Most car magazines are basically lazy. Do you think they actually took 2
standard cars, had the power checked as being correct for the spec and then
road tested them? I think they just looked up the figures in a book and
re-produced them.
I think you need to get away from engine size and performance. Performance
is about the engine power output V the vehicle weight and vehicle
aerodynamics. A bugeye with a 1275 always wipes the floor with a 1275 box
sprite (all other things being equal)because it weighs so much less.
Of all the Spridgets the 1500 was the heaviest.
Daniel1312
In a message dated 23/09/00 09:33:54 GMT Daylight Time, tboicey@brit.ca
writes:
<< I am not saying that everything printed by magazines is
true, but really, what "secret motif" would a September
2000 issue of Practical Classics magazine have to lie
about the 1500 being faster?
It doesn't take a master of subtleties to notice there's
a difference between an advertising pitch of a company
that has everything to gain (Frank's reference to Ginsu
knives and Miracle Car Wax), and classic car magazine intended
to give hobbyists information on old cars.
Last time this discussion went around, this issue of PC
magazine wasn't yet written, but very similar numbers
came out from other sources. The Brooklands Gold Portfolio
for example, says basically the same information give
or take a tenth here and there.
Is it a conspiracy by ALL print companies, books and
magazines, to lie about 1500s being faster than 1275s?
Do we need Austin Powers to come charging in to save
us all from this horrible cartel?
A more important point, what's with the 1275cc mental
blocks, and the religious devotion to defending it?
Everyone can understand the 1098 is faster than the 948,
because it's bigger.
Everyone can understand the 1275 is faster still than the
1098, because it's bigger.
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the
1500cc is faster than the 1275, because it's bigger? You
may not like that the engine was made by Triumph, but the
two engines are essentially the same design, pushrods,
2 valves per cylinder, non-crossflow, etc.
Do you really beleive that somehow Austin/MG "magic"
lives on in the design so that, for no apparent
reason, it can outperform a similar design with
over 200 more cc?
Is the law-of-displacement somehow maximized at 1275cc,
and everything larger starts to lose? Should we then
be surprised that 7 liter cadillacs can even generate
enough power to move their own sorry own weight?
After all, they are burdened by almost an additional
6 liters, not just the minute 200cc the poor 1500cc
engine is saddled with!
Accept, people. Accept.
-- >>
|