Wie gehts, Ulix,
Glad I didn't alienate the entire list with the expression of my personal
opinion. Although I meant the comment partially in jest, I really do believe
that the 1275 is a stronger, faster car in most situations. Having driven both
models, and run against both models, although not with the car I presently have,
I would have to say that it partly driver skill, as well as the preparation of
the vehicle. What the heck, we all love LBCs, regardless of the marque. A little
good natured teasing can't hurt anyone, can it? If I had 1500 parts available, I
would be the first to offer them to a friend who needed them, and I suspect that
a 1500 owner would do the same with 1275 parts. I have had a TD and a big
Healey, and this little toy I spend way too much money on is just as much a
thoroughbred in her own right as they were. Actually, I like her better, as she
fits me.
Kate
Ulix Goettsch wrote:
> I just looked at a bunch of old test articles. The 0-60 times measured for
> a 1275 car varied widely, the slowest was indeed the time Trevor cites, 14.6
> sec., the fastest was 11.0 sec.
>
> Now, the 1500, a European car with 66 DIN hp took 12.2 sec in one test, 12.3
> in another, but the US spec car that R&T tested took 14.3 sec.
>
> Trevor cites an article by Practical Classic, which is a UK mag and thus
> probably quoted the numbers for the much stronger UK version (dual SUs etc.)
>
> There isn't enough data here to really make the call, but I think that a
> slow 1275 would be about as fast as a US 1500, a well-going 1275 would be as
> quick as a euro 1500 (or faster).
>
> Bench-drag racing at its finest :-)
> Ulix
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Trevor Boicey" <tboicey@brit.ca>
> To: "kate & gary" <kgb@clipper.net>
> Cc: "Spridgets" <spridgets@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Oh Sh*^
>
> > kate & gary wrote:
> > >
> > > Trevor,
> > > If you weren't in Ontario, I'd show you how to stay awake behind a
> 1275!!!!
> > > That's just where your 1500 would be.......BEHIND my 1275.
> >
> > Speaking of "here we go again", here we go again with the A-series
> > devotees comparing built up 1275s with stock 1500s. While were making
> > useless comparisons, I think your 1275 would be BEHIND my
> > 69 e-type! ;>
> >
> > I meant the comment in jest, we've gone around this many times,
> > and it's always the same points. 1500 owners point to facts, and
> > 1275 owners anecdotally tell stories or talk about built-up
> > A-series engines beating stock 1500s.
> >
> > Actually Practical Classics just did another article on
> > buying a Spridget and the numbers were there again.
> >
> > Midget Mk I, 948cc, 42bhp@5500, 53ftlb/3000
> > 0-60mph in 20 sec, 86mph top speed
> >
> > Midget Mk II, 1098cc, 56bhp@5750, 62ftlb/3250
> > 0-60mph in 17 sec, 90mph top speed
> >
> > Midget Mk III, 1275cc, 65bhp@6000, 72ftlb/3000
> > 0-60mph in 14.6 sec, 95mph top speed
> >
> > Midget 1500, 1493cc, 55hp@5000rpm, 73ftlb/2750
> > (different HP measure)
> > 0-60mph in 12.3 sec, 101mph top speed
> >
> > 2.3 seconds advantage in 0-60, 6mph on the top
> > speed. Game, set, match, 1500.
> >
> > (speaking of "here we go again", expect a flood
> > of emails saying "95mph? I did 145 in my totally
> > stock 1971! And that included towing 5 hangers-on
> > admiring my round wheel arches!")
> >
> > --
> > Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
> > Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
> > ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
> > "Groucho, not groucho. Groucho, not groucho. Groucho..." - Duckman
> >
|