I knew if I didn't add a disclaimer about Twincams, Bill would feel
compelled to respond... <g>
Otherwise, I was talking about stock aerodynamic configurations and stock
engines. Obviously, more power or less frontal area would both result in
higher top speeds.
My comment was based on an advertised and contemporaneously reported top
speed of something like 102mph, if I recall correctly. So far the replies
have tended to confirm that, though I haven't heard from an unmodified Mk. I
roadster yet (presumably the worst case scenario).
Seriously, folks, I wasn't putting down the MGA, just reporting the facts
(as I understood them)... <g>.
on 1/16/02 6:43 PM, WSpohn4@aol.com at WSpohn4@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/16/02 6:31:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> owner-mgs-digest@autox.team.net writes:
>
>>>> Either way, an MGA isn't going to exceed 100mph at top end by very much
>> (if
>>>> any),
>>>> due to aerodynamic shortcomings.
>>
>
> Depends on power.
> My Mk2 Coupe can hit 105 with no problem - (stock3 main B engine)
> My Twincam roadster race car without windshield has been radar clocked at 129
> mph.
> My wife's MGC will do an indicated 130 mph (175 bhp modified engine), should
> be close to accurate.
> (For comparison, my old dead stock 90 bhpTriumph TR-2 did an honest 110 mph
> (5500 rpm) with Brooklands screens on the race track.
> Let's see - Jensen CV-8 indicated 145, calculated 140 mph and still rising
> (non-stock).
> 69 Islero rated at 165 mph, but I doubt I'll ever bother finding out!
>
> Chrysler Minivan tow car - God knows - I'd never want to be in it over 90 or
> so!
>
> Bill
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|