Sometimes if you read between the lines or just simply look at something
logically, an intresting answer pops out. The MGA was a seperate body and
chassis car and was known to have a very stiff and strong chassis. BMC
decided that the replacement for the MGA was to have a unitary body because
these were lighter and stronger than chassis and frame cars, so the MGB was a
unitary body car. Fine, except that the 1600cc engine had to be increased to
1800cc to provide more power. Why?? Because the MGB weighed MORE then the
MGA. You must commend BMC engineering in coming up with a unit body car that
weighed more then an equivalent body and chassis car!!!
Jan Eyerman
jumpinjan <jservaites@woh.rr.com> wrote:
Russ Eshelman wrote:
>
> An article that appeared in the January issue of Thoroughbred & Classic
> Cars, "your questions" section by Phil Bell.
>
> Please could you answer me this age old question ( I've never seen a
> satisfactory answer ): which is best, MGB or Sunbeam Alpine?
> John Prior, Chichester
>
> Easy: the MGB was dynamically better than the Alpine in its day and now
> makes a better classic because all of the parts are so easy to get hold of.
> The Alpine's rather more unusual though.
I would say that the Alpine was way ahead of all the low cost UK sports
cars in 1960. The problem was it had a short and troubled life compared
to the rest. The Triumphs and MGBs became more refined in the early '70s
and they became a better car. The Alpine never was popular and never had
the time (and probably the money) to become refined like the MGBs. I'm
sure all the body tooling was destroyed because the 2 seat Alpine design
was dropped in '68, where as the MGB just kept getting better.
Jan
--
______ ______ _______
/ ____/ / ____/ / ___ /
/ /___ / /___ / /__/ / _| _ _ . _ _ _
/___ / /___ / / __ _/ (_|_(/_ /_)_|_(_|_| )_/_)
___/ / ____/ / / / \ \ _|
____/ /_____/ /_/ \_\http://www.ssrdesigns.com
|