Rick Morrison wrote:
> Just because an engine is overbuilt, is no excuse to reduce the
> reliability just to avoid a little work and expense.
Well, frankly their is. MG engines are not made of
gold, they are very affordable.
It's simply not worth spending X amount of money and Y amount
of time to stretch the life of an engine, when it would be
more cost and time effective to use two engines in that
time period.
If you get only 40000 miles out of a hot engine instead
of 100000, it very well could be easier and cheaper to leave
it as stock and replace it a few times than to re-engineer
it with all new designs and materials to make it last.
Remember, engineering is not about making THE BEST product. It's
about making products that fill the need the best. Sometimes it
helps to stand back and say "what really is the design goal
of the project". Inevitably, that will be to have the most horsepower
for the least cost and work.
> Besides, in the case here (MGB engines), we are talking about engines
> that are 20+ years old. They ain't exactly as strong as they once were!
Sure they would be. Why wouldn't they? Clearly an engine that
has been running for 20 years and never rebuilt would need
a freshening, but we aren't comparing fresh rebuilds to veterans
here.
> Body, having nothing to do with engine design, I'll pass on this.
Well, passing on this is ignoring the main issue. Engines are
designed to be strong enough to survive. Bodies are designed
to be strong enough to survive. The physics and the math involved
is the same.
In the 50s, lacking the knowledge and computing horsepower to
characterize a body, engineers erred on the side of caution and
overbuilt them.
It is very logical to assume the engine would be the same. It's
the same physics, or lack thereof.
> Reasonable is a relative term. If you only drive your car 5000 miles a
> year, then a
> 20,000 mile engine is reliable. But if (like me) put 12-15,000 per on the
> car, then the same engine IS NOT reasonable.
Ah, but now you are changing the tune!
Your original statement was concrete, ALL engines have to
be strengthened, no exceptions.
My point was that your statement was much too strong, there
are many cases where it is either not required or does not
make financial sense.
Now you seem to be saying IN YOUR CASE you need reliability
because you drive a lot. That may be very true, but it's a far
cry from ALL ENGINES NEED TO BE STRENGTHENED IF THEY ARE MODIFIED.
--
Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|