Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina motor carbs for a TR

[michael <mlcooknj@msn.com>]

--===============1154929244033461006==
        boundary="_9c527f1a-b012-4be1-80d3-f16ec31e1761_"

--_9c527f1a-b012-4be1-80d3-f16ec31e1761_
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just a quick comment - the "Sabrina" engine is a complex sandwich held toge=
ther by very long studs. Lots of castings=2C twin cams to worry about and n=
ot much more horsepower than a well-prepared normal TR engine. It might hav=
e earned the factory points for development and up-to-date thinking but it =
would have been expensive to build and service. They were right to stick wi=
th the existing engine and put the money into styling.
=20
Mike
=20
To: billdentin@aol.com=3B fot@autox.team.net
From: mdporter@dfn.com
Date: Wed=2C 16 Mar 2016 16:20:04 -0600
Subject: Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR

=0A=
  =0A=
    =0A=
  =0A=
  =0A=
    On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM=2C=0A=
      billdentin@aol.com wrote:
=0A=
    =0A=
    =0A=
        Agreed!  If nothing else=2C it would be nice to have just for=0A=
          its rare=2C historical significance.  But down through the years=
=0A=
          I have always wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it=0A=
          into their production cars.  They sure seemed to do their job=0A=
          on the race track=2C but there must have been issues why they=0A=
          never went into their normal production cars.=0A=
       =20
=0A=
        =0A=
        I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.=0A=
       =20
=0A=
        =0A=
     =20
=0A=
    =0A=
   =20
=0A=
    I imagine they do=2C but=2C my first=0A=
        guess would be the overall cost.  At precisely the time that the=0A=
        American market was expecting lots of changes year to year=2C=0A=
        Triumph was making just a few cosmetic changes to control=0A=
        expenses and to address manufacturing problems.  It made no=0A=
        sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated=0A=
        back to the `30s--which Triumph did=3D=3Dexcept for reasons having=
=0A=
        to do with money. =20
=0A=
       =20
=0A=
        Tooling costs=2C especially for low-volume producers=2C are horribl=
y=0A=
        expensive.  With talented people and enough time=2C it's possible=
=0A=
        to make a few units in-house without production tooling and come=0A=
        up with something that works reasonably well (this might be why=0A=
        the engines had=2C IIRC=2C some persistent oil leaks during racing)=
=2C=0A=
        but translating that design to production is quite another=0A=
        matter.  New castings means new forms=2C and any changes in the=0A=
        design means changes to production equipment=2C too--most=0A=
        manufacturers at the time had specially-made gang drills to=0A=
        drill out the bosses for head bolts in the block and the head=2C=0A=
        etc. (by and large=2C no CNC machining centers then=2C especially=
=0A=
        for small producers)=2C and all those had to be redone or adjusted=
=0A=
        to new tasks.  And all this would have come at the precise time=0A=
        that Triumph was just absorbing new tooling costs for the=0A=
        Spitfire and the TR4. And in that period=2C early `60s=2C market=0A=
        conditions were already changing--the trend toward muscle cars=0A=
        in the U.S. certainly had an impact on the sports car=0A=
        market--and emission controls were coming and the company was=0A=
        already inching toward receivership (wasn't the first part of=0A=
        S-T turned over to British Leyland in 1968?). =20
=0A=
       =20
=0A=
        In a way=2C it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions.  I'm=0A=
        sure that S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes=2C but=0A=
        they only had the money to make do.
=0A=
       =20
=0A=
       =20
=0A=
        Cheers. =20
=0A=
      =0A=
    -- =0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Michael Porter=0A=
Roswell=2C NM=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance=
....=0A=
  =0A=
=0A=

_______________________________________________=0A=
fot@autox.team.net=0A=
=0A=
http://www.fot-racing.com=0A=
=0A=
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive=0A=
com                                       =

