Michael New Bern wrote:
>> power of 145bhp compared to the MGB's 95bhp, output per liter
>> was less than the smaller engine - and the last Austin-Healy
>> 3000 had developed 150bhp."
>
> What are the relative torque figures? That's where from the low end
> grunt emerges.
Ahhhh ... there you go spoiling all the fun ... ;^)
The 'C's massive six cylinder produces 170 lb ft of torque at 3,400 rpm
compared to the 'B's 110 lb ft of torque at 3,000. The 'C's unladen
weight is 2,460lb compared to the 'B's unlanden weight of 2,030lb ...
so the 'C's torque to weight ratio is .69 compared to the 'B's .54. Road
and Track recorded the standing 1/4 mile for a '69 'C' (Federal Specs) at
18.0 seconds compared to 18.7 seconds for a '70 'B' (FederalSpecs).
Safety Fast! ... larry.g.unger@lmco.com
'61 MGA 1600 MkII
|