In a message dated 02/07/01 10:56:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
barneymg@ntsource.com writes:
> I think it's because the gearbox is generally hidden from view, and for all
> intents and purposes it still looks like the original car after the swap.
> Much like stuffing the MGB clutch in the MGA or swapping out the final
> drive gears in the rear axle. Also the same reason we seem to accept some
> power upgrades to the original engine, as long as it still looks about the
> same when done. Installing an odd engine would definitly raise some
> eyebrows when you lift the bonnet at a car show. In other words, you can
> get away with just about anything as long as no one notices.
>
>
So you figure that this is the level of 'purism' shared by the MG owners?
Hell - why not just bolt the MGA body onto a Miata and be done with it? It
would go better, have more power, get better mileage, run cleaner, handle
better - what's not to like?
And my race car? Well, maybe I'll mount an RX7 rotary in it - as long as I
make up a fibreglass casting of the top of a Twincam engine to cover it, I
should be OK, no?
I suppose it is just a matter of drawing lines in different places. I
appreciate my MGs for what they are. I have no illusions about their
limitations, and I am ready to use better bearings, electrical items,
lubricants, to make them function better.
What I am not prepared to do is bastardise them by transplanting engines,
transmissions, differentials, or suspension from a different car into them.
Even if it doesn't show. An MGB engine in an MGA? No problem. Ribcase
transmission in an early Midget? Why not - along with a 1275 motor instead of
the 948 that used to spit out it's bearings with wallet-numbing regularity.
My chosen modus operandi is to make the factory parts work, if possible. I
don't leap at the opportunity afforded by a worn distributor, transmission,
carb, to replace the part with something else from some other car - a Mallory
distributor, a Toyota transmission, a downdraft Weber carb. I don't use tube
shocks on my race car, as there is nothing wrong with the Armstrongs. Would
Konis be better? You bet, but so would a Miata engine.
If it turned out that some particular weak point in the design of the car
required reworking (snapping Lotus camshafts would be one example form
another marque), then I'd have some billet steel cams machined up, I wouldn't
use it as an excuse to stick another make of engine into the car.
We clearly have a wide spectrum of tolerance among the group for modification
to the cars, and my post was intended to smoke people out, make them think
about what they would or would not do, and state the limits of their
willingness to modify the cars.
I guess I am a little surprised at how far many people would go, and that
they don't see themselves as losing anything by taking measures that to
traditionalists seem quite drastic. I also suspect that even given the option
of, say, a serviceable MG OD trans sitting in front of them for less money,
some people would insist on going the Toyota route.
I recall the last Namgar meet I attended in Tahoe (OK, OK, I went in my
Interceptor, as my coupe wasn't back on the road again). There was what
started life as an MGA sitting there with a Chev V8 engine and driveline in
it. There was nothing left of the MG except for the general body shape and
some bits of frame. I remember thinking to myself that any number of
manufacturers had done the same sort of thing, and better, and wondered what
had prompted the owner to end the life of a poor unsuspecting MGA in that
fashion. I hope it was over quickly, and that it never knew what hit it! I
guess that car represents the end of the modification path that I find myself
questioning.
Bill
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.)
|