Joe,
That's interesting that an MG engineer is blamed for the consolidation in
the tooling... the "official" reason given for the big bearing 1296 was to
rationalize the machinery (the late 1296/1593 share the same main journal
size as the TR6). Especially as the MG 1275 was replaced by the Triumph
1500 in the '75 on Midget.. I'd have thought the MG engineers would want to
IMPROVE the engine.
The early Spitfire cranks are elegant looking, if not anemic. The later
ones will give Charles Atlas a hernia tossing them around. I still wonder
why the factory bothered to make the flywheel on the 1500 heavier... the
crank added more than enough rotational momentum!
I just wish Triumph had followed MG/Austin's lead and produced a Spitfire
crank out of EN40, nitrided.
Just ask a true Cooper S owner!
Cheers,
Jim
5x Spitfire
2x TR6
1x GT6
and maybe a Mini or two? :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-spitfires@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-spitfires@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Joe Curry
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:31 PM
> To: MikeC
> Cc: Spit List
> Subject: Re: 1296 engines
>
>
>
> I guess it depends on who you ask. I'd say that the early ones
> are better for two reasons:
>
> 1. The later ones (according to Kas Kastner) were redesigned by
> MG engineers after the merger with BMC.
> 2. The earlier ones have smaller main bearings and therefore less
> drag on the crank.
>
> Of course, some may determine that #2 is actually a benefit for
> the later engines because they ought to last longer. ANd if that is
> so, I guess that #1 would also be a positive!!!
>
> Like I said, it depends on who you ask!
>
> Joe
>
> MikeC wrote:
> >
> > Which 1296 engine is considered to be better and why? The
> early ones with
> > the smaller diameter crank journals(1967-70) or the later ones with the
> > larger diameter crank journals(1971-72).
> > Thanks
> > MikeC
>
|