This is one of those topics on which everyone can have a different
opinion and still be right.
Along the way, the procedure for HP measurment got changed. I forget
the details, but the "new" rating is supposed to be a net rating that is
more representative of what the engine is actually delivering. The "old"
rating method tested the engine w/o water pump and other drags on it, and
might have been subject to some advertising department inflation too.
Thus the HP rating was lowered not only by a real decrease in the
engine output, but also by making the rating more honest. The 30%
decrease is, in all liklihood, calculated from an optimistic original
number.
So, with the 65 hp rating, you can be pretty sure that a typical engine
will deliver the 65 hp, whereas with the earlier ratings the output might
or might not be as advertised. Short of dyno testing, we will never know
for certain.
We have a similar issue in the TDs. The "standard" car had whatever it
had, 56-57 HP and the MkII cars had, depending on the source of the
information, 3 - 6 hp more. Who really knows?
Bob
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:12:06 -0700 "wcameyer" <wcameyer@email.msn.com>
writes:
> As I remember published figures, my '65 had 93 or 95 horses, while
> my '77
> came off the line with 65 horses, a drop of about 30 per cent.
>
> Bill
> > to earlier MGBs as this reduced the net horsepower by 10-15
> (arguments
> > happen often on this issue) at the very time that the cars were
> getting
> > heavier because of safety and comfort considerations.
> > Bob
> >
>
>
>
|