Impressions: MKI vs. MKII

[Tigrrr]

Hi. I have a MK1A (TAC #709) with all original drivetrain with about 50,000 original miles on it. As I've discussed elsewhere, I'm considering mothballing the original engine and building a hotter 289 engine like the one that was in the MKII.

From my understanding, the MK1A came with a close ratio transmission, and the MKII came with a wide ratio transmission. So my question is, has anyone driven a MKII and a MK1? Is the wide ratio gearing of the MKII better, more tractable than the MK1? What was your general impression of the MKII versus the MK1? Which would you choose (values being equal) if you were forced to choose only one?

What I'm trying to figure out is, with the bigger engine displacement, should I have my transmission rebuilt to a wide ratio to make the car feel like a MKII? If so, how was the MKII better?

I'm no Tiger expert because the only one I have ever driven is my own MK1A, so details are important in your responses. Thanks so much!

 

[TigerBlue]

Wide vs. Short Ratio

The difference in wide ratio or close ratio is (in my opinion) directly related to the American Vs. the English perception of performance. Americans are/were drag racers that value an efficient and easy to repeat fast take off from rest. The English/Continental enthusiast in the 60's favored road performance where a close ratio provides an ideal ratio for exiting each turn and was not focused on standing starts.

Assuming the stock 2.88 gears; a Mk1 is compromised on a standing start. A MK II is better on a standing start but less satisfying for road racing or sporting driving while underway.

These compromises are handled better by an engine with more torque, ie 289 has more torque than a 260.

I think the change to wide ratio transmissions was to appeal to American taste more than anything.

Rick