In a message dated 17/01/01 10:44:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mgvrmark@hotmail.com writes:
> Isn't the real solution to make the MGA's use real MGA engines, gearbox,
> etc? Someone has missed the point of "vintage" here. An MGA is not
> supposed to be an MGB with a curvier body. I fully realize there are
> safety
> implications on some parts (e.g. king pins), that's different. But an MGA
> with 1800 cc, overdrive gearbox, and 14" wheels isn't an MGA any more.
>
>
Hey now - then they'd have to make the Alfas all run 1600 and 1750, instead
of 2000, and the Porsches - God knows what they run - I think there is some
secret contest sometimes, and the guy with the early 911 (or 914) that crams
the biggest latest engine into his car wins.
Then there's the Tigers. Most of them were made with 260 ci engines. Guess
how many still have them? And Ford GT 40s, million buck cars, and a friend
that owns and races one told me that a few years ago (at Laguna, I think)
when they had a big get-together, his was the only car with an original 289
with the Gurney-Weslake heads - everyone else had larger, later engines.
So I don't get TOO excited about MGAs with B engines in them - I can legally
run either in my TVR, but to get the same performance fro the 1622 as the
1798 would require a much higher state of tune, and more frequent and
expensive rebuilds, with exactly the same lap times. Which do you think I
choose? (well it is a 3 main B, but that's suits my reactionary temperament).
I think there is a valid argument for SOME updates being allowed - it's where
you draw the line that always gets us into difficulty!
Bill
|