Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

More Power For My 1098 Mini?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic

#16 mini7boy

mini7boy

    Speeding Along Now

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Local Club: moasf

Posted 24 September 2009 - 09:48 PM

You may well already be aware of this, but on the home page under latest tech they have an artical on tuning the a-series engines, on this they have the stage one kit explaining everything included, and then they go on to the next upgrade which is rockers and cam upgrade, it is deffinatly worth checking out if you haven't yet. I am in a similar situation with my 1275, i've just got an lcb maifold and link pipe, and i already have an uprated exhaust back to the cat, i'm thinking of removing the cat though, and an uprated air filter and next is the rockers for me.

which homepage are you speaking of, George?
do you have the link?
Thanks.

Take a wild guess here, but Homepage kind of gave it away.....www.theminiforum.co.uk....

First place I looked. I saw nothing that sounded like the "latest tech".


My Mistake. I forgot that this forum is not the homepage, even though I always come in at this level from my shortcut.
There is indeed a page described as "The Front Site" that is the home page and it has a "Latest Tech" section on it.
I almost never look at it and forgot it was even there.

#17 mini7boy

mini7boy

    Speeding Along Now

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Local Club: moasf

Posted 24 September 2009 - 09:52 PM

it looks like somebody needs to use the spelling checker more often. Either that or a good dictionary.

On the "Stages of Tune" page on cylinder heads, the author obviously doesn't know the difference between the words "breath" and "breathe".
The author meant to use the word "breathe". You'll have to trust me on that.

#18 bmcecosse

bmcecosse

    Crazy About Mini's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,699 posts
  • Local Club: http://www.srps.org.uk/

Posted 24 September 2009 - 09:59 PM

If you haven't tried the 940 head on a 1098 engine - you aren't qualified to comment on it! I have such a thing - and it works beautifully - at ALL revs ! I replaced a well worked 295 with the slightly cleaned up 940 (standard small valve version) and the difference was amazing! But I do still have the standard AEA630 cam in the engine. Go for it!! You will not be disappointed. It's the best £10 I ever spent on an engine upgrade. These stories about 'only works at high revs' are just not true!

#19 mini7boy

mini7boy

    Speeding Along Now

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Local Club: moasf

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:03 AM

If you haven't tried the 940 head on a 1098 engine - you aren't qualified to comment on it! I have such a thing - and it works beautifully - at ALL revs ! I replaced a well worked 295 with the slightly cleaned up 940 (standard small valve version) and the difference was amazing! But I do still have the standard AEA630 cam in the engine. Go for it!! You will not be disappointed. It's the best £10 I ever spent on an engine upgrade. These stories about 'only works at high revs' are just not true!

Hey Roy,
I haven't jumped out of an airplane without a parachute because I don't need to do it to know the end result. Yet, I am qualified to comment on it. If you care to try it, please report your results here so that we can all learn from your experience.
You're outvoted on this 12G940 deal. Dodd, Calver, Russell and Vizard all disagree with you. Maybe you'll be more convincing once you have made the numbers to prove your point. All of the experts listed have dynoed and sold plenty of both the small-bore heads and the 12G940s on small-bore engines. Their preference for the small-bore heads is based upon this abundant experience they have with both approaches.

Like most Mini enthusiasts, I don't have the time or budget to buy and test both of these heads on my own, so I'll just go with the experts and their second, third and fourth opinions.

#20 jaydee

jaydee

    Crazy About Mini's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,565 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 01:31 AM

it looks like somebody needs to use the spelling checker more often. Either that or a good dictionary.

On the "Stages of Tune" page on cylinder heads, the author obviously doesn't know the difference between the words "breath" and "breathe".
The author meant to use the word "breathe". You'll have to trust me on that.


Are you american or british? Its a common slang to say 'to breath' its not the first time i see that. Whats the matter with that?

Edited by jaydee, 25 September 2009 - 01:32 AM.


#21 Calver ST

Calver ST

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 06:01 AM

Just out of interest - how many have actually measured the port sizes/cross sectional areas on the 295 and standard 940 heads? I have. Apart from the very early 295s with the sculptured casting around the manifold face, the majority of 295 ports are larger than the majority of the standard 'small' valved 940s. I have also flow and gas speed checked countless heads. Torque is not just down to port size. So there goes the increased torque from smaller ports theory. If you are interested in increasing torque from gas speed, then you should be using a 12G202 head. However - if you have a 295 already - that's probably your cheapest option.
On the cam front - ask 100 folk an opinion and you're likely to get 100 different answers - as we regularly see on here. It may be interesting, if you have the time - to run through all those that post answers to see what sort of age demograph they fit in to. It may help with deciding which way to jump with your decision, those of sage age may have more creditable experience than those barely out fo their 20s. This is one issue I have with forums and psuedonyms - you simply do not know who you are dealing with. The person behind that keyboard and screen could be 6 or 60.
For my two-penny-worth as far as cams go there are various options that work well with only small differences in their actual, installed performance envelopes - original 997 Cooper cam, MG Metro cam, Piper HR255, Kent 256 being probably the most suitable for your requirements. And to put something straight stated by somebody else earlier - Piper cams do not wear out faster than others. I moved my cam production to Piper some 5 or 6 years ago and have not suffered one failure. I am not alone - ask Bill Richards, MED and the like. In fact from what I have 'heard' on the many Mini forums, other cam manufacturers have been suffering a bout of premature cam wear, not Piper.
Selecting a cam is always a problem. Partly because of teh plethora of cam types available - even from one manufacturers range. For those interested, on my site (www.calverst.com) in Calver's Corner there is a piece in teh camshaft section covering considerations on selecting a cam. KC

