>Ok, I put the poor old 'B on the dyno today and I am still analyzing the
>results. I was actually quite disappointed with what I saw but I am
>sure I am not really reading them quite correctly just yet and maybe had
>higher expectations than I should have.
I have always been dubious of the horsepower figures quoted by MG and others
of that time period. I had '63 B with a fairly new stock engine rated by MG
at
~95Hp. I also owned at the time a VW GTI which was rated at 105Hp and
probably
less torque. Both were 1800cc and the GTi was somewhat heavier.
Yet the GTi felt (and was) and lot quicker that the MG, in 0-60 time and
acceleration
at different speeds in different gears. I assume that the way engine power
was
rated in the '60's and 70's is different to how it is measured today (SAE vs
DIN),
but even taking this into account, the MG, I suspect was lucky to achieve
65HP
as it left the factory. The road tests of the period seem to indicate that
horsepower
figures seem to bear that out.
Most Brit cars of that period that I have driven seem to "feel" slower than
their rated
horse-power suggests (there are exceptions), I would assume that is due to
the engine
designs of the period (long-stoke and small bore).
gerry
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|