markat Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/332720751957?ViewItem=&item=332720751957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenh Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 No idea, but I'm confused by the registration date. It says first regd. Jan 1970. But that is some years before Westfield was founded! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markat Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 hmm does seem a bit weird. thionk i might give that one a miss as it's the earlier engine too...... thanks for the reply @stephenh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6carjon Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 I think that is an error as the other details check out as 2001 and the registration. It looks ok except some key pictures are missing such as underbonnet photos and few details of suspension or close ups of the chassis and running gear that can show road rash. If it's close you can always go see in the flesh if you like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 The YouTube links do include some underbonnet stuff. Would rather see proper photos as well though. The filmed underbonnet looks ok ish, but can’t see details in close up properly without photos to say, yeah that looks good, or just OK. Likewise, it talks about having AP brakes, but lacks photo details. The other thing I would comment on, is that there is a good reason, many of those early Fire blade engined cars are aeroscreened and quite stripped out: its to make the best use of the engine/transmission’s characteristics. That particular car seems to have been built very much to the builders “ideal spec” (much as my own car is ), but that spec isn’t necessarily making best use of the Fireblade. Things like the screen, both it’s weight and the major air brake effect it has as you get over 70 mph, then just little things like the GRP boot lid arrangement, heavy style seats and extra interior trim, all add varying amounts of weight, and making the best performers of the Megablade cars was all about lots of small weight reductions. (The common consensus being, back in the day, that if you wanted a BEC that was a better compromise for a slightly heavier, more comfy/touring version, but still blisteringly quick, go for the Megabusa instead, with the extra power and torque). That said, if the build is a good one, it can always be worth giving the car a try, as while cars built to such particular requirements tend to be very Marmite cars, if you’re one of the small number that also likes the combination of features, you’re on to a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markat Posted July 22, 2018 Author Share Posted July 22, 2018 On 21/07/2018 at 00:14, Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Secretary said: The YouTube links do include some underbonnet stuff. Would rather see proper photos as well though. The filmed underbonnet looks ok ish, but can’t see details in close up properly without photos to say, yeah that looks good, or just OK. Likewise, it talks about having AP brakes, but lacks photo details. The other thing I would comment on, is that there is a good reason, many of those early Fire blade engined cars are aeroscreened and quite stripped out: its to make the best use of the engine/transmission’s characteristics. That particular car seems to have been built very much to the builders “ideal spec” (much as my own car is ), but that spec isn’t necessarily making best use of the Fireblade. Things like the screen, both it’s weight and the major air brake effect it has as you get over 70 mph, then just little things like the GRP boot lid arrangement, heavy style seats and extra interior trim, all add varying amounts of weight, and making the best performers of the Megablade cars was all about lots of small weight reductions. (The common consensus being, back in the day, that if you wanted a BEC that was a better compromise for a slightly heavier, more comfy/touring version, but still blisteringly quick, go for the Megabusa instead, with the extra power and torque). That said, if the build is a good one, it can always be worth giving the car a try, as while cars built to such particular requirements tend to be very Marmite cars, if you’re one of the small number that also likes the combination of features, you’re on to a winner. Thanks Dave, some very valid points there that I hadn’t thought about. I knew there was a reason I joined the club! Much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts