Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

296 To A 310?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Racer_Pete

Racer_Pete

    Up Into Fourth

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,482 posts

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:18 PM

Hi guys ive currently got a 296 kent in my a+ 1380 Morris Ital, ive also had the same camshaft in a 1275 a+ Mini, in both engines they have been very good lots of power higher up the rev range ect.. but I now want even more. Before every one says that the 296 is more of a race/rally cam I do know, ive used a sw10 camshaft in a 998 which was lots of fun even though alot of people said it would be 'too much" for a 998.

I have built the 1380 engine to a high spec that can take the high revs needed to produce the power without going bang... (famous last words)

The 296 in my opinion seems to be fine in traffic, pulls very well past say 3000rpm, slightly lumpy idle which dosent bother me at all, the van is used as a 1/4 mile laugh/sunny day blast.

My question is going from a 296 to a 310 is there really a big noticeable difference in how they act and will I notice the difference in how they perform to each other? the 310 power comes in at around 4000rpm and runs out of puff at 8500+rpm. I know alot of it is to do with weight and CWP ratio, I'm running a 4.3:1 with a 3J LSD weight is around 750kg, 13" wheels (RWD) also has anyone used the swiftune sw23 or the sw310 using twin HS4's? Instead of a Weber or HS'6s with good results?

Thanks, Pete.

1380cc, Block drilled for 11studs

Forged Omega flat top pistons

Full Race Spec Head 29x37

Kent 296 Camshaft

Swiftune alloy Duplex

MED 1.3:1 Roller Rockers

Maniflow Stage 2 Full Exhaust System

Keith Calver Race Dizzy

Crank - Wedged, bladed & crossdrilled

Rods - Lightened & Polished

Rotating assembly balanced

Isky Type Lightend Followers

Twin HS4 Carbs with butterflys smoothed

Maniflow steel Inlet

ITG Stub stack Filter

ARP Conrod bolts + Head studs

Lightend dizzy drive

Mechanical fan removed for 10" electric

C/R 12.5:1

Attached Files



#2 nicklouse

nicklouse

    Moved Into The Garage

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,583 posts
  • Location: Not Yorkshire
  • Local Club: Anonyme Miniholiker

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:26 PM

i would not do it without at least changing the dizzy for map-able electronic ignition. as that can help with the drivability. would bin the SUs and  exhaust valves seen small to me.

 1380 310ish scatter cam 13s 4.3 or 4.1 i forget. would not like it on the road at all. oh and a proper 3-1 collector manifold and single box short system

ilne7QN.jpg

 

1293 296 scatter and 4.3 or 4.1 with dizzy and would not drive it on the road. 

0P0STHW.jpg



#3 mini13

mini13

    Up Into Fourth

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,100 posts

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:30 PM

With the 310, really you need to look at a weber with as long a manifold as practical,

#4 Racer_Pete

Racer_Pete

    Up Into Fourth

  • TMF+ Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,482 posts

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:54 PM

Thanks for replys, unfortunately a Weber with a decent 6" manifold wont fit as it hits the body, I know the twin hs4's are good/flow enough for around 130-135bhp tops? The goodwood boys use twin hs6's using a full race spec cam/engine on the A40's and still use a dizzy because of regs.. guess they are running around 140bhp. I know comparing a swiftune built 10k engine compared to my 4k engine is like chalk & cheese but if they can produce the power still using SU carbs & a dizzy why can't I? although I do agree that using mappable ignition would be easier to achieve higher power figures and better drive ability, but would rather still keep the dizzy




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Mini Spares