Hello,
I guess I had better chime in with my 2 cents worth here.
Our mkII MGA carrys about 22lbs. of weight per horsepower while our good
ol' '67 MGB-GT has to tote around 24lbs./hp. The MGA is decidedly quicker.
David F. Darby
----------
> From: Art Pfenninger <ch155@FreeNet.Buffalo.EDU>
> To: Barney Gaylord <barneymg@juno.com>
> Cc: jello@dns.ida.net; mgs@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Speed times Compared
> Date: Wednesday, 05 November, 1997 1:56 PM
>
> I have just the opposit situation. My 1500 MGA with a weber is
> considerably slower off the line then my 77B. The B feels like a Corvette
> in comparison.
> ...Art
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Barney Gaylord wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 23:09:52 -0700 jello@dns.ida.net (Phil Bates)
writes:
> >
> > >..... My MGA seems faster than my MGB, but then again, it has an MGB
> > engine in it. Maybe that makes its performance closer to the twin cam,
> > but I am quite sure it won't do 113mph. Anyone have any idea how an
MGA
> > with an MGB engine would do on this comparison.
> >
> > Tire diameter divided by final drive ratio is about the same, so thrust
> > at the rear tires would also be comparable. But, the MGA with a full
> > frame weighs in at just under 2000 pounds with two gallons of fuel in
the
> > tank, and the early MGB with uni-body construction weighs about 100
> > pounds less. Later MGBs weighed a bit more. Given the same engine,
the
> > early B should have about a 5% edge on acceleration due to the weight
> > difference.
> >
> > I suppose you all know why I have an interest in this information.
> >
> > Barney Gaylord
> > 1958 MGA with an attitude
> >
|