> I'm afraid I have to take issue with you about the tranny
> in the 1500 being unbreakable. Quite simply, the 2nd and
> 4th gear syncros don't hold up.
Waitaholdit. I didn't say it was unbreakable. I said it's
"hard to break". Harder to break than a smoothcase? No
question. Harder to break than a ribcase? Difficult for me
to say, I've never broken either a ribcase or a 1500
transmission.
Speaking of experience, your experience differs vastly from
mine. Over 75,000 miles on a 1500 transmission and nary a
difficulty. (Anybody who rides with me can tell you I don't
baby it.) I can't explain the difference aside from the
build quality issues that pervaded everything British
Leyland in that period. Maybe I've just gotten hold of a
good one.
> Also, as to bottom end durability, when
> modified/tuned for higher output: the A series is an
> incredibly strong, durable unit. For awhile, the 1500s
> were thought to be the way to go, for SCCA F Production
> racing. However, it was found that the A series could be
> developed to produce more horsepower, reliably, than the
> 1500. In England, the A series has been the equivalent of
> our fabled, small-block Chevy. It has found it's way into
> an incredible number of race cars, from Cooper to Lotus
> to, well, it seems like all of the special builders have
> used them.
No question that the A Series is an excellent engine. But
you just hit on one of my beefs with the way 1500s are
discussed on the list. People consistently compare a
modified A Series engine with a stock 1500. (Maybe that's
not the comparison you're drawing, but I sure do see it a
lot.)
I had a long discussion on the technical merits of the A
Series vs. the 1500. Modified vs. unmodified. Torque vs.
horepower. I just deleted it because I don't think it would
matter one iota, and it isn't worth adding to the argument.
Look, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that the 1500
is better than the A Series. It's certianly >>not<< better
with setup that the factory delivered them to the States in.
With any engine "better" is more an issue of the use it is
being put to than of the engine itself.
I'm just tired as all get out of the prevailing attitude
that the 1500 Midget is a POS. I see the same comments crop
up every time someone joins the list and asks about a
post-75 Midget. I'd be more inclined to put up with it
without protest if the commenters were speaking from
personal experience with >>both<< versions of the Midget.
I've driven and enjoyed both extensively.
I'm currently driving and enjoying a very slightly modified
1500.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|