Shawn,
I think I remember that article. But there was another one in the April
'97 issue that correctly mentions that it was a different BMC engine with
seven mains and "poor manifolding..." . All true. The Healey's engine was
better. But, back to Triumphs!
Peter C
At 05:34 PM 2/10/99 , Shawn Loseke wrote:
>
>My mistake then. My info came from a Classic & Sports Car article on the
>MGC. They stated that the engines were the same apart from
>carbeuration(sp?).
>-------------
>Original Text
>From: "Peter C." <nosimport@mailbag.com>, on 2/10/99 4:29 PM:
>At 05:04 PM 2/10/99 , Shawn Loseke wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree with Aarons comments on the TR6 over the A-H 3000. Even
>>the performance aspect. From past conversations with Aaron, he
>>was probably referring to the superior zero to sixty times of the TR6. And
>>as he did state later, he was speaking of the PI (150 H.P.) version. The
>>same 3.0 litre engine failed against the TR5/6 when it was installed in
>the
>>MGC as well.
>>
>Um, the MGC engine is not the same as the Healey 3000 engine. The valve
>cover gasket, the pistons, and the paint color are about the only shared
>components.
>Peter C (triumphless, still)
>Peter Caldwell
>MGC-GT , 100-4, '31 MM8 Cammy, Innocenti S,
>'52 Champ, '60 L-R 109 SW, 3 '64-73 L-R 88's
>nosimport@mailbag.com
>
|