Message from GOFASTMG@aol.com
> I think a couple of folks are missing the point I was trying to make. It
>wasn't about the relative merits of Weber vs SU or whatever.
> The point I was trying to make was that to say that you shouldn't put a
>Weber on your MG because of a ERRONEOUS belief that the factory didn't and
>that the factory used SUs because they were the best(when in fact the factory
>was a captive market for SU), is tatamount to admitting you 1). aren't up on
>MG history as you would like yourself and others to believe and 2) innovation
>probably scares the hell out of you.
> It's sort of like those folks you run across in every office who are fond
>of saying "well that's the way we''ve always done it, so why shouldn't we
>change.
> The bottom line is, tasteful modifications to an MG need to be tolerated,
>indeed welcomed, SO LONG AS WE KEEP TO THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT OF THE CAR AND ITS
>PURPOSES!!
> Weber carbs fall into that catagory easily
>
>Rick Morrison
> 74 Midget
>+ 72 MGBGT
>--------------------
>4 SU carbs
>
I agree with all except the sentence
->Weber carbs fall into that catagory easily
Well to me they don't. At least for a T-series MG they certainly
don't. Just try to depress the throttle of a car with SU's (MGs,
Jaguars) and of another: it's another altogether different feeling.
I am not saying SU's are better, just that they are different
(e.g. it's not you who drives the amount mixture that gets to the
combustion chamber, it's its piston) and I claim that to let that
out you change the character of the car. Maybe you make it better
or faster, but to me it's not an MG anymore.
Denis Baggi
1950 TD
|