In a message dated 05/07/01 6:06:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
matttrebelhorn@netscape.net writes:
> Well, what about this. MGBs came with two motors, the 4-cylinder that
> evolved from the MGA unit, and the 3.5 v-8 that evolved from the 215c.i.
> Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac motor of about 1960. Over its lifespan, that v-8
> has been mated to everything from 3-speeds (b-o-p) to 5 (rover sedans), and
> currently displaces 4.6 liters (range rover) with a very complicated
> electronic engine management system. That's a lot of options.
>
> But, by your rules: 1. it's okay to build an MGB-v8; 2. it's okay to use a
> different version of the motor; but 3. I have to use either an MGB 4-speed
> or the original-type MGB automatic, because no other transmissions were
> ever available from the factory in an MGB.
>
>
No, Matt it isn't OK to build an MGA with a V8. And YOU don't 'have' to use
any particular transmission - you can stick whatever you like in your car.
Listen carefully now, I'll say it one more time. I, personally, not making
rules for anyone but me, have no objection to using motors of the same
derivation but later specification in an earlier model (I thought I was
pretty clear about this). Thus the MGB engine (I prefer the 3 main version)
in an MGA, 1275 in a Bugeye, etc.
For anyone else that might have been under a misapprehension that this would
include a V8 or an MGC straight 6, the answer is no.
Transmission choices would include 5 variations (Ignoring minor differences
in case design etc.) - MGA, MGB non synch with and without OD, and MGB all
synch with and without OD, although I prefer the earlier versions on a couple
of grounds.
<I'm confused.
<Matt
No, you are just arguing (perhaps just a little ineptly) using the time
honoured dialectic tool of saying "If A is true, that entails B (usually B is
a proposition that pushes the consequences of A as far as possible, to test
the validity of A). The same thing I did when I asked if swapping a gearbox
from another make didn't entail the permissibility of also swapping an
out-of-marque engine.
I sense a tone of resentment in your responses, along the lines of "No one
can tell me what to do with my car!"
Well, I think I have already agreed with that - if you want to douse your MGB
with gas and use it for a weenie roast, it's your car, and (subject to local
fire ordinances) you are perfectly welcome to do so.
This is just a discussion about whether there is any need to swap
transmissions. My suggestion was that there is no advantage from either a
utilitarian point of view (the MG trans isn't inherently weak), or a monetary
one (MG boxes with OD are still available, often for less money than is
needed to fit a Sierra box, for instance), and that swapping in major
assemblies from other makes of car might somehow detract from, I don't know
how to say this more precisely, the 'MG-ness' of the subject car. I suggest
that the discussion continue, if there is anything more to be said, along
those lines.
BTW, I attended a perfectly delightful meeting last evening, at a local MG
collector's place (15 cars ranging from pre-war to 74 MGB GT) with Stuart
Turner speaking of his days with BMC competitions department. Fascinating
stuff, including insights of how they regarded the cars they used for
rallying. The Twincam was viewed as a car with finesse, as opposed to the
'point and squirt' Austin Healeys, though the mechanics loathed the Twincam
engines which in the tune they used them would run to 7400 all day, and
self-destruct instantly at 7500 rpm (presumably where they hit valve bounce).
Too bad they didn't have electronic rev limiters!
He also allowed as how the Hydrolastic Minis were the most useless pieces of
crap they ever had to put up with, and that all the drivers carried chunks of
wood to jam into the suspension when the 'hydro-spastic' units inevitably
failed (he said he preferred oak to anything else). Mr Turner is obviously a
well polished speaker and I commend him to any who can arrange to get within
listening range.
Sadly, he was unable to answer my question about the background of choice of
B series engine head design - John Thornley once said it was an interesting
story (I suspect with political elements vis a vis the Morris/Austin merger).
Now that John has passed on without telling the story, we may never know why
we were stuck with a design with (too few) worm eaten ports instead of an 8
(or perhaps 7) port head.
Bill
MGA Coupe with 3 main 1800
Fiero with stroked 3.2
used to have TR3 with TR4 2.2
Presently eyeing MGA race car
to see if Lambo V12 will fit........(not)
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.)
|