There's a guy, locally, who's had this ad on ebay twice, now. First time, it didn't didn't meet the reserve after bidding up to about $1850. Now, he's got it for $4000, but may accept an offer.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BSA-MOTORCYCLE-650-SPIT-FIRE_W0QQitemZ320395770828QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_motorcycles?hash=item4a99137bcc&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A12|39%3A1|72%3A317



In my opinion, its a '68 Lightning, with some cosmetic problems, and a '67 Spitfire title, tank and side panels (side panels say Mk III).


Opinions?

BillT wrote:In my opinion, its a '68 Lightning, with some cosmetic problems, and a '67 Spitfire title, tank and side panels (side panels say Mk III).


Opinions?

The side cover stickers/panels are the probably the wrong year, but I don't know why you think it could be a '68 Lightning, as the quoted VIN is "A65S", which is the correct prefix for a 1966 year model MkII Spitfire ('66 Lightning was A65L)? All A50/A65 frames for that year were "A50C"

The '67 model year Spitfire was "A65SA" ('67 Lightning = A65LA, '68 Lightning = A65LB).

The front brake says '1969'. Other than that, I've managed to put A65 ownership behind me

L.A.B. wrote:
The side cover stickers/panels are the probably the wrong year, but I don't know why you think it could be a '68 Lightning, as the quoted VIN is "A65S", which is the correct prefix for a 1966 year model MkII Spitfire ('66 Lightning was A65L)? All A50/A65 frames for that year were "A50C"

The '67 model year Spitfire was "A65SA" ('67 Lightning = A65LA, '68 Lightning = A65LB).

I think its a '68 Lightning because:

The engine number is A65LB - 1968
The front forks and brake are '68-on
Spit Fires had different rims (alloy)

The only thing Spit Fire about this bike that I see is the Title, tank and side covers.

I'm no expert, but it just smells a little fishy to me. Am I over-thinking this?

I don't know if I'd call it fishy. Trying to decipher BSA codes isn't exactly easy. Then throw in inacurrate DMV records and you often get a mess. Bitsa bikes and bitsa titles are nothing new. Anything that old should be verified if you want "original".

BillT wrote:I think its a '68 Lightning because:

The engine number is A65LB - 1968
The front forks and brake are '68-on
Spit Fires had different rims (alloy)

The only thing Spit Fire about this bike that I see is the Title, tank and side covers.

I'm no expert, but it just smells a little fishy to me. Am I over-thinking this?

Well...yes, it is really a 'bitsa' bike isn't it!

The engine prefix "A65LB" info isn't given (or I can't see it?), which would certainly identify the engine (or cases) to be from a '68 Lightning. Wheels, forks etc. are also wrong for a MkII "Spitfire" [it's not a "Spit Fire"], and the front brake is actually the '69/'70 type.

So any prospective buyer/bidder would have to be willing to accept it for what it is, I suppose (a bike built up from parts) and bid accordingly?

L.A.B. wrote: and the front brake is actually the '69/'70 type.

And if I remember correctly the '67 should have the 190mm Goldstar brake?

I just realized the 'A65LB' info isn't in the current ad. He had given the beginning of the engine serial# when he last posted it, and neglected to post it in the re-listing. He had also previously posted the beginning of the frame number, which didn't match the title.

Yes, B+, I agree that the Spitfire should have the 190mm brake in '67, which was unique to the Spitfire that year. Everything else in the A50-A65 series would have the 8" trailing shoe brake.


My curiosity was piqued when I first saw this ad, as I've been looking for a new project bike, and am leaning toward a circa '67 Lightning, Spitfire or Hornet.

I've also got a lead on an 810 Dunstall in pieces, but can't seem to get together with the guy. He's had it 20+ years, I don't think its going anywhere.

BillT wrote:I've also got a lead on an 810 Dunstall in pieces, but can't seem to get together with the guy. He's had it 20+ years, I don't think its going anywhere.

Sound like a better proposition to me
I'm sure the A65 would make a fine bike, but I wouldn't go past the end of my road on one unless it's had the mains converted to rollers!

No, no, hes is absolutely right, originally it was a motorcycle. It still is, just has a number of parts that didn't leave the factory in the correct order.