Whoa, back off! <g> I was not expressing any lack of faith in the
supremacy of the Twincam, it was more in the line of grudging
acknowledgement (from the point of view of a B owner). I further admit I
didn't have any data to base my comment on, I just assumed that since
(non TC) A's have smaller engines and aren't much lighter that they
couldn't be as quick as pre-smog B (also considering the historical
evidence that disappointing performance of the 1622 was the reason for
the development of the 1800). I don't even know the nominal HP output of
a Twincam, but I'm sure you'll be glad to enlighten me.
: )
WSpohn4@aol.com had this to say:
>
>> What year of B do you have? A 72 or earlier B should be quicker than an A
>> (well, maybe not a T.C.)...
>>
>Whaddaya mean 'maybe??
[snip]
>Show me an MG that gets anywhere near 10 seconds 0-60 and I'll show you a
>modified MGB or a stock Twincam!
Too true. R&T had 12.1 for the B in 1968. An earlier B should be a hair
quicker. Of course, R&T tested with two adult males aboard. Subtract
180-200 pounds of stopwatch jockey to get a racetrack figure. Anyone know
what R&T got for the Twincam?
>Put the optional 4.55 diff and close ratio
>in the Twincam, and wave bye bye (of course you can also put the same stuff
>in an MGB, but then it would still look like an MGB, and still have an
>engine out of a tractor....well not exactly as true as it would be for the
>Triumph/Standard/Ferguson engine, but they did build Nuffield tractors with
>the B series engines).
>
Not really fair, it wasn't designed for a tractor, the tightwads just
hijacked it. I could put a Twinkie in my John Deere just as easily (not
that I would). As for the Triumph...
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|