I’ve been a bad thread starter–sorry not to get back sooner.
The thing with changing to the Weber carb is you have to change the intake and exhaust manifolds, so you are changing a lot of things that have an impact on the way the car runs.
The power is definitely increased, I’m sure in part due to the new header and intake. Plus, the 1500 had a one-barrel SU and the Weber is a two-barrel, so more power is kind of a given.
Our fuel economy is still pretty good–between 24 - 27 mpg. mr.stretch got 24 mpg driving up White Pass this last weekend and he admits he was pushing her to see how she’d do. I imagine that means he was going a little above the 60 mph speed limit.
After that trip he’s decided to put off rebuilding the motor for a while. It seems that whatever was causing her to smoke at the higher RPMs has settled itself out somehow; mr.stretch thinks it might have been a combination of the way he had re-routed the crankcase breather and the fact that the car hadn’t been driven much for awhile prior to coming to her new home.
As for the $49K Spit–I can see how you could put that kind of money into one of these cars as we’ll be putting way more into Vronica than I originally thought. And a good paint job isn’t cheap, nor is a spiffy custom trailer. However, if I’m paying that kind of money, then I’d want the fun of having the restore done, not just buy it after someone else had done all the work. Of course, I mean I want the fun of spending the money on parts and picking out the colors and all, while I watch mr.stretch do the actual work.
Johnny 20 kilobucks for a B with a non-factory transmission? NFW is it worth that. (description said that it has a 5 speed with a 3 speed OD, pictures show a non-factory gear lever. Don’t know what he has in that thing, but it isn’t an MG crashbox)
49 Kilobucks for a sputterspark? Sure if there is 45 kilobucks in small unmarked bills in the trunk.
About carbs, I don’t think a downdraft weber conversion was ever marketed for the 1147 engine. There was a dual sidedraft conversion, but you would be out of your mind to install that. Your carbs would be worth more than your car!
Also I should point out that a side draft Weber has 7 count them 7 calibrated jets and such. Setting one up is almost an art.
An SU has 2 moving parts, and one calibrated needle. It does not get any easier than that. If you really want to hot rod your 1147 put on a bigger set of SUs (1.5 instead of 1.25) or get a header off a Mk II spit.
I didn’t see the description of the transmission. You’re right; the B had a four-speed gearbox throughout its life, with optional overdrive in 3rd and 4th. Sounds like someone did the 5-speed conversion (Ford Cortina donor?) and hooked it up to an o/d.
As for the carburettors, I was just thinking about how much stretch and mr.stretch like Webbers. I know nothing about carburettors except that they mix about 15 parts air with one part gasoline. The B is going to be my ‘road machine’. It has an 1800cc engine and o/d. Top speed should be about 25 or 30 mph higher than the Herald. The Triumph will just be used ‘around town’ (and on the freeway to get to town, but it’s not that far). What I’m most concerned about is reliability and fuel economy. Especially fuel economy, nowadays. My first '66 MGB (and the ‘new’ one, too) had the dual SUs. Never had any problems with them. I don’t remember ever fiddling with them, and I never had any problems with the engine proper. (I consider the oil leak an ‘accessory’ failure and user error.)
Johnny Stick with SUs. Period end of discussion. The reason stretch has a Weber DGV is that her car did not come with SUs it came with ::: shudder::: Strombergs which are the spawn of the devil himself.
SUs are simpilicy itself. I can set them up with my eyes closed. And if I can do it, trust me you can also.
I read an article today printed in 1973 about the Lotus Elan Sprint. Compared to the Porsche 914, the Lotus was slower on the ¼ mile, longer on braking distance, got only about 2 mph better mileage, and was half-again as expensive. According to the article, the Lotus is not an easy car to drive. But used for what it was built for – zipping through twisties at twice the recommended speed – it was fantastic.
