David:
I don't have an answer as to why MG changed to the mechanical guage,
it could have been warranty related.
The electrical sender did have a high failure rate and was extremely
expensive to replace. I'm remembering about $95.00 from the dealer back in
the 80s. It was discontinued by Smiths, so many owners had to do without or
convert to mechanical.
There are a couple of repros out on the market now which are
reasonably priced and seem to be dependable so 68-71 owners don't have to
scrounge used units, or convert.
You are correct, the flex line connects to a fitting on the
firewall, instead of the sender unit. The block fitting is the same.
The mechanical units are pretty dependable and as accurate as
necessary. Be sure to replace the leather seal at the guage if you undo the
copper line.
K.
> I never fail to learn something new. But oftentimes, it comes with a
> question. I have over the years owned two 71BGTs and a 65B at
> different
> times. I'm now restoring a 72B.
>
> Today I removed the dashboard. Much to my surprise, I find a oil line
> running to the oil pressure gauge. I always thought that MGs
> went to the
> electric gauge from a sender unit in 68. Now it looks like
> they decided to
> go back to a mechanical gauge in 1972 (although the gauge
> itself looks the
> same from the front)..
>
> Was there a reason for this?
>
> On my 71, a small line went from the sending unit to the
> block. Do the 72+
> cars just eliminate the sending unit and just attach to that
> same block
> fitting?
>
> Since my 71BGT's remains are being transplanted into the 72B
> body, it looks
> like I could go with either configuration, although I suppose
> I'd have to
> do some rewiring to use the sender option. Is the direct line
> to the gauge
> better?
>
> David
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|