Granted, all MG engines were overweight. How is it that small airplane
engines can come in at about 1 hp per pound, and turn at 2500 doing it?
Granted, they are air cooled and require oil changes at 25-30 hours, but
25 hrs at 60 mph on the road would be 1500 miles. Time between overhauls
is 2000+ hours for most, again equivalent to 120,000 miles, so that's not
a bad wear rate. How do they get that amount of power per pound at such
low revs and normally aspirated?
Just imagine Bob Allen with 650 hp under that bonnet! Tire wear measured
in time, not in miles. Girls at the drive-ins just poised to drape over
the car..... Spoke problems fixed with silicone and epoxy!
Bob
who would like to think that the MkII is lots more powerful than a TD,
but knows its not..
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:37:48 -0400 <larry.g.unger@lmco.com> writes:
>Bob Allen wrote:
>
>> As usual, Larry is misinformed.
>>
>> 55 pounds? Lordy, the motor was 70 pounds above forecast
>> when it arrived at the Abingdon plant in 1967. The 'C' motor
>> actually weighs 610 pounds which, as I understand it, is like
>> having a 225 pound boat anchor sitting on your 'B's front cross
>> member.
>
>Well ... the idea of taking a well balanced car like the 'B', and
>stuffing in too heavy of an engine naturally made me think of the
>'C' ... so I felt obliged to observe 'proper list etiquette' and
>'zing'
>Bob Allen. I must of hit a nerve, 'cause I still can't figure out
>when I stated that the 'C' engine weighed 55 pounds more than
>the 'B' engine ... only that the effect would be similar ... granted
>not as extreme, but similar.
>
>Time to annoy Bob a bit more by quoting a book. In 'Orignial
>MGB' Anders Clausager states ...
>
> "I was a bulky engine - although 2in shorter than the old Healey
> 3000 unit - and a heavy one, at 650-700lb depending on
> specification, compared to the 360lb of an MGB engine. With
> power of 145bhp compared to the MGB's 95bhp, output per liter
> was less than the smaller engine - and the last Austin-Healy
> 3000 had developed 150bhp."
>
>... so, to say the the 'C' engine weighted 290 to 340 pounds
>(depending on specification) more than the 'B' engine would seem
>a bit more accurate. Hmmm ... increase the weight by 80 to 95%
>to gain a 50% increase in power ... makes sense to me ... ;^)
>
>> But it handles alright if not exemplary and it can make all the
>> lesser cars get smaller in the rearview.
>
>Provided the road ahead doesn't have any turns ... ;^)
>
>
>Safety Fast! ... larry.g.unger@lmco.com
>"... an MGC motor? Damn, that is a big hunk of iron." Bob Allen, Sept.
>10, 1997
>
>
|