Gergo -
I've driven both 3000's and 100/6s, also 100/6s with gallery heads. At the
end of the day, the difference in power between all the different versions
isn't all that noticeable for every day driving. Yes, the Mk III motor is
more powerful, but even the gallery head 100/6 has pretty good pick up... I
think if you go with the 12 port head, HD6s and a Mk III cam, it will be as
fast as your 3000 motor... and you'll get better mileage in the process.
Cheers,
Alan
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Austin Healey <pajtamuvek@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Ira,
>
> Being honest I have also lamented on this engine problem for a while before
> making my decision. This is my first Healey. I hope not the last :). I am
> restoring cars as a passion. I did some other BMC cars recently. I have
> long
> realized that I find my joy in building the cars, and only enjoy them for a
> short period. After this I usualy let them go, and look for another
> mission.
>
> Although I am not a diehard originalist, I would like to keep/restore my
> cars near to the factory spec. Or at least at a level, from where factory
> originality could be reached without much efforts. Thats why I would like
> to
> build this car with a 2.6 engine rather than using the 3000.
> But at the same time I would easily accept using a 6 port head on this
> engine rather than the 2 port. This is something which can be altered any
> time with not much work.
> And in my opinion, a 2.6 engine with a 6 port head is not much worse than a
> 3000. Or?
> What are the point the 3000 is better than the 2.6?
>
> Gergo
_______________________________________________
Healeys@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Suggested annual donation $12.75
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|