Tim Economu (actually Peter C.) had this to say:
>I hold that the
>suspensions, as they are designed, are meant to have lever shocks. If tubes
>were desired by the engineers (and accountants), then other components
>would have been redesigned.
I think the underlying issue here is that most people believe that MG (or
rather, the parent companies) in the 1960s and 70s, didn't change
*anything* for any reason other than legislation (smog, bumpers, dash
pillows), cost reduction, or the occasional styling freshen-up for a
momentary sales boost (new grill designs, seat patterns, Limited
Editions). Even if it was proven that tube shocks were superior, they
wouldn't have invested in the necessary changes. Now this
characterization of BL engineering may not be entirely fair, but I think
it is common enough that it explains why so many modifications and
retrofits to MGBs are assumed to be unqualified improvements, in the
present day. In other words, many people have the idea that MGBs contain
a good deal of archaic engineering, which should have upgraded over the
course of production but was not due to penny-pinching by Longbridge (or
whoever), and that aftermarket modifications like the tube shock kits can
help supply this deficiency, and therefore make the cars what they should
have been in the first place.
I am not asserting the truth of this attitude, I am merely observing that
it seems to be a widespread belief, sometimes explicit but more often
subliminal. I will admit that I have recognized this thinking in myself,
from time to time. So I thought I would throw this observation out to the
list, to see if it provoked any further insights.
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|