Date:         Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:54:51 -0700
Reply-To:     Stuart MacMillan <stuartmacm@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Stuart MacMillan <stuartmacm@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Friday NVC-MGB engine that rebuilds itself
Comments: To: Jim Felder <jim.felder@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <CAFnDXk0+cLjve2A+FgLHfOgk3sy42EP7pXMWsaqN75Er+7SXHg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Are you saying the WBX is a snap to rebuild?  ;-0  Just moved my daughter's
'71 GT out of the garage so I can finish the Vanagon up.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Felder [mailto:jim.felder@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 6:02 PM
To: Stuart MacMillan
Cc: vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com
Subject: Re: Friday NVC-MGB engine that rebuilds itself

MGBs had a
> three main engine until 1965, and all LBC (Little British Car) engines
> were based off the same MOWOG design, which was a tractor engine from the
1950's.

Big Triumphs (TR2, TR3, TR4) used the Ferguson tractor engine. No other cars
used that engine as far as I know-it was a good engine though. MG and Healy
used BMC saloon engines of the day, like out of Morris Minors and such, but
with twin carbs for more power. The MGB engine, I THINK was a departure in
that it was purpose made for the MGB and didn't go in anything else I can
think of. I can't think of any other BMC car with 1800 ccs. MG was
determined to make a car which would top 100 mph, as all the big Triumphs
could, even back in the fifties. The MGA was never going to get there with a
1500 cc engine.
The MGB came close enough at 96. Ironically it was the heavier MGB GT, with
a smoother body, that would reach 100.

That Ferguson engine was like an inline waterboxer. The block was hollow and
the cylinders just sat down in it. The head held them in place. Just like
the Renault Dauphine. A snap to rebuild.

Jim

Jim
>