OK here we go again... my last comment on O/D's
I'm going to try to be very careful with my wording here.
I've owned, repaired, restored, and driven some 14 LBC's over the last 25
years.
I have even owned the same make and model year vehicles one with and one
without o/d.
Some I have installed, and/or removed the o/d transmissions for one reason
or another.
On both Triumphs and MG's, ALL THE O/D EQUIPPED VEHICLES
LASTED LONGER AND GOT BETTER MILEAGE.
I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE THEORIZES.
I'LL STICK WITH EXPERIENCE ANY DAY.
Paul Tegler
Twin 73' MGB GTs YB and OB
YB born 8/72 (Primrose Yellow) Yellow BGT
OB born 1/73 (Blase Red) Orange BGT
email: wizardz@amdyne.net
http://www.amdyne.net/~ptegler/mgmain.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: WSpohn4@aol.com <WSpohn4@aol.com>
To: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 11:19 AM
Subject: OD Theories
><<You have an influential member on your side in this discussion. None
>other than John Twist.
>He has postulated the argument that it takes a certain amount of
>mechanical "effort" to run the overdrive, which may negate any mpg
>savings and/or lessening of the wear and tear on the engine.>>
>
>So by that theory, the post 68 cars would be worse off than the early non
>synchro trans cars, because the early trans with smaller shafts and less
power
>drain would have less effort and wear than later all synch cars?
>
>Bill S.
|