Jeff,
What increase in power? The UK 1500 has 66hp, the 1275 (1967) has 65hp,
The US 1500 has 55 or 50hp, right?
But as it has been said, torque is what wins the drag race, the US 1500 has
67 ft-lb at 2500rpm, the 1275 has 72 ft-lb at 3000rpm. The (probably)
fatter torque curve of the US 1500 has to make up for a reduction in hp and
the heavier car.
Ulix
----- Original Message -----
From "Jeffrey H. Boatright" <jboatri at emory.edu>
To: "Trevor Boicey" <tboicey@brit.ca>
Cc: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 1904 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Magazines = facts?
> Trevor,
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. The Euro-spec 1500 had much more power
>
> 2. The 1500 Midget weighs quite a bit more than most 1275/1098/948
>
> So, for people in NA, the question is: does the increased power of a
> US-choaked 1500 overcome the weight penalty of the rubber bumpers
> (and all the other stuff that grew on the spridgets, like carpeting,
> bigger seats, etc.)?
>
> Jeff
>
> >Daniel1312@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Stuff printed in magazines are not facts any more than 150mph E-types
were
> >> facts when they were road tested by magazines.
> >
> > Ok guys, this is REALLY missing the point and picking on
> >meaningless surrounding details.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >--
> >Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
> >Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
> >ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
> >Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna get my drink on.
>
> --
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
> Assistant Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA
> Senior Editor, Molecular Vision
> <http://www.molvis.org/molvis>
> <mailto: jboatri@emory.edu>
>
|