I can only go by my experiences of running both - and haven't seen or heard
anything anywhere else to make me think they are unusual. Around 28 on a
good motorway run and 20 locally in the V8, 37 on a good run and 30
pottering around the lanes in the roadster. UK gallons, of course. I have
been pretty horified at the mileage reported by some Stateside people
though, even allowing for US/UK gallons.
PaulH.
----- Original Message -----
From: Barrie Robinson <barrier@bconnex.net>
To: Paul Hunt <paul.hunt1@virgin.net>; Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>;
MG List <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: (Paul) Shroud Question
> As a V8-er I was under the impression that the V8 actually gave better
> mileage than the 1.8L ???
>
>
> At 06:55 PM 4/26/00 +0100, Paul Hunt wrote:
> >The V8 outputs a lot more heat than the 4-cyl, which is why owners and
> >converters are much exercised about how to get the heat out of the bay
and
> >cut RV8-style holes in the inner-wings and louvres in the bonnet. The V8
> >maybe less stressed but since it turns in nearly 50% more fuel
consumption
> >that must mean about 50% more heat. Maybe I should also have said that
> >whilst the V8 can comfortably maintain N whilst cruising it has more
> >problems when stuck in traffic even with twin fans, whereas the 4-cyl
shows
> >no difficulties in either.
> >
> >PaulH.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Max Heim <mvheim@studiolimage.com>
> >To: MG List <mgs@autox.team.net>
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:41 AM
> >Subject: Re: (Paul) Shroud Question
> >
> >
> >> Well, consider that your V8 is actually less "stressed" than the 4,
with
> >> considerably fewer HP per liter displacement (it's not rated 190HP, is
> >> it? I thought not). This leads me to suspect it generates less heat per
> >> liter as well, and one would expect the internal cooling capacity to be
> >> proportionate to the displacement (rather than the specific output).
> >>
> >> But that's neither here nor there. I guess my main point would be, why
go
> >> to great lengths to run the engine at a lower than "normal" temperature
> >> just because the weather could conceivably get hot? That seems to be
what
> >> is going on with changing to a 165 degree thermostat for the summer,
and
> >> the benefit is not apparent to me.
> >>
> >> But I think I've rattled on long enough on this subject...
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul Hunt had this to say:
> >>
> >> >If the radiator cannot dissipate the heat of the engine then we are
> >indeed
> >> >in agreement. But I do find this surprising, since not even my
factory
> >V8
> >> >suffers from that, while cruising, when the temps are in the 90s.
> >> >
> >> >Cheers,
> >> >PaulH.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Max Heim
> >> '66 MGB GHN3L76149
> >> If you're near Mountain View, CA,
> >> it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> Regards
> Barrie Robinson
> barrier@bconnex.net
>
>
|