At 8:05 AM 3/8/95 +0500, Will Zehring wrote:
>"From there it was all downhill. Through 1972 these cars were still quite
>pure, but in 1973 a pair of smoggalble SUHIF carbs replaced the traditional
>units and power fell to 78.5 horses. Big rubber bumper overriders came in
>'74 and by 1975 we say heavy ugly 1 piece rubber bumpers, a single
>fire-prone carb replacing thw twin SUs and power falling to a measly 63
>horses."
The power figures are as quoted, but there's more than carburetion at
work here. In 1973 the compression ratio dropped with the introduction
of the 18V motor, which also lost its inner valve springs. Redline went
down, compression went down, the ignition timing was retarded and
oh yeah, they also detuned the carbs.
It should also be noted that horsepower ratings from the Sixties typically
quote gross BHP, which is sometimes called "horsepower measured at
the brochure." More reasonably, it's power at the flywheel, with a warm
motor with lots of cold air being pumped to it, and no ancillaries -- at
least, that's at its worst; I don't know how much of this M.G. did.
After about 1971, manufacturers started advertising net BHP, which is
still subject to some creative interpretation but generally more closely
resembles what the motor puts out in the vehicle. The difference can
be as much as 10%, depending on how optimistic the older amounts
were.
For me, the difference showed up in the absolute inability of my '74
MGB to go any faster than about 80 mph, downhill with the proverbial
tail wind. When I had the stock motor in the '71, it would do the ton
with comparative ease, and it was little trouble to run it up to 5500 RPM
in top gear with a short open stretch of roadway. So there *is* a
difference in stock form, but it's not entirely due to HIFs. I know a
number of performance tuners who prefer the HIF carbs, due to the
temperature compensation and to their reduced tendency for the fuel
to slosh in high-G cornering situations.
>I think Scott Fisher would blame this in BPSL "British PhlegmSucking
>Leyland" Scott: did I spell "phlegmsucking" correctly?
Exactly so, and thanks!
>The article ends with the statement: "Popular, reliable, collectible, fun to
>drive and cheap; what more could the rational enthusiast ask for?"
>
>I'm with him up to the "rational enthusiast" remark. Could someone explain
>to me what a "rational" enthusiast is?
Yes. That's easy: a rational enthusiast is an oxymoron.
--Scott "I'll have a plate of jumbo shrimp with lite butter, please" Fisher
|