Trevor,
Two things:
1. The Euro-spec 1500 had much more power
2. The 1500 Midget weighs quite a bit more than most 1275/1098/948
So, for people in NA, the question is: does the increased power of a
US-choaked 1500 overcome the weight penalty of the rubber bumpers
(and all the other stuff that grew on the spridgets, like carpeting,
bigger seats, etc.)?
Jeff
>Daniel1312@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Stuff printed in magazines are not facts any more than 150mph E-types were
>> facts when they were road tested by magazines.
>
> Ok guys, this is REALLY missing the point and picking on
>meaningless surrounding details.
>
> I am not saying that everything printed by magazines is
>true, but really, what "secret motif" would a September
>2000 issue of Practical Classics magazine have to lie
>about the 1500 being faster?
>
> It doesn't take a master of subtleties to notice there's
>a difference between an advertising pitch of a company
>that has everything to gain (Frank's reference to Ginsu
>knives and Miracle Car Wax), and classic car magazine intended
>to give hobbyists information on old cars.
>
> Last time this discussion went around, this issue of PC
>magazine wasn't yet written, but very similar numbers
>came out from other sources. The Brooklands Gold Portfolio
>for example, says basically the same information give
>or take a tenth here and there.
>
> Is it a conspiracy by ALL print companies, books and
>magazines, to lie about 1500s being faster than 1275s?
>
> Do we need Austin Powers to come charging in to save
>us all from this horrible cartel?
>
> A more important point, what's with the 1275cc mental
>blocks, and the religious devotion to defending it?
>
> Everyone can understand the 1098 is faster than the 948,
>because it's bigger.
>
> Everyone can understand the 1275 is faster still than the
>1098, because it's bigger.
>
> Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the
>1500cc is faster than the 1275, because it's bigger? You
>may not like that the engine was made by Triumph, but the
>two engines are essentially the same design, pushrods,
>2 valves per cylinder, non-crossflow, etc.
>
> Do you really beleive that somehow Austin/MG "magic"
>lives on in the design so that, for no apparent
>reason, it can outperform a similar design with
>over 200 more cc?
>
> Is the law-of-displacement somehow maximized at 1275cc,
>and everything larger starts to lose? Should we then
>be surprised that 7 liter cadillacs can even generate
>enough power to move their own sorry own weight?
>
> After all, they are burdened by almost an additional
>6 liters, not just the minute 200cc the poor 1500cc
>engine is saddled with!
>
> Accept, people. Accept.
>
>--
>Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
>Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
>ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna get my drink on.
--
__________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Assistant Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision
<http://www.molvis.org/molvis>
<mailto: jboatri@emory.edu>
|