Chris & Scott:
The 3-main engine is fine.
I like it better than the 5-main, but really there isn't much difference
in them. The 5-main has the crank better secured (so doesn't suffer from
'crank whip' when the bearings are well worn) and it has a decent (OK -
sorta decent) rear oil seal. And those are the only important
differences IMHO. The 3-main is just fine as long as the main bearings
are renewed every now and again. Just like the MGA and the other cars
with the 1489, 1588, and 1622 3-main engines, the 1798 3-main engine
often weeps a tiny amount of oil from around the rear of the crank
because of the lack of a seal there (just a scroll on the crank). No big
deal - that's what the hole in the bottom of the bellhousing is for!!
No OD - not so. My '62 and '64 both have OD as original fitment.
Dave Q.
'62, '63, '64 3-main
'65 5-main
Subject: re:
Hi Chris,
I had two 63's. They ran great for years thru snow and muck...even use
to do
a little grass sliding in a few fields (hehe!). Both were used as daily
drivers and took several long trips 2-4 hours away. Best cars I ever
owned!
I only paid $300 for the first one and $350 for the second. Didn't do
any
engine work on them at all. Had the second one up to 90 mph once.
Strong
engines as far as I can tell. "Flame suit on!" I agree that a five
main is
a better engine duribility wise (just for firewall purposes I had to say
that). Go for it...you'll love it. Only draw back was no OD...what's a
few
teeth...good thing was it keep you awake behind the wheel! Actually
that's
why I went to an older year because of the OD and the fact this list
wasn't
available then to teach me how to add an OD. Much better looking car
too.
Less bells and whisles to go bad. If you don't buy it let me
know...I'll be
on my way with cash in hand!
Enjoy
|