[BOUNCE mgs@Autox.Team.Net: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line
2]
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:54:00 +0100
From: David Knowles <dknowles@uk.b-r.com>
Subject: Re: C reviews, why bad?/ was Engine weights...
Ah - the story of the engine - where to begin? I shall be covering this
in an article in MG World (hint - subscribe now, that nice Phil Raby
will accommodate you!). The original 'C' series engine, as used ion the
big Healeys from the introduction of the AH100/6, was a Morris Engines
design. The 'A' and 'B' series engines had been Austin designs, so with
the 'C' there was a matter of some honour to be upheld (don't forget
that BMC was effectively a loose federation rather than an a closely
integrated company). The engine could have formed the basis of a
twin-cam six, a la Jaguar XK, but that is another story. When it came to
designing new engines for the 1960's, the Longbridge experimental
engineering dept. began to explore a series of narrow-angle V4 and V6
engines (a cross-section through the V4 is in my book) which were
intended to replace the 'B' and 'C' series. 2-litre V4s were built, and
tried at Abingdon, although Syd Enever didn't like them. Even so, they
were quite advanced - very compact, even reminiscent of the "VR5" and
"VR6" s-called "vee-inline" engines which VW-Audi has now produced.
However, these engines were an unknown quantity, would have cost
zillions to fully develop, and would have necessitated new production
facilities for which - shock! horror! money would have had to have been
invested in the factories. And this is the British Car Industry of the
1950s/1960s we are talking of - couldn't have that sort of thing old
boy! With the abandonment of the V4, no-one was really that worried, but
with the loss of the V6, it was obvious that BMC would be stuck with a
version of the heavy old 'C' straight six. A number of options were
looked at, including the Australian "Blue Flame" six, which was
effectively one and half 'B' series. From the 1,622 c.c. 'B', you could
get a 2,433 c.c. Blue Flame (as used in Australian BMC cars); from the
1,798 you would have got 2,697 c.c. However, this engine was designed
and built in Australia, using local production facilities, and the
likelihood of even BMC shipping engines right round the world was
remote. So although the Blue Flame engine was played with - and tried in
an MGB - it got no further than the wish list. The Rolls-Royce engine
which George Harriman had lumbered BMC with was a four-litre job, and
too big to use for anything but the more luxurious cars (there was a
plan to build related BMC/Rolls Royce/Bentleys - yet another story). So
in the end, the hospital job was to redesign the old 'C' series. This
was entrusted to a team under the watchful eye of Sir Alec, and it was
determined that unlike the original the new version would have seven
bearings in the interest of refinement and longevity. In the process,
these bearings also led to considerable windage losses so the new engine
was immediately down on power compared to its predecessor. MG,
meanwhile, harboured a desire for a bigger engined MG, and John Thornley
knew that it was unlikely that BMC would sanction anything other than a
reworked MGB. He hoped, however, that it could have been reworked more
obviously than the end result. Abingdon knew that they would have to
contend with a bigger engine than they wanted - hence the front end
redesign, largely by Roy Brocklehurst, but they were assured that it
would be lighter than the old unit. So when it arrived they were
horrified; Syd Enever went to see Issigonis personally and asked him to
shorten the stroke and improve the breathing. Issy sent him away with a
flea in his ear - the needs of the sports car business were peripheral
to him - and no-one else would rally to MG's cause and risk incurring
Issy's wrath. So they were stuck with it.
Bob Allen wrote previously:
>>>>> Thanks for the history lesson. Now how about a few words on the origins
of the
motor? I understand it shared nothing with the Healey 3-liter and I
thought it was
an expansion of some 4-cylinder motor out of Australia. And how come,
once the
motor made it to Abingdon, the weight was such a surprise? How many
layers of
management were between the too groups? Was the notion of a seven main
bearing
motor and offshoot of the bad 'B' press on the 3 main version? It seems
silly now
but, in the 50's many an American six cyclinder had seven mains (and was
outperformed by all V8's of the same size).
Thanks, Bob Allen
> In 1967, when the MGC was but a newborn lamb, <snip><<<<<
|