The 1500 is also quite tuneable. Here's a big treatise on just that for you to
digest:
http://www.totallytriumph.net/spitfire/engine_building.shtml
A fully smogged CA 1500 is supposed to produce about 50 bhp. UK factory spec
1500's were about 71 bhp, with the main difference (aside from the obvious smog
equipment) being dual SU carbs
and flat-top (9:1 CR) pistons, which some '75-'76 US 1500's had.
Have fun in your search!
-=Chris
'79 1500
Chris King - cbking@alum.rpi.edu
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kvcbk/
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From "davriker" <davriker at pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:04:14 -0700
>Steve-
>The earlier cars are fun, and can be modified, and are closer to the "pure"
>original intent of design. I have a 74, the last year of the early cars.
>People talk about the weight difference, but unless you are racing, the
>difference is like letting your spouse ride along. The added weight is only
>like a total of 150 lbs. For that weight, you get a stiffer chassis, less
>NVH, smoother ride with less jarring and bumping over rough surfaces. You
>also get a larger gas tank for a longer cruising range. The transmission is
>fully synchronized, and a dream to shift compared to the agricultural lump
>of steel in the early cars. And as for the ride height, again, marginal
>change in cornering in return for not dragging the tail pipe over every
>driveway entrance and speed bump in town. On to the engine, the 1500 unit
>has a long stroke, so it will never be capable of the high revs of the
>A-series engined cars. But again, look to the plus side, the long stroke
>makes incredible torque compared to the A-series. It is faster off of the
>line, and in real world driving feels like a more powerful engine until
>about 3500 RPM. My 1275 is a blast at 4500-5000 RPM, and racers build them
>to turn above 7500 RPM, but that is of no benefit in daily driving. Finally
>(at least for this email), There are more newer cars out there to pick from.
>78-79 is probably the best of the lot, with a taller final drive ratio, and
>newer = less likely to have rust. If I was starting all over again, it
>would be with a 79.
>
>David Riker
>63 Falcon
>70 Torino
>74 Midget
>http://home.pacbell.net/davriker/
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Kirks" <srk@mac.com>
>To: "Brad Fornal" <toyman@digitex.net>
>Cc: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 7:49 PM
>Subject: Re: MG Midget Buying Advice
>
>
>> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 09:41 PM, Brad Fornal wrote:
>>
>> > Steve, Please!! Do some research before jumping into the first Midget
>> > you see.
>> > The early cars use the A series engines up to 1974, and from 75 on
>> > they use a
>> > Triumph based engine. There are pros and cons to both engines.
>>
>> Thanks for not wanting to taint my decision, but I think I need a
>> little "tainting". I'm very mechanically-capable and have plenty
>> (read years) of time to make things right. What's good or bad about
>> the engine? Are you thinking about the smog control add-ons?
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|