> 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
The main difference in reporting the HP figures is in the 60's and earlier
they used a gross measurement ( no accessories, open headers, etc) like you
would get on an engine dyno. Plus the fact that the factory would and a
certain percentage to look good.
Nowadays they use a net horsepower rating with all the accessories as fitted
to the car, but even now you arent comparing apples to apples. IMHO the
best measurement is just what you have done using a chassis dyno, now you
have a real world number of usable horsepower at the rear wheels.
Leigh Egbert
46 TC
49 TC
77 B
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|