When I had my last TF, it had the stock 4.875 rear, and Hiway speeds were
only attainable at RPM that made me clench my tet really hard. I changed
the rear for an MGA 4.30 and was happy about the reduced RPM while at least
getting up to Hiway speed (if you could believe your MG speedometer - which
seems to lie about 10% on most every MG I have had apart from the B). Then,
however, when we would go on MG weekend trips to the Sierra Nevada, and we
had to negotiate thos long steep upgrades, I was in 2nd while others with
the stock setup were in 3rd. I could catch up with the pack on the next
downgrade, but God forbid that the fellow in front of me in the caravan
slowed a little too much before the upgrade! I needed a running start!
Now, with my TC that has a 5.1 rear, and 19" wheels, all is right(er).
After a lot of MG driving, it is now clear to me that those MG engineers at
the works, had it about right from the start for the average road conditions
of the day, and the intended use for the car. Only the Japanese cars seem
to be able to squeeze power enough out of small displacement to drive the
their modern aerodynamic soppository shapes of today to speeds previously
the sole domain of the big blocks or expensive sports cars.
The moral of the story is to be sure that your MG and its intended purpose
are properly suited to one another. I much prefer to toodle along at 40 or
50 and occasionally go for a brisk run with windscreen down on the freeway.
For those who are nervous about driving on the freeway at 55 or 60, put a
sign on the back that says STUDENT DRIVER. Other motorists will cut you a
wide berth. I remember a cartoon by that famous auto characaturist
Brockbank showing an old couple driving along in an old saloon shaped like a
18 80 leading a long line of entrapped modern cars behind it with a sign
hanging off the registration bracket saying "RUNNING IN." Might try that
too.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Howard <mgbob@juno.com>
To: <amoyce@pol.net>
Cc: <mgbob@juno.com>; <bkrueger@ici.net>; <lani_spahr@agilent.com>;
<mg-t@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: TD real axle grear ratio
> Hi Andrew,
> This may well be the most talked about topic. I think it's the one that
> causes the most introspection about the owner's use of the car, peace of
> mind, modification of a well-designed automobile, plus assorted other
> factors. I know that I worried about making the change of ratios for
> several years before doing it.
> In my case, it came down to a matter of perceived survival of engine
> and rear 1/4 of the TD. One thinks of CT as being a state of back roads.
> That's a perception only partly true. Along the coast, there are no good
> ways to get east or west except by using Interstate 95. Though that is
> the name of the road, the condition of driver literacy is such that
> drivers of normal cars, sport utes and 80,000 lb (rated, though invaribly
> overloaded) semi trailers believe the speed limit to be 95. There is so
> much traffic on the roads at all hours that one simply doesn't have the
> option to drive 55 in the slow lane. Doing that gets you passed by cars
> driving the the breakdown lane. One does get to admire the variety of arm
> and hand gestures that have been developed in New England.
> The alternative to I-95 is the old Boston Post Road, that runs pretty
> much as it did in pre-revolutionary times, though traffic may be slower
> today than then because of the stoplights. E - W trips of more than 30
> miles or so just require that one drive on I-95 rather than the Boston
> Post Rd. ]
> The ratio change actually works out quite well. Since one shifts out
> of first gear at about 5 mph with standard gearing, it's now more useful.
> Second and third are as versatile as ever. The engine has sufficient
> torque to push the car around town happily. Fourth is engaged at 40-45 or
> so. Having had the 4.1 gears for three years now, I think that they
> have made it possible for me to get more use of the car than I could have
> had otherwise, participate in more club events, travel to tech sessions
> and to enjoy the driving (rather than dreading it) when forced to use the
> interstate.
> Bob
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:09:56 -0500 (EST) Andrew Moyce <amoyce@pol.net>
> writes:
> > In the few years I've been following this list, rear end ratios and
> > highway speeds has probably been the most talked about topic.
> > Comments seem to fall into two schools... one (either large or
> > particluarly vocal) group that favors tall rear end ratios and high
> > highway speeds, and the other group (to which I belong) which sees
> > highway travel as a necessary evil. I'm most comfortable in my car
> > on
> > a winding country road traveling 40 miles an hour. When a freeway
> > run
> > is unavoidable, 55 miles in the right lane (which is under 3500 rpm
> > with my T. F. rear end) is tolerable, and in my rationalization,
> > reasonably safe. I keep plenty of distance from the car in front of
> >
> > me, and ignore the temptation to compete with modern cars at modern
> > speeds. I have another car for that, and if I'm really in a hurry
> > that's what I'll use.
> > I drive a TD with a rebuilt and somewhat modified engine. The car
> > is
> > at peace with itself with the current rear end ratio. I do
> > sometimes
> > find myself reaching for fifth gear, but I think that is
> > conditioning
> > from my everyday car.
> >
> > Andy Moyce
> > 52 TD
> >
> >
|