Forgot the trailer...
>I believe it is absolutely impossible to get the 5 port head to run clean
>enough to meet emissions requirements. Also, the long stroke of the 1500
>provides more low RPM torque than the 1275, torque that is needed to move
>the extra 200 or so pounds of crash protection the RB midgets are saddled
>with. Driven back to back, the RB Midgets are quicker off the line, and
>drive more solid.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Asgeirsson" <pasgeirsson@worldnet.att.net>
> To: "Mark Hineline" <hineline@ocotillofield.net>; "Spridget List"
> <spridgets@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:41 AM
> Subject: Re: 1275 vs 1500 in a RB Midget
>
>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the reason for the 1500 being used instead of the 1275
>> was
>> the 1500 had already been certified by the EPA for the then US smog
>> requirements. Cleaning up the 1275 emissions any more than they already
>> had
>> was going to be more costly than they cared to get involved with.
>>
>> Might be wrong on this, but pretty sure that was the reason.
>>
>> Paul A
>>
>>
>>> The official reasoning behind dropping the Triumph 1500 into the
>>> rubber-bumper Midget in '75, if I recall correctly, was that the
>>> increased displacement was needed to compensate for the increased
>>> weight of the fittings.
>>>
>>> I've never bought that explanation, although there might be some truth
>>> in it. I've always suspected that BL was looking for a cost advantage.
>>> (All their other 1275 production was in front-wheel drive vehicles.)
>>>
>>> What would the cost be, in acceleration and top speed, of dropping a
>>> 1275 into a RB car?
>>>
>>> Mark
|