Bob Allen wrote:
> As usual, Larry is misinformed.
>
> 55 pounds? Lordy, the motor was 70 pounds above forecast
> when it arrived at the Abingdon plant in 1967. The 'C' motor
> actually weighs 610 pounds which, as I understand it, is like
> having a 225 pound boat anchor sitting on your 'B's front cross
> member.
Well ... the idea of taking a well balanced car like the 'B', and
stuffing in too heavy of an engine naturally made me think of the
'C' ... so I felt obliged to observe 'proper list etiquette' and 'zing'
Bob Allen. I must of hit a nerve, 'cause I still can't figure out
when I stated that the 'C' engine weighed 55 pounds more than
the 'B' engine ... only that the effect would be similar ... granted
not as extreme, but similar.
Time to annoy Bob a bit more by quoting a book. In 'Orignial
MGB' Anders Clausager states ...
"I was a bulky engine - although 2in shorter than the old Healey
3000 unit - and a heavy one, at 650-700lb depending on
specification, compared to the 360lb of an MGB engine. With
power of 145bhp compared to the MGB's 95bhp, output per liter
was less than the smaller engine - and the last Austin-Healy
3000 had developed 150bhp."
... so, to say the the 'C' engine weighted 290 to 340 pounds
(depending on specification) more than the 'B' engine would seem
a bit more accurate. Hmmm ... increase the weight by 80 to 95%
to gain a 50% increase in power ... makes sense to me ... ;^)
> But it handles alright if not exemplary and it can make all the
> lesser cars get smaller in the rearview.
Provided the road ahead doesn't have any turns ... ;^)
Safety Fast! ... larry.g.unger@lmco.com
"... an MGC motor? Damn, that is a big hunk of iron." Bob Allen, Sept. 10, 1997
|