Larry Hoy wrote:
>
> Kai, the C to C length of an MGB rod is 6.5", I think the twin cam is
> the same (no math I looked it up in Haynes), the engine stroke is 3.5";
> I think however, your barking up the wrong tree. The bore and stroke
> was determined by taxes not engineering. There was a long and
> convoluted tax formula that was applied to British engines. The end
> result was the smaller the bore, the less taxes were paid for any given
> displacement. That's why the British engines have a long stroke and
> small bore.
I got to disagree here. I'm just reading a book on MGBs and it said for
manifacturing reasons, the stroke always stayed the same. They increased
the B-series to 1798 by siamesing 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 (removing water
jackets between the cylinders). Then they were working on siamesing all
4 cylinders and increasing to 2liter, but that got killed. It's
interesting
all the tragic mistakes BMC and BL made, the V4 and V6, the 2l B-series,
the O-series, styling updates. All killed to save a bit short term
money,
thus killing the company.
If they wanted to minimize taxes, they would have increased the stroke
instead of the bore, if the tax angle were true. This company often
destroyed prototype cars from companies outside the UK (Pininfarnia
for instance) instead of having to pay the import duty. Which in the
oppressive trade environment of the 70s and before were probably pretty
steep.
Paul.
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|