WSpohn4@aol.com wrote:
>you are just arguing (perhaps just a little ineptly) using the time
>honoured dialectic tool of saying "If A is true, that entails B( usually B is
> a proposition that pushes the consequences of A as far as possible, to test
> the validity of A). The same thing I did when I asked if swapping a gearbox
> from another make didn't entail the permissibility of also swapping an
> out-of-marque engine.
>
> I sense a tone of resentment in your responses, along the lines of "No one
> can tell me what to do with my car!"
> Well, I think I have already agreed with that - if you want to douse your MGB
> with gas and use it for a weenie roast, it's your car, and (subject to local
> fire ordinances) you are perfectly welcome to do so.
>
> This is just a discussion about whether there is any need to swap
> transmissions. My suggestion was that there is no advantage from either a
>utilitarian point of view(the MG trans isn't inherently weak)or a monetary
>one (MG boxes with OD are still available, often for less money than is
>needed to fit a Sierra box, for instance), and that swapping in major
>assemblies from other makes of car might somehow detract from, I don't know
>how to say this more precisely, the 'MG-ness' of the subject car. I suggest
>that the discussion continue, if there is anything more to be said, along
> those lines.
A couple of apologies, this time non-sarcastic.
First, I'm sorry if my last post was a bit unclear. I was talking about what
engines MGBs came with, and about building a hypothetical MGBv8 with later
versions of the same engine. I understood your idea, I think, and was pushing
it to its limit, but I strayed a bit from the MGA for a more complicated
example.
Second, I'm sorry if you took offense at my comments, or if I seem resentful.
In truth, I'm pretty amused by the whole topic, and I am enjoying the
discussion.
In other news, there's really no need for personal insults.
But yes, Bill, I am arguing dialectically. I am trying to push your logic to
its limits and see what happens.
The hypothetical early MGA, with a 5-main/4-synchro from a 1980 MGB would have
30+ years separating its chassis from its engine and transmission. A 1980 MGB,
with a 4.6 v-8, would be less than twenty years removed; with a fuel-injected
4.0, about 10 years -- even though the original designs of both were, as in the
MGA example, roughly contemporary.
I see the swaps as equivalent, from a logical point of view, even though the
B-v8 will probably bother a lot more people...
But what I really liked about your post, Bill, was the idea of "MG-ness."
Bravo, and thank you.
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, and I really think that the
Idea of "MG-ness" is the important thing to me, not the specific identity and
origins of various parts. To me, the Idea has to do with beauty, balance,
speed, fun, agility, sport...not, necessarily, the markings on the head of a
particular bolt, or the type of shocks on the car, or the manufacture of the
transmission.
I, too, think that swapping major assemblies might comromise the "MG-ness" of
the car. Then again, it might not -- and that, I think, is where we differ.
If it is done in such a way that the car acts, or looks, or feels like
something different -- hypothetically, a sloppy gearbox and a Ford 302, with
sidepipes and a 14" aircleaner sticking through the hood (bonnet) -- then a
very, very large amount of the "MG-ness" is lost. Maybe all of it.
But, if you make changes that do not make the car unbalanced, do not look
terribly different, are made carefully... well, I have a hard time with the
idea that there's anything wrong with that.
(When I say not "look terribly different", I don't mean "will score 100 points
at a concours." I mean that the exterior of the car won't be changed much, and
that changes in other areas will be tidy, and relatively appropriate to the
car, look-wise. If someone who knows nothing about the model in question pops
the hood, will they immediately sense that something isn't right? Will they
see the hacksaw marks and nylon cable ties, or will they just see an engine?)
I wouldn't do anything that would destroy the "MG-ness" of my car, whether that
meant using it as a barbecue grill or putting a sloppy transmission in it. I
would consider putting in a 5-speed, because I like them better than 4-speeds,
and better than o/d,(de gustibus non disputandum est)(and because I drive my
car a lot, and I wouldn't mind dropping the revs a bit at cruising speeds.)
But only if the shift action is very, very good -- I love the feel of the stock
box.
But there are some things that others might consider simple that I can't stand.
American Racing wheels (or anything that doesn't look right). Wire wheel
covers on a disc wheel car. Custom stripes of a non-racing, non-original
variety. Replacing Smiths guages with modern hot-rod bits. Hood scoops.
No offense intended by that list, do whatever you want with your own car, etc.
But to me, the things I mentioned are more destructive to MG-ness than it would
be to replace the sweet, precise, well-balanced MG 4- speed with a sweet,
precise, well-balanced 5-speed.
If it expresses the Idea, "MG-ness"(Fun, sport, beauty, balance etc), then I
have no problem with it.
Matt
Again, sorry for any misunderstandings, hurt feelings, etc. I argue like this
(i.e. pedantically) with friends all the time, and I mean nobody any harm.
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.)
|