Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Mgs\]\s+MGC\s+rear\s+axle\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Mgs\]\s+MGC\s+rear\s+axle\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Wm. Severin Thompson" <wsthompson@thicko.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:02:48 -0600; Is the rear axle on an MGC-GT common to other BMC cars? Big Healey? Is it the same as an MGB? What axle ratios were available? Wm. Severin Thompson ~iii<O <mailto:wsthompson@thicko.com> wsthompson@t; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00132.html (7,343 bytes)
2. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:46:31 EST; Is the rear axle on an MGC-GT common to other BMC cars? Big Healey? Is it the same as an MGB? ____________________________________ Yes, the same tube axle as the late MGB, with a range of ratios from; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00134.html (7,166 bytes)
3. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Paul Hunt" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:55:43 -0000; MGC and MGB (4-cylinder and V8) used the same axle design, although it changed from the Banjo to the Salisbury/tube with the GT and on the roadsters by July 67. Disc and wire axles are different leng; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00135.html (9,029 bytes)
4. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:03:10 EST; The B diff was always 3.909:1 (11/43) although the auto used 3.7:1 (10/37). For competition you could get 4.555:1 (9/41), 4.3:1 (10.43), and 4.1:1 (10/41) on the banjo, only the first and 4.22:1 (9/3; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00137.html (7,546 bytes)
5. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:33:56 -0800; In 8 minutes you managed to confuse the heck out of me. The MGC rear axle design as some other nice people have mentioned is the same type as the MGB. The brake assemblies and hubs are unique to the; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00140.html (8,328 bytes)
6. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Wm. Severin Thompson" <wsthompson@thicko.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:46:44 -0600; I'm primarily interested in interchangeability of the rear gear itself. It's common on a big Healey to swap out the standard gear on an overdrive car with the 3.54 gear of a non-overdrive car... drop; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00141.html (7,868 bytes)
7. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:46:21 -0800; The C engine in stock form doesn't put out an incredible amount of torque because there is quite a bit of drag from the main bearings. I'd be careful how high a gear you go with. The cars had pretty; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00142.html (8,645 bytes)
8. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: Barrie Robinson <barrie@look.ca>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:30:55 -0500; There is a chap in Ottawa that sells the 3.07 ratio crown wheel and pinion gears as used in MGCs. I swapped my MG rear axle out to this ratio and everything is fine! Regards Barrie Barrie Robinson ba; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00143.html (9,246 bytes)
9. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: WSpohn4@aol.com; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:18:25 EST; The C engine in stock form doesn't put out an incredible amount of torque because there is quite a bit of drag from the main bearings. I'd be careful how high a gear you go with. The cars had pretty; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00144.html (7,862 bytes)
10. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: RampantNM@aol.com; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:59:30 EST; All these can be fitted to the MGB as well of course. The V8 also had the 3.07:1 for all cars. Any thoughts on fitting the 3.07 in lieu of a five speed or overdrive in a 4 cylinder B? Regards, Robert; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00148.html (8,308 bytes)
11. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Eric Markley" <ericemarkley@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:08:03 -0500; The reduction in gearing from 3.909 to 3.07 is about 21.5%. This would seriously hamper acceleration in a stock B but provide relaxed cruising. If you had a car with a supercharger, it might be sensi; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00149.html (9,398 bytes)
12. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Paul Hunt" <paul.hunt1@blueyonder.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:23:08 -0000; Wouldn't that achieve the inverse of the Holy Grail and lose out on both acceleration *and* top speed? The ratio in 4th is 3.909:1, OD 4th 3.2:1. Top speed is 105mph, which means 5,800 rpm in 4th or; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00151.html (8,316 bytes)
13. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Eric Markley" <ericemarkley@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:33:00 -0500; Paul has a good point. A stock B with a 3.07 axle ratio would likely not have enough torque to pull redline in 4th gear, hence my suggestion of a supercharger. The benefits would be reduced rpm on th; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00152.html (9,685 bytes)
14. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: Bob Howard <mgbob@juno.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:28:01 -0500; Yes, it reduces both acceleration and top speed. Carl Cedarstrand, T-series guru in California, put together a text about ring & pinion exchanges in TD/TF cars, which are geared for effective stump-; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00155.html (9,851 bytes)
15. Re: [Mgs] MGC rear axle (score: 1): Author: "Dodd, Kelvin" <doddk@mossmotors.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:04:16 -0800; I would definitely install a 3.70 MGC rear end into a supercharged MGB if I had one, but with the 175/80 tires I'm running on my car I don't think I would go with anything higher. The standard 3.90 i; /html/mgs/2007-11/msg00157.html (9,102 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]