on 9/4/03 12:22 PM, WSpohn4@aol.com at WSpohn4@aol.com wrote:
> The Stag wasn't significantly faster than the stock MGC, although you will
> see figures varying by a second or so in the 0-60 (usually 9.5 to 10.5 range
> for both).
One reason these figures were so inconsistent in the old road tests is
because there was no standardized procedure.Road & Track, for instance,
tested all the 60s sports cars with a driver and a passenger (the passenger
to operate the stop watch). When they went to a 5th wheel, and still later
to a radar gun, times improved. So the 0-60 time they printed for a 1980 MGB
might not be comparable to what they recorded in 1965, for instance. An
extra 180 pounds or so (or a lot more, based on the current engineering
editor <g>) makes a big difference to these small displacement cars.
Some magazines would rev the engine and dump the clutch to break the tires
loose, while others wouldn't stoop to "abusing" a "borrowed" car (and in the
early days they were usually borrowed from private owners). Anyway, you
can't really rely on old contemporary test results, except in comparison
tests where at least you have a consistent procedure.
>
> Neither was quite as fast as an MGA Twincam, of course......
>
> Bill
I knew you'd say that... <g>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|