I’d seen a 1976 Spider (more on this one later) advertised at Hemmings, and I knew that it was in Toronto – but for various reasons, I was finding it hard to pin down. Last Saturday, Evelyn and I headed out to the general area and started looking. Sadly, the street on which we were searching was chock full of used car dealerships – but all were selling pretty recent stuff, and the only guy who seemed to click to the idea that an Alfa might be for sale nearby, tried to be helpful, but ultimately, wasn’t – unfortunately he was a chainsmoker and Evelyn was less than impressed when I returned to the car more odiferous than I had left. Anyway, we were searching up and down the road and I found a sideroad I could loop back on… and… there it was!!! It was rather inconspicuous from the road, so you really had to look to find it. But we spot it we did. Yay! I jumped out of the car and pressed my face to the glass. There were 3 Alfa Spiders glowing seductively inside, beside a 1962 Giulietta convertible, several Fiat Multiplas in absolutely prisitine condition, and – shock of shocks, an Autobianchi Bianchina – the first I’d ever seen this side of the pond (any good Italian car enthusiast from Woodbridge will know now the showroom of which I speak). Sadly, after circumnavigating the entire building, we had to accept that it was closed, and after leaving further nose prints and drool marks on the windows, returned home. I phoned early Monday and arranged an appointment to view the 1976 Spider, but on entering found a lovely Duetto, which I proceeded to ogle. The salesman informed me that the Duetto was on sale for exactly the same price as the 1976 Spider… oooooh. I wore a path between the two, but first I will describe the Duetto; I hadn’t expected to see this and wasn’t prepared for it. Regardless, it appears to be a 1967 or 1969 (have to check, wasn’t concentrating) Duetto. It sports panasport rims, which give the car a refreshing stance due to the slightly wider tyres required for such rims. The car was a lovely red (surprise, surprise) with black interior, and was in very good condition indeed. So much so that I can comment on the negatives in a paragraph or less; Paint was very good, but had notable “chipping” on the trailing edge of the driver’s side door. Interior was good but missing a couple of things – the gas pedal needed a “footpad” (which the salesman said would be sorted). And… that’s about it. I didn’t get to test drive it as – even though Toronto was going through a brief balmy period (above zero!!!) there was no way I was going to request a drive of this on salty roads and I’m sure, in spite of his helpfulness and pleasantness, no way the salesman would have allowed it. Later. The car was in VERY good nick. My only real issue with it was the lack of SPICA injection – more on this later – it had dual webers, and the fact that the car sported the 1750 engine (I think, it could have been the earlier and smaller displacement too). Finally, the interior of the Duetto is not as slick as the Series 2 cars (which the “76” is) – much more basic. I’ll write about the 76 Spider tomorrow or Thursday. Again, given the fact that I didn’t get to drive this, I’m not going to post impressions – but what I can say is that this showroom was very impressive. Some of the cars were concourse (and many “not for sale”), and the cars that were for sale appeared well sorted, well presented, and if not “perfect”, not far off. The showroom reminded me of the maxim: “buy the very best car you can afford”. Both the Duetto and the Spider (to be featured next) are available for Cdn $24,000, negotiable. The high end of my budget (and more than I hope to spend), but immensely tempting nonetheless. I’ll post some drawings of some of the other lovely cars displayed here later – even though many (like the Autobinachi) are not for sale. An amazing find. These cars are so impressive that Evelyn is interested in in arranging to see them after having had to view them through the condensation that my heavy breathing created on the showroom windows….
Tag Archives: Alfa
Alfa Romeo Spider Series 2 Bumpers.
The Series 2 is actually split into two categories – “2” and “2A” – the 2A was essentially a design done to satisfy the demands (in the US) of increasingly stringent crash structure requirements and improved emissions. Thus the series 2A cars (1975 – 1981/82) were produced with heavier rubber bumpers than the light and better integrated chrome bumpers found on the earlier cars. Series 2A cars were also compromised by the requirement for better emissions and were thus slower. According to Alfaspiderfaq.org, the series 2A cars “lost an unknown but noticeable amount of horsepower, and became less and less drivable until the introduction of the Series 3 cars (in 1982/83).
