Lawrie,
I probably didn't state the reply very well.
What I meant (and thought I was saying) was that the effort, expense and
general hassle to make the modification to an otherwise good
transmission, was, while not counter-productive, at the least
unnecessary.
At the time of a major tranny overhaul, I could see and justify the
modification.
As you stated the extra bearing surface would add to the longevity of the
layshaft.
I guess one point I didn't make was (and agreeing with you about the
wear on the layshaft - it's almost a given to replace it any time the
'box is apart), was that under the general conditions most B's are driven
under, even the layshaft is supprisingly long-lived.
I'll go back to the two tranny's I've had in my GT. The first was the
original (I am as sure as one can be, as I've got all the service records
on the car since the original owners 1000 mile check at her local MG
dealership), and at the time I pulled it, it had over 100K miles and had
no untoward noises, vibrations, etc and shifted like a dream. The second,
which I have put close to 100k miles on (previous mileage is anybody's
guess; It came out of a parts car I had bought), and the only problem
I've had so far is that the nylon bushing on the base of the shift lever
had some bad wear and would sometimes be reluctant to exit 3rd gear.
The only reason I changed the trannies in the first place, was that the
second was an OD box.
I think we both agree on the principle; I just can't get my thoughts
together sometimes when I'm thinking about some idiot, as in the
orginator.
Now if some one would just come up with a layshaft made like the
crankshaft in my Midget, we'd all have it made. (257000 miles, original
crankshaft, standard rods and mains, and all clearances still within
tolerances.) :>)
Rick Morrison
72 MGBGT
74 Midget
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:13:30 -0800 "Lawrie Alexander"
<Lawrie@britcars.com> writes:
>Rick..........
>I hate to get argumentative here (esp. as that might seem some sort of
>defense of the original proponent of the idea, who turned out to be a
>real persona non grata), but I must comment that - while the B gearbox
is
>basically a very strong unit - almost all the ones I've ever taken
>apart to rebuild (probably hundreds by now) have needed new layshafts
because
>they have worn badly where the bearings ride. Adding more bearing
surface
.would seem to be a good idea - one I'd not thought of and one that I
will
>try in fuure.
>
>Lawrie
>British Sportscar Center
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Morrison <gofastmg@juno.com>
>To: gbaker@customcpu.com <gbaker@customcpu.com>
>Cc: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
>Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 5:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: gearbox disgust]
>boundary="------------58AF729DA6A1412899B82D88"
>
>
>>The question I have is
>> WHY?
>> It seems a whale of a lot of trouble and expense for a frankly
>doubious
>>affect.
>> Granted, it would reduce the point-load on any given layshaft
>bearing,
>>thus increasing the entire shaft's load carrying capacity, but to
>what
>>purpose?
>> The B gear box is quite robust enough to handle most all "normal"
>>conditions, and a whole lot of "abnormal" ones.
>>
>>Rick Morrison
>>72 MGBGT
>>74 Midget
>>
>>On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:46:47 -0900 gbaker@customcpu.com (Baker, G.)
>>writes:
>>>
>>>I really, really, really hate to ask this but..................Has
>>>anyone else ever tried, seen
>>>or heard of altering the gearbox in this way?
>>>Thanks,
>>>Gregg
>>>
>>
>
|