I sat down and worked out a suitable reply to Trevor's pseudo logic and
mis-statements, but changed my mind.
I've got too much to do, to argue with a fence post.
Rick Morrison
72 MGBGT
74 Midget
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:52:59 -0500 Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>
writes:
>Rick Morrison wrote:
>> Just because an engine is overbuilt, is no excuse to reduce the
>> reliability just to avoid a little work and expense.
>
> Well, frankly their is. MG engines are not made of
>gold, they are very affordable.
>
> It's simply not worth spending X amount of money and Y amount
>of time to stretch the life of an engine, when it would be
>more cost and time effective to use two engines in that
>time period.
>
> If you get only 40000 miles out of a hot engine instead
>of 100000, it very well could be easier and cheaper to leave
>it as stock and replace it a few times than to re-engineer
>it with all new designs and materials to make it last.
>
> Remember, engineering is not about making THE BEST product. It's
>about making products that fill the need the best. Sometimes it
>helps to stand back and say "what really is the design goal
>of the project". Inevitably, that will be to have the most horsepower
>for the least cost and work.
>
>> Besides, in the case here (MGB engines), we are talking about
>engines
>> that are 20+ years old. They ain't exactly as strong as they once
>were!
>
> Sure they would be. Why wouldn't they? Clearly an engine that
>has been running for 20 years and never rebuilt would need
>a freshening, but we aren't comparing fresh rebuilds to veterans
>here.
>
>> Body, having nothing to do with engine design, I'll pass on this.
>
> Well, passing on this is ignoring the main issue. Engines are
>designed to be strong enough to survive. Bodies are designed
>to be strong enough to survive. The physics and the math involved
>is the same.
>
> In the 50s, lacking the knowledge and computing horsepower to
>characterize a body, engineers erred on the side of caution and
>overbuilt them.
>
> It is very logical to assume the engine would be the same. It's
>the same physics, or lack thereof.
>
>> Reasonable is a relative term. If you only drive your car 5000
>miles a
>> year, then a
>> 20,000 mile engine is reliable. But if (like me) put 12-15,000 per
>on the
>> car, then the same engine IS NOT reasonable.
>
> Ah, but now you are changing the tune!
>
> Your original statement was concrete, ALL engines have to
>be strengthened, no exceptions.
>
> My point was that your statement was much too strong, there
>are many cases where it is either not required or does not
>make financial sense.
>
> Now you seem to be saying IN YOUR CASE you need reliability
>because you drive a lot. That may be very true, but it's a far
>cry from ALL ENGINES NEED TO BE STRENGTHENED IF THEY ARE MODIFIED.
>
>--
>Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
>Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
>ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>
|