Most Series 2A cars have had their mechanicals sorted such that the drivability issues and horsepower loss have been mitigated, and may have had the lighter chrome bumpers swapped in. The interesting thing to me is that the rubber bumpers aren’t bad on the Alfa – they were actually integrated quite well, considering, although the rear bumper does stick out far enough to look like it could carry a full complement of hardcover books. Ultimately though, the Series 2A cars only really look poorly when parked next to a Series 2.
In my humble opinion, of course. 🙂
1976 Alfa Romeo Spider, Viewed 25/10/2014
This car had been advertised on kijiji, and though it wasn’t within my preferred year range (1971 – 1974) I thought it would still be worth a look. It was about an hour’s drive from where I live. The car was parked in the driveway when I pulled around the corner, and looked very good indeed. However, when I parked my Golf and walked up the other side of the car I saw some pretty nasty rear bumper damage. A closer inspection revealed paint bubbling in the rocker panels, and also some sort of “film” or “protectant” applied to the rockers which picked out the highlights differently and rather sub-divided the paint job. The rear bumper was obviously a concern, and the sketch isn’t an exaggeration, it really looked like it had been gnawed by a shark, and the plastic facet that stretched the length of the bumper in the centre was sagging and awry. Obviously this would need replacing. The interior looked good although the carpet and floor mats were worn and the gear shift knob was aftermarket and a little cheesy.
So, I knocked on the door and asked the fellow about his car. Apparently he and his father (a mechanic, I was informed) fixed the car up and did the bodywork and mechanics themselves. He noted that the bumper would need to be replaced… (really? 😉 ) but didn’t offer an explanation of the cause of the damage (and I didn’t pursue it). The rockers had apparently been replaced in 2011, so I was a bit surprised to see as much bubbling of the paint in that area. Sadly, when we opened the hood, I noted that the SPICA injection had been removed and replaced with dual carbs I didn’t recognize. So, off for the test drive. The convertible top of the car was new canvas, which was very nice, but the rear window had suffered and had a couple of hazy blemishes in the centre, exactly where the rear view mirror points. The car drove and shifted well (even in and out of second gear), but the brakes were shot – the owner suggested the master cylinder might be causing problems – either way, braking was seriously dodgy, so I drove the car exceedingly gingerly, and never really got a real sense of the power delivery (which seemed smooth) or the handling. The car tracked well though and the steering was solid and predictable without play in the wheel. During the drive the owner let slip that he’d thought of putting on the preferred (to me) chrome bumpers, but had found them very difficult to find, and too expensive ($2,500) when he did.
I actually liked the colour – second Alfa I’ve seen and they’ve both been this colour – btw – apparently it’s not “silver” but “metallic grey”. This Alfa had “turbina” wheels – and I do like the look of them, but I wondered how many toothbrushes I would go through in a season cleaning those… “shudder”.
The owner was asking $11,000 for the car and I told him that I’d think about it. In reality, I had already made my decision. The bubbling paint was a concern to me, and as I’ve suggested, I wasn’t bonkers about the extra paint protection on the rockers and lower wings – also, there was some “softness” under the rockers behind the front wheels which seemed like bad news. The engine ran well, but the brakes were of course, a concern but, probably, not a hugely expensive one. Between the standard carb, the incipient bodywork issues, the brakes and the shark-attack bumper, I was already thinking about what car I’d like to view next.
Value for Money: 4/10 – Too much needs to be done here for this to be worth that particular ask, imho.
Driving Impression: 6/10 – I did enjoy driving this, but the brakes were a serious problem which compromised the driving impression.
Body: 4/10: I include the bumpers in the “body”, and between the rockers, the underside and the body, this needed work.
Engine: 7/10: Seemed good. Disappointed about the carbs though.
Handling: 7/10 – Good, but not fully explored.
Again, Evelyn wasn’t here for this one so she won’t be submitting rankings.