--_9c527f1a-b012-4be1-80d3-f16ec31e1761_
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>Just a quick comment - the "Sabr=
ina" engine is a complex sandwich held together by very long studs.&nbsp=3B=
Lots of castings=2C twin cams to worry about and not much more horsepower t=
han a well-prepared normal TR engine. It might have earned the factory poin=
ts for development and up-to-date thinking but it would have been&nbsp=3Bex=
pensive to build and service. They were right to stick with the existing en=
gine and put the money into styling.<BR>&nbsp=3B<BR>Mike<br>&nbsp=3B<BR><di=
v><hr id=3D"stopSpelling">To: billdentin@aol.com=3B fot@autox.team.net<br>F=
rom: mdporter@dfn.com<br>Date: Wed=2C 16 Mar 2016 16:20:04 -0600<br>Subject=
: Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina motor carb=
s for a TR<br><br>=0A=
  =0A=
    =0A=
  =0A=
  =0A=
    <div class=3D"ecxmoz-cite-prefix">On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM=2C=0A=
      <a class=3D"ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto:billdentin@ao=
l.com">billdentin@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>=0A=
    </div>=0A=
    <blockquote cite=3D"mid:15380d62cc9-c8d-34f0@webprd-m94.mail.aol.com"><=
font color=3D"black" face=3D"arial" size=3D"2">=0A=
        <div>Agreed!&nbsp=3B If nothing else=2C it would be nice to have ju=
st for=0A=
          its rare=2C historical significance.&nbsp=3B But down through the=
 years=0A=
          I have always wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it=0A=
          into their production cars.&nbsp=3B They sure seemed to do their =
job=0A=
          on the race track=2C but there must have been issues why they=0A=
          never went into their normal production cars.</div>=0A=
        <div><br>=0A=
        </div>=0A=
        <div>I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.</div>=0A=
        <div><br>=0A=
        </div>=0A=
      </font><br>=0A=
    </blockquote>=0A=
    <br>=0A=
    <font size=3D"2"><font face=3D"arial">I imagine they do=2C but=2C my fi=
rst=0A=
        guess would be the overall cost.&nbsp=3B At precisely the time that=
 the=0A=
        American market was expecting lots of changes year to year=2C=0A=
        Triumph was making just a few cosmetic changes to control=0A=
        expenses and to address manufacturing problems.&nbsp=3B It made no=
=0A=
        sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated=0A=
        back to the `30s--which Triumph did=3D=3Dexcept for reasons having=
=0A=
        to do with money.&nbsp=3B <br>=0A=
        <br>=0A=
        Tooling costs=2C especially for low-volume producers=2C are horribl=
y=0A=
        expensive.&nbsp=3B With talented people and enough time=2C it's pos=
sible=0A=
        to make a few units in-house without production tooling and come=0A=
        up with something that works reasonably well (this might be why=0A=
        the engines had=2C IIRC=2C some persistent oil leaks during racing)=
=2C=0A=
        but translating that design to production is quite another=0A=
        matter.&nbsp=3B New castings means new forms=2C and any changes in =
the=0A=
        design means changes to production equipment=2C too--most=0A=
        manufacturers at the time had specially-made gang drills to=0A=
        drill out the bosses for head bolts in the block and the head=2C=0A=
        etc. (by and large=2C no CNC machining centers then=2C especially=
=0A=
        for small producers)=2C and all those had to be redone or adjusted=
=0A=
        to new tasks.&nbsp=3B And all this would have come at the precise t=
ime=0A=
        that Triumph was just absorbing new tooling costs for the=0A=
        Spitfire and the TR4. And in that period=2C early `60s=2C market=0A=
        conditions were already changing--the trend toward muscle cars=0A=
        in the U.S. certainly had an impact on the sports car=0A=
        market--and emission controls were coming and the company was=0A=
        already inching toward receivership (wasn't the first part of=0A=
        S-T turned over to British Leyland in 1968?).&nbsp=3B <br>=0A=
        <br>=0A=
        In a way=2C it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions.&nbsp=3B I=
'm=0A=
        sure that S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes=2C but=0A=
        they only had the money to make do.<br>=0A=
        <br>=0A=
        <br>=0A=
        Cheers.&nbsp=3B <br>=0A=
      </font></font>=0A=
    <pre class=3D"ecxmoz-signature">-- =0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Michael Porter=0A=
Roswell=2C NM=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance=
....</pre>=0A=
  =0A=
=0A=
<br>_______________________________________________=0A=
fot@autox.team.net=0A=
=0A=
http://www.fot-racing.com=0A=
=0A=
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive=0A=
com</div>                                         </div></body>
</html>=

--_9c527f1a-b012-4be1-80d3-f16ec31e1761_--

--===============1154929244033461006==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive



--===============1154929244033461006==--