solid axle TR frame. The TR 4 I.R.S. / TR 6 rear set up isn't really a step forward except producing a softer ride. Trailing arm rear ends { with diagonal rear arm pivots } like the TR set up produce a fair bit of rear axle " steer " when on and off the gas in a corner.

You get used to it eventually, but less than optimal handling.  TVR used the same basic mechanical parts { diff , 1/2 shafts } with their own geometry, hub carriers , control arms to much better effect. TR diff's are on the weak side, any of the more powerful TVR engine options

substituted a Salisbury { Jag style } diff for the Triumph unit found in the smaller engine, base model cars. 

By staying with a TR4 frame you can always swap in something like a Mustang 2 or Capri rear end that can live with  the aluminum V8 torque. People do put V8's in TR 6's but it usually does not take long to figure out where the weak links in the chain are.

A TR6 and a TR 250 as well as 3 TVR's in my past. The TVR's win hands down in my mind as far as chassis engineering is concerned.  TR 6 based components but used much more correctly.

Greg in Canada

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[John Bayer]

Thanks, Greg.  Solid advice; I had a friend that experienced the challenges with the 6 when he installed a 350 Chev.  Ended up with a narrowed Ford 9 inch for diff...and there are quite a few TR4s with aluminum V8s, indeed a more straight-forward job.

Edited May 23, 2020 by John Bayer (see edit history)