Because the Spitfire kicks Midget butt. That's why!
Just kidding. Actually I tend to refer to this as a
gospel a lot but, the figures don't lie:
The 1994 Road & Track performance tests where they
dynoed a spitfire 1500 (low compression) engine with
varied set-ups (exhaust mainfold/tubular header, ZS
single/1.25" HS2s, stock/A6 cam etc. ) and
combinations of setups.
One of the alterations that they did was to swap the
Spitfire 1500 intake manifold with a Spitfire MkIV
manifold and the result was an increase in 8 peak
horsepower. Evidently the runners were narrowed in the
1500 to increase gas velocity for emission control.
So, it's not impossible for a manifold or an entire
exhaust system to greatly reduce the efficiency of an
engine. (I wonder how much more efficient my car would
be if I put one of those 4" diameter chrome covers,
that you see on civics, on the end of my exhaust
pipe....Vroom!)
I have the performance specs for several period (70's)
cars as well as some new roadsters on my web page. But
I don't have specs for UK midgets, though I do have UK
MGB specs. It's very sad.
http://www.geocities.com/firespiter/specs.html
-Terry
'76 Spit 1500 (Why wasn't I notified that Maryland was
going to be moved north of the arctic circle?)
.....Brrrrrr!
--- Richard B Gosling <Gosling_Richard_B@perkins.com>
wrote:
>
> Hmm, interesting.... I just bought a new oil filter
> for Daffy. On the box, it
> lists the various cars it fits, including,
> naturally, the Spit 1500, and the
> MG Midget 1500. However, it lists the Spitfire as
> a 53 kW (i.e. 71 bhp)
> engine, but the Midget as 48 kW (i.e. 64 bhp), even
> mentioning that it is a
> Triumph engine. I always assumed that the same
> tune was used in both engines,
> but maybe not? Does anyone know why the Midget was
> down on power compared to
> the Spit?
>
> Remember - UK spec in both cases.
>
> Richard & Daffy
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|