Hi Kelly,
Thanks for your comments. I have considered your suggestions. My concerns are two-fold: I think the extra h.p., stress, flexing, etc. would do better in a tube frame, and I think mid-engine makes more sense than rear for balance and weight distribution.
I'm 6'1", so the tube frame appeals to me as it increases interior room also. If I was younger, a rear-engined prototype would make sense since it's easier/faster to do, and then a guy with time and talent could progress to the mid mounted, tube frame as the next project. But, you know how it goes: when I was younger, I couldn't afford to build it, now that I'm older, less time for long term projects, etc, etc.
In a larger context, VW pans will give way to tube/channel frames as they become scarcer and in worse shape. When a manufacturer's costs for adapting/stiffening a pan vs. a tube frame narrows, things will slowly change. Legislation like SB100 will continue to impact the specially-constructed market as well. AC engines will always have appeal to a significant market segment. The popularity of Cal-look is just one example. Modernization does have appeal to those of us who are in the "autumn" of our years, however. Subi engines are reliable, plentiful, powerful, and adaptable. I guess that's why some of us say: potatoes, and some potahhtoes.
In my opinion, a modern IM or SAW really have no connection to a Speedster, except in the shell and cosmetics. Even pan-based Speedsters are a far cry from an original. I don't think that's a negative comment, either. Speedster just look so cool that it's the shape that matters. I'm not a purist at all, so it doesn't offend me that folks are using modern materials, drive trains, brakes, suspenstions, etc. to tailor the final product to their dream. I'll work out mine also, but it will take me some time. Regards, Jim