#22 Calver ST

Calver ST

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 06:06 AM

Sorry folks - I think I posted my last blurb on teh wrong thread... sincerest apologies - but i gues sit got twice as much coverage! KC

#23 Calver ST

Calver ST

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 06:53 AM

Sorry folks - just double checked my site and that piece is missing. Have asked site man to sort it but here it is for those that are interested -

Camshafts – considerations for selection

When selecting a camshaft or contemplating such a purchase, many folk start asking questions about which is the best one to fit. That is almost an impossible question to answer since it entirely depends on what the individual is looking for in terms of performance. Asking others will invariably end up with them recommending a specific cam because that is what they have used and liked. Asking vendors will generally end up with them recommending certain cams, largely because it is what they keep in stock. I am as guilty as the next in this – but then the cams I keep in stock are the result of much testing and use over some 30+ years, having tried all the generally available proprietary cams then moved on to develop more to get what I was looking for. There are, however, a number of things that really need to be considered very deeply before continuing the search.
The very first and most important thing is that the A-series engine is only a small capacity 4 cylinder engine – even when stretched to 1400cc without going to the extra expense of long stroke cranks. As such, aiming for a smooth idle, with low emissions that will accelerate like a scalded cat when you nail it in top gear at 1500rpm is pure fantasy. For that you will need a big V8. So first shot of reality is that you can not have everything. Generally for the road you can have either a smooth idling, low emissions performance that will pull from low rpm with decent low to mid range torque and a performance envelope that will be all over by 5,000 to 5,500rpm, or something with a slightly lumpy idle that doesn't get on the boil until the rev counter sees 2,500rpm+ and will wail to around 6,500 to 7,000rpm in quick fashion. There are cams that will straddle aside both of these aims – but fall short in over-all performance for trying to do so. There are one or two that manage simply startling performance between the higher take-off rpm and lower peak performance rpm.
The second thing to consider is just what is meant by the question 'where does it pull from'? Cam manufacturers often quote power bands for each cam saying '1,500rpm to 6,000rpm' and the like. What it does not state is in what gear this performance is likely to actually work in. When somebody states that such and such a cam 'pulls hard from 1,500rpm' they often fail to state what gear they are using when doing this. It is extremely optimistic to say the least to think that the A-series will achieve this in top gear. 1,500rpm in top gear is likely to be around 25 to 30mph depending on what final drive is fitted to the car. And the higher the gearing, the worse what I am about to say will be. Just how many folks drive their Mini around at that speed and expect the car to launch towards the horizon when they nail the go pedal? Or, more exactly, how many folk look for blistering acceleration at that speed without first changing down at least one gear? Not very many at all I suspect. Trying to bimble along at 30mph in top gear with a final drive any higher than a 3.44 on 10” wheels is madness. The engine tugs and rocks on its mountings/engine steadies and is not at all lively or 'happy', let alone fuel efficient. Using third gear makes a huge difference all round. Try it. So, trundling along at 30 mph in third gear now has the rpm level closer to 2,000 to 2,200rpm, and the engine can apply more effective torque to the wheels, which will aid more lively acceleration when the loud pedal is jumped on. Gone is the mad requirement for the car to take off from 1,500rpm in top gear. So now the application of a more sporty cam becomes more feasible.
And lastly – the real, on the road performance envelope. You need to be very honest here otherwise you can end up hating your Mini because it becomes a pain to drive. Warm and fuzzy thoughts of blasting down country B-roads, or beating up the opposition at the local hill climb or sprint are pure pipe dreams when your Mini is mostly used in urban driving. You will end up hating the car. And oddly enough, seemingly 'under-camming' the engine when the car is likely to see a fair bit of competition or track day use is not as bad as it may seem. The Minis speed comes more form i's cornering ability than its engine power. Fitting a very sporty cam can make the car very difficult to drive quickly, whereas fitting a slightly 'tamer' cam may give you the confidence to really wring the last drop of cornering speed out of the car. When driving around, make a concious effort to analyse the rpm range you generally drive in – there are not many that will constantly see more than 5,500rpm on their tacho. May be 6,000rpm at the most So why fit a cam who's performance envelope fades out at 7,000rpm? Pointless. You are better off trading that higher rpm level for a cam that will give a bigger mid range torque bulge. And that is CRUCIAL.
TORQUE is what acceleration is all about. TORQUE accelerates the car, not BHP. BHP is a tool for higher speed. Not something the Mini is designed for, being as aerodynamic as a barn door.

#24 maph2

maph2

    One Carb Or Two?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts
  • Location: Warwick
  • Local Club: Poor Boys Warwick

Posted 25 September 2009 - 08:35 AM

thought this wopuld be relevant from the main man