> > Finally, the comparison made by someone about the B's superior
> engine
> > and
> > the implication that the spitfire 1500 was/is/might be a bag of
> nails
> > - I
> > would say this. With the greatest respect, Sir - do your research
> and
> > stop
> > talking out of your armpit. The ubiquitous 'B' series engine had a
> > three
> > bearing crank and because it caused so much trouble in the early
> MGBs,
> > went
> > five bearing in 1965ish. Thereafter, the problems were cured. The
> > Spitfire
> > engine was only a three bearing unit and in its final guise at
> around
> > 1500cc was being pushed to the very limits. Ye, Gods, it started out
> > as a
> > three bearing 850 cc unit just after the war, so for someone to
> claim
> > it is
> > not as durable as the 'B' series which started life many years
> earlier
> > as a
> > larger engine anyway AND THEN HAD TO HAVE 2 EXTRA main journals put
> in
> > it
> > in 1965 is utter twaddle.
> Well, you are contradicting yourself, you start off saying, why don't
> we
> just basically tell him about the good and the bad sides on both cars,
> as they are not occupying the niche, and then you toast me for saying
> that the late MGB engine is better than the Spitfire 1500. Man o
> man...the 1500 engine is not a good engine fact. The five bearing MGB
> engine is a good engine fact 2. So whats the dwaddle and the
> ill-informed-ness? He was looking especially at ease of servicing and
> so
> on. If I would look for advice, I'd much rather want to know that than
> if the design is more modern or not. He said his choice is one or the
> other, so what, its his choice.
>
> Gernot
>
|