Am I getting old, or are there fewer sports cars nowadays? Sure, there are a few; but it seems there is a dearth of them. In the 1950s and 1960s, and just in British sports cars, there were the MG-TD/-TF MGA, MGB and MG Midget. Austin Healey had the 100, 3000 and Sprite. Triumph gave us the Spitfire, TR2/3, TR4 and TR6. (One might also include the Herald.) Morgans. Rootes (Sunbeam). Probably lots of others. And that’s just Britain. In Germany there was (and still is) the Porsche. Fiat had the 124, and Alfa Romeo had the Giulietta. Japan built the Datsun 1600 Fairlady (and in the 1970s, dominated the sports car market with the 240Zs et al).
But something happened starting in the mid-'70s or so. Sports cars began to die off. British Leyland backed a loser in the TR7, and the company (or companies that formed BL) had a reputation for not spending enough on product improvement. Why put money into the largest-selling sports car in America, when you can put that money into stable-mate and arch-rival Triumph? Porsches got more and more expensive, and the lower-models did not sell incredibly well. Somewhere along the line, Fiat and Alfa disappeard from the States. (I do remember new Alfas being sold into the '90s.) But generally there seemed to be a decade-long gap between sports cars that was only ended with the Mazda Miata.
So what happened? Was it the oil embargos of 1973 and 1979? (Incidentally, the MGB V8 got nearly as good gas mileage as the MGB.) Did a younger generation of Americans think that a traditional sports car was not comfortable enough? Too many people brought up on automatic transmissions? The Recession in the '70s pushing people away from fun cars and into something more sensible? People not wanting to be inconvenienced by a car that would require more attention than a Toyota?
There are, of course, sports cars still being made. Some are expensive like the latest iteration of the 911, and some are relatively inexpensive like the Ford Mustang or the Mazda Miata. But there seems to be fewer choices now.
If you’re talking about British sports cars, then I suppose the lack of new designs and rise of hot hatches killed them off in the UK. If you could run to work, run the kids to school, do the shopping in something that could still nip round the twisty roads and be fun to drive, why have an MGB?
I’m still pining for my Midget, sadly gone to a friend who restores cars (but who has sold it on, possibly for scrap :eek: ) after it had enough rear end rust to fail an MOT in sixteen different ways. Oh and the clutch had decided to go south when the piston collapsed.
All I needed was £2k to restore it to roadworthy but I was skint. Nice chrome bumper RWA, dark blue mark IV… :sniff:
Of course as soon as I sell the car I inherit lots of money, damn timing!
I still have the walnut gear stick knob from it though - some day I shall have another…oh yes!
Johnny: Rick is right, you’d have to get a side draft for your motor and those run from $800+. I don’t agree with Rick that SUs are easy, especially dual carbs that you have to calibrate, but to each his/her own.
I drove Vronica over White Pass yesterday and she did awesome! This was her longest trip yet. Hardly any traffic, so I was able to drive. Woohoo!
No, I wasn’t talking about British sports cars in particular. I was talking about traditional sports cars in general.
There are ‘sporty cars’ out there, like the ‘hot hatches’ you mention. ‘Ricers’ (sorry, that’s what people call them) are very popular in SoCal, where I saw zillions of them. Usually these are Hondas that are tricked out. People also like to trick out VW Golfs and Jettas. (I don’t know if they’re called ‘ricers’, because they’re not Japanese like most of the other; but they fit the spirit – sporty economy cars that are upgraded with stiff suspensions, engine modifications, big chrome tailpipes, and lots of vinyl stickers.) But they’re not really ‘sports cars’ in the traditional sense.
Ideally, to me, a sports car should be a roadster. Obviously, there are coupés that are quite definitely sports cars; but you get my drift. In casual observation, I’ve noted the following convertible and/or coupé sports cars: Porsche 911-series (I don’t remember what the newest ‘’ is in '911/’ – 911/996?), Porsche Boxter, Mazda Miata, Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Corvette (I’ve heard the newer ones can actually go round corners instead of just going fast in a straight line), BMW New Mini, BMW M-series, Toyota MR2 (Heh, ‘Mister Two’), Honda S2000, and Nissan 350Z Roadster. There are some exotics available, as well. So there are still true sports cars out there; but my impression is that they are under-represented. And most of them are rather expensive.
