On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 11:52 AM, ckotting@wideopenwest.com wrote:
>> I'm afraid I have to take issue with you about the tranny
>> in the 1500 being unbreakable. Quite simply, the 2nd and
>> 4th gear syncros don't hold up.
>
> Waitaholdit. I didn't say it was unbreakable. I said it's
> "hard to break". Harder to break than a smoothcase? No
> question. Harder to break than a ribcase? Difficult for me
> to say, I've never broken either a ribcase or a 1500
> transmission.
>
> Speaking of experience, your experience differs vastly from
> mine. Over 75,000 miles on a 1500 transmission and nary a
> difficulty. (Anybody who rides with me can tell you I don't
> baby it.) I can't explain the difference aside from the
> build quality issues that pervaded everything British
> Leyland in that period. Maybe I've just gotten hold of a
> good one.
>
Interesting points on both sides. I'm still considering a post '75
Midget, FYI.
>> Also, as to bottom end durability, when
>> modified/tuned for higher output: the A series is an
>> incredibly strong, durable unit. For awhile, the 1500s
>> were thought to be the way to go, for SCCA F Production
>> racing. However, it was found that the A series could be
>> developed to produce more horsepower, reliably, than the
>> 1500. In England, the A series has been the equivalent of
>> our fabled, small-block Chevy. It has found it's way into
>> an incredible number of race cars, from Cooper to Lotus
>> to, well, it seems like all of the special builders have
>> used them.
>
> No question that the A Series is an excellent engine. But
> you just hit on one of my beefs with the way 1500s are
> discussed on the list. People consistently compare a
> modified A Series engine with a stock 1500. (Maybe that's
> not the comparison you're drawing, but I sure do see it a
> lot.)
>
I read through the "lines" of all of the messages and realized that
both motors are great for different purposes. I intend to build a
daily driver, not an SCCA racer.
> I had a long discussion on the technical merits of the A
> Series vs. the 1500. Modified vs. unmodified. Torque vs.
> horepower. I just deleted it because I don't think it would
> matter one iota, and it isn't worth adding to the argument.
>
I agree from a general standpoint that the discussion as a whole
doesn't matter--most mailing lists have debates similar (metal dash B
vs padded dash B or Mac vs PC) but its the individual messages that
have merit. Don't for get to read them for content, not attitude. I'm
certainly not going to make a purchasing decision solely based on the
advice of three people I've never met on a mailing list I joined last
week. Then again, most everyone has something valid to say and I'm
willing to listen.
(Best message was the link to the BMW list and the sad story about the
M3)
> I'm just tired as all get out of the prevailing attitude
> that the 1500 Midget is a POS. I see the same comments crop
> up every time someone joins the list and asks about a
> post-75 Midget. I'd be more inclined to put up with it
> without protest if the commenters were speaking from
> personal experience with >>both<< versions of the Midget.
>
> I've driven and enjoyed both extensively.
>
> I'm currently driving and enjoying a very slightly modified
> 1500.
>
Interesting points here, too. One respondent said if they had to do it
over again, they'd do a '79.
Thanks to everyone (again) who responded. I've ruled out this
particular car due to the sill rust on both sides and the questionable
engine work. He wants $1500 for a car with rust, no battery or coil
and ill-fitting panels with a bad red spray job. I thought about
offering $500 for the whole deal because at least the title is clear.
Ideas?
Steve
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|