What I meant was that there was no *design* work on the engine.
Changing the timing, compression and carburetion, to me, are
changes in tuning. These are the kind of changes made for competition,
rules permitting.
Right. It was just a bolt-on job, really.
>What a car.
Yeah, but I think you are missing some punctuation; it should read:
What a car!!!. |-)
Agreed there!
>Also, there wasn't
>room in the sports chassis for a remote-control mounted on the
>back of the gearbox
A remote-control was added for the Mk.II and Mk.III 3000. It doesn't
seem that room, or the lack of it, would be an issue. I do know that
the Healey family had solutions for many of the problems (engine heat,
exhaust heat, minimal ground clearance, etc.) with the car and that
Geoff Healey once complained that BMC did not like spending money for
"sustaining engineering" unless it had to. The center shift
transmission was offered just before BMC started to "civilize"
the car with roll up windows, a real convertable top and a wood dash.
At one of the Healey Club meetings, someone read a copy of a letter
that Donald Healey (I think) wrote talking about suggested revisions
to the 100-6, including solutions to most of what you mention --
probably we're thinking of the same source. I also know that BMC
in general *hated* to spend money on these cars because they were
selling "well enough." The classic story here is told by the
MG heads Syd Enever and John Thornley, who recount sitting at a
table in the wee hours of the morning examining door latches, one
of which cost sixpence more than the other, and trying to find a
way to justify it to their management...
In general, *most* of the traditional problems with Our Beloved
British Cars come not from design or engineering, but from a
reluctance on the part of British management to spend the necessary
cash to do the right thing the first time, compounded by an
even greater reluctance to change something once it had been
selling -- no matter how bad it was.
>I know at least one person who installed the Rover/Buick/Etc
>aluminium V8 along with a TR8 5-speed transmission.
How well does this fit? I've seen Ford/Chevy conversions and they
either won't fit without cutting/welding or are VERY tight fits.
The Chevy is a tough transplant. Most people use a Ford for
the sake of simplicity; the Ford small-block is narrower, shorter
(less tall) and lighter. The problem is that the exhaust manifolds
stick into the footwells. The simple solution here is to reverse
them (so that the exits are heading forward, where there's lots
of room) and fabricate a funny-looking pair of downpipes.
The aluminium V8 is narrower, shorter and even lighter than the
Ford -- remember, the Al V8 is a 215 to the Ford's 260/289/302.
It's a very compact motor. (For instance, it fits in the MGB's
engine bay with a little firewall banging on pre-1973 models;
after September 1973, the factory made the changes to the chassis
because they were building V8 GTs.) I didn't really get to look
at this guy's conversion; usually it was going too fast for me to
see. :-)
I would have a *real* hard time making such a swap today, unless
I was saving an otherwise junked Healey. In that case, I'd just
recall the two stories that would justify it: DMH's trip to
America to try to get Cadillac V8s for the Silverstone (and I got
to see *his original prototype Cad-powered Silverstone last year!)
and his attempts to get BMC to sell Healey chassis to Carroll
Shelby for use in the new hybrid sports car that ol' Shel was
trying to get built in the early Sixties. When BMC wouldn't sell
chassis and Duntov wouldn't sell 'Vette motors, Shelby went to
AC and Ford and we all know what happened then...
|