You’re right that a sporty hatchback is more sensible; but sports cars aren’t really supposed to be sensible. They’re supposed to be fun. (Incidentally, my MGBs had loads of space for shopping. The rear ‘seat’ (shelf) and the huge footwells offered a surprising amount of room!) I got rid of my Porsche 911 because I could only have one car at the time, and it didn’t fit my needs; but man, was it fun! (I miss it. )
Maybe that’s what I was getting at in my previous post. People are choosing ‘sensible’ cars beacuse they can’t justify having a car just for fun. Is it because even many economy cars are relatively very expensive now? Or are sports cars less fashionable today? Or does it just not occur to people to buy one? Many Americans don’t know how to drive a car with a standard transmission, and that may turn some potential buyers off.
I’ve been looking at old movies and old car magazines (and new car magazines about classic sports cars), and I get the impression that people aren’t as ‘into’ fun cars as they used to be. We don’t seem to have the ‘Car Culture’ today in the same way we used to have it. I wonder why not? I’ve just remembered that many carmakers stopped making convertibles when they thought the U.S. would ban them for safety reasons. (Didn’t happen.) Maybe the love of sports cars was dampened by a combination of things such as fixed-head coupés being made by some carmakers instead of convertibles, the rising cost of petrol, the Recession, growing families, desire for more comfort, fasionability of SUVs, high car prices, availability of other amusements (big screen TVs, computers, etc.)?
I think what killed sports cars is the same thing that killed muscle cars: emissions regulations, insurance costs, rising gas prices, and declining incomes. It’s kind of hard to justify having a car to “kick around” when it costs so much to operate.
There are still pleantry of sports cars over here. Google TVR, Morgan, Bristol, Panther Kallista, Noble etc and you’ll see what i mean - I suspect they don’t export to the states as the Type Approval process is too costly for small volume makers.
There’s American kits, too. The Caterham Super Seven/Fireball, which is a Lotus reborn.
The Beck Spyder, which is even faster, and designed after a Porsche 550 Spyder.
There’s some Cobra rebuilds, too.
Oh, and don’t forget Panoz.
I’m not saying sports cars aren’t available; just that the choices seem more limited now. I’m pretty sure you can get Morgans in the U.S., but it’s not like every city has a dealer. (And they’re very expensive.) I’m not counting kit cars either.
‘Back in the day’ (before my time, or at least before my driving time) there were lots of small sports cars. They tended to be lacking in creature comforts. (I’ve been reading that many didn’t have roll-up windows, and that it was a big thing when they came out in the early-'60s.) ‘Spridgets’ and Spitfires were lacking in power compared to non-sports cars (and many sports cars), but they were economical and inexpensive to buy. The MGBs, TR4s, etc. had more power. In the early-'60s Porsche were making the 356, which weren’t especially powerful with their VW-derived flat-fours. Even the early 911s weren’t very fast. But they all had nice handling, and many were open roadsters. The 914 was a fairly inexpensive sports car.
I can think of any number of sports cars and roadsters that were made in the '60s up to the mid-'70s. Today I have trouble thinking of many new roadsters that fit the classic examples. American roads are not suited to cars that can’t reach a ton. (The Herald has a top speed of 78 or 80 mph, and the non-overdrive MGB could just reach 105.) On modern roads, I can see why faster cars are still available. The Mazda Miata is very much in the spirit of classic (especially British) roadsters. Not super-powerful, handles well, but small engine and relatively inexpensive.
I wonder how rising fuel prices will effect the market? The New Mini seems to be very popular, but it’s nowhere near as economical as its Austin ancestors. Will we start to see more sports cars that get better mileage and still be useful on modern freeways? Or will people turn more to very-fuel-efficient cars and turn away from sports cars? I look at the classics, which tended to get 25 mpg or more, and think that modern engines can deliver better mileage, higher reliability, and the speeds necessary for modern use.
So anyway… I was on the R1 yesterday and I got behind a brown (ick) rubber-bumper MGB. I am so jonzin’ for mine!
)