31 replies to this topic

[JonnyAlpha]

A lot of people seem to saying that the MG Metro Cam is about the same as the Kent MD266 and also praising the EVO001 based on its all round performance and bargain price but is there any data (Dyno Test Graphs) around showing the comparisons between an EVO001 and a Kent MD266?

 

I have been looking at Vizards Tuning the A Series Engine and on pg 301 there is a comparison between an MG Metro Cam and a 266 Megadyne Cam, but fitted to a 1380. The only problem is that the Metro is using a 1.25 Ratio Rockers and the Kent is using 1.5 Ratio Rockers. All the same the Kent performs better especially just over 4000rpm.

 

What are the standard MG Metro Rockers and how do I tell which ones I have?

 

Also does anyone have o know where I can find any dyno tests data for an Metro A+ 1293 fitted with an MD266 / Evo001?

 

Thanks 

[nicklouse]

all standard rockers are the same. about 1.25/1.3 to 1 the sintered ones being the more accurate and fitted to all A+

 

i would not bother with either the MG or the 266

[JonnyAlpha]

all standard rockers are the same. about 1.25/1.3 to 1 the sintered ones being the more accurate and fitted to all A+

i would not bother with either the MG or the 266

Yes but based on what data?

[nicklouse]

 

all standard rockers are the same. about 1.25/1.3 to 1 the sintered ones being the more accurate and fitted to all A+

i would not bother with either the MG or the 266

Yes but based on what data?

 

none other than my arse.

 

and fuel has change much in 30 years.

Edited by nicklouse, 01 March 2019 - 10:53 PM.

[Mrpeanut]

A lot of people seem to saying that the MG Metro Cam is about the same as the Kent MD266 and also praising the EVO001 based on its all round performance and bargain price but is there any data (Dyno Test Graphs) around showing the comparisons between an EVO001 and a Kent MD266?

I have been looking at Vizards Tuning the A Series Engine and on pg 301 there is a comparison between an MG Metro Cam and a 266 Megadyne Cam, but fitted to a 1380. The only problem is that the Metro is using a 1.25 Ratio Rockers and the Kent is using 1.5 Ratio Rockers. All the same the Kent performs better especially just over 4000rpm.

What are the standard MG Metro Rockers and how do I tell which ones I have?

Also does anyone have o know where I can find any dyno tests data for an Metro A+ 1293 fitted with an MD266 / Evo001?

Thanks

Look at the cam profiles for the cams, there'll show the differences. That said, the 266 has a bit more go than an MG Metro, and the Evo001 a bit more than that on account of the built in lift. Don't bother with 1.5 rockers with any of them.

Of the 3 I'd buy the evo on account of price.

[JonnyAlpha]

all standard rockers are the same. about 1.25/1.3 to 1 the sintered ones being the more accurate and fitted to all A+

i would not bother with either the MG or the 266

Yes but based on what data?

none other than my arse.

and fuel has change much in 30 years.

I guess we could do with a new tuning manual with data based on current available fuel.

[JonnyAlpha]

A lot of people seem to saying that the MG Metro Cam is about the same as the Kent MD266 and also praising the EVO001 based on its all round performance and bargain price but is there any data (Dyno Test Graphs) around showing the comparisons between an EVO001 and a Kent MD266?

I have been looking at Vizards Tuning the A Series Engine and on pg 301 there is a comparison between an MG Metro Cam and a 266 Megadyne Cam, but fitted to a 1380. The only problem is that the Metro is using a 1.25 Ratio Rockers and the Kent is using 1.5 Ratio Rockers. All the same the Kent performs better especially just over 4000rpm.

What are the standard MG Metro Rockers and how do I tell which ones I have?

Also does anyone have o know where I can find any dyno tests data for an Metro A+ 1293 fitted with an MD266 / Evo001?

Thanks

Look at the cam profiles for the cams, there'll show the differences. That said, the 266 has a bit more go than an MG Metro, and the Evo001 a bit more than that on account of the built in lift. Don't bother with 1.5 rockers with any of them.

Of the 3 I'd buy the evo on account of price.

Yes I am just trying to get my head around how to compare all of the various parts involved and what works best with what.
So of the 3 the lobes on the Evo are slightly bigger therefore lifting the valves higher letting in more fuel. Does that mean the valve opening duration is slightly longer also?

Why is it a third of the price?

[JonnyAlpha]

A lot of people seem to saying that the MG Metro Cam is about the same as the Kent MD266 and also praising the EVO001 based on its all round performance and bargain price but is there any data (Dyno Test Graphs) around showing the comparisons between an EVO001 and a Kent MD266?

I have been looking at Vizards Tuning the A Series Engine and on pg 301 there is a comparison between an MG Metro Cam and a 266 Megadyne Cam, but fitted to a 1380. The only problem is that the Metro is using a 1.25 Ratio Rockers and the Kent is using 1.5 Ratio Rockers. All the same the Kent performs better especially just over 4000rpm.

What are the standard MG Metro Rockers and how do I tell which ones I have?

Also does anyone have o know where I can find any dyno tests data for an Metro A+ 1293 fitted with an MD266 / Evo001?

Thanks

Look at the cam profiles for the cams, there'll show the differences. That said, the 266 has a bit more go than an MG Metro, and the Evo001 a bit more than that on account of the built in lift. Don't bother with 1.5 rockers with any of them.

Of the 3 I'd buy the evo on account of price.

Yes I am just trying to get my head around how to compare all of the various parts involved and what works best with what.
So of the 3 the lobes on the Evo are slightly bigger therefore lifting the valves higher letting in more fuel. Does that mean the valve opening duration is slightly longer also?

Why is it a third of the price?

[Mrpeanut]

A lot of people seem to saying that the MG Metro Cam is about the same as the Kent MD266 and also praising the EVO001 based on its all round performance and bargain price but is there any data (Dyno Test Graphs) around showing the comparisons between an EVO001 and a Kent MD266?

I have been looking at Vizards Tuning the A Series Engine and on pg 301 there is a comparison between an MG Metro Cam and a 266 Megadyne Cam, but fitted to a 1380. The only problem is that the Metro is using a 1.25 Ratio Rockers and the Kent is using 1.5 Ratio Rockers. All the same the Kent performs better especially just over 4000rpm.

What are the standard MG Metro Rockers and how do I tell which ones I have?

Also does anyone have o know where I can find any dyno tests data for an Metro A+ 1293 fitted with an MD266 / Evo001?

Thanks

Look at the cam profiles for the cams, there'll show the differences. That said, the 266 has a bit more go than an MG Metro, and the Evo001 a bit more than that on account of the built in lift. Don't bother with 1.5 rockers with any of them.

Of the 3 I'd buy the evo on account of price.

Yes I am just trying to get my head around how to compare all of the various parts involved and what works best with what.
So of the 3 the lobes on the Evo are slightly bigger therefore lifting the valves higher letting in more fuel. Does that mean the valve opening duration is slightly longer also?

Why is it a third of the price?

Essentially the evo1 has more lift than teg others. On the road in a well sorted 1275/1330 with a decent head, both tuned on the same rollers, I've driven set ups with the evo and mg metro and the evo has left the mg metro for dead, and given much more on the rollers. Basically, the evo1 is a more modern profile and better but all 3 are decent in a road car. Price wise, no idea, but don't over analyse it, just save some money and get the evo imo.

[DeadSquare]

Unless you are going all out to win races, just go for the one with the most torque on the graphs.

 

It is torque that gives acceleration and torque that makes a car nice to drive.

 

People used to moan that the A series was "All talk and no go", and if you compared a 997 Ford Anglia with a 998 Mini in dead flat Essex, the Anglia seemed better, but in hilly Derbyshire it was gutless while the Mini kept pulling.

[Bobbins]

A lot of people seem to saying that the MG Metro Cam is about the same as the Kent MD266 and also praising the EVO001 based on its all round performance and bargain price but is there any data (Dyno Test Graphs) around showing the comparisons between an EVO001 and a Kent MD266?

I have been looking at Vizards Tuning the A Series Engine and on pg 301 there is a comparison between an MG Metro Cam and a 266 Megadyne Cam, but fitted to a 1380. The only problem is that the Metro is using a 1.25 Ratio Rockers and the Kent is using 1.5 Ratio Rockers. All the same the Kent performs better especially just over 4000rpm.

What are the standard MG Metro Rockers and how do I tell which ones I have?

Also does anyone have o know where I can find any dyno tests data for an Metro A+ 1293 fitted with an MD266 / Evo001?

Thanks

Look at the cam profiles for the cams, there'll show the differences. That said, the 266 has a bit more go than an MG Metro, and the Evo001 a bit more than that on account of the built in lift. Don't bother with 1.5 rockers with any of them.

Of the 3 I'd buy the evo on account of price.

Yes I am just trying to get my head around how to compare all of the various parts involved and what works best with what.
So of the 3 the lobes on the Evo are slightly bigger therefore lifting the valves higher letting in more fuel. Does that mean the valve opening duration is slightly longer also?

Why is it a third of the price?

Valve lift and duration are separate aspects, a higher lift does not necessarily mean a longer duration, each will be determined with a view to how the cam will be used.

[Cooperman]

There is always a lot of stuff printed about cam choice. However, unless the engine is for pure competition, the actual benefits of different mid-range cams will not be noticed in normal road use.

As above, the important things for a road cam are the way the torque is delivered at mid-range and the choice of gearing.  Personally I doubt that any real difference between, say, an MG Metro cam, and Evo001 or a Kent 266 would be noticed in normal driving. On a track the differences would be measured in a second or so per lap. How many owners drive around the road using maximum power most of the time? Virtually no-one does and most just use the optimum torque with the revs between 3000 and 4500 with an occasional burst to 5500-ish.

The really important thing is the quality of the actual engine build, the matching of the components, the accuracy of the distributor advance for the build and the choice of final drive ratio. The differences between mid-range cams are possible less likely to be noticed than the gas-flowing inside the carb, the matching of the inlet manifold to the head and carb and the accuracy of the cam timing. The other really important things are the gas-flowing of the head and choice of valve sizes.

[OzOAP]

Piper 255 with conical valve springs.
It's the only cam I fit into road engines.

Edited by OzOAP, 03 March 2019 - 03:00 PM.

[Cooperman]

One of the most 'driver friendly' engines I ever built for a 1330 cc road car had the old Cooper 'S' 510 cam. It had a really fantastic head with 35.6 mm/29.55 mm valves and 10.5:1 CR.

The flywheel was lightened, twin HS4's were on a well matched inlet manifold, exhaust was a 3-into-1 freeflow with LCB twin-box exhaust system.

Distributor was Aldon 'Yellow'

I ran it with a gearbox which had the original Cooper/Cooper 'S' ratios and a 3.44:1 FDR.

Rocker shaft was the original Cooper 'S' type.

It can't recall the power/torque figures, but it was simply beautiful to drive with torque everywhere. What it lost right at the top end was more than made up for by the excellent mid-range performance. At a guess I would think it had around 85 bhp at around 5700 rpm, but that was academic as the idea was good road manners and torque 'everywhere' with no 'lumpiness'.

[mk1leg]

Swiftune SW8 is a brilliant cam

Edited by mk1leg, 03 March 2019 - 04:28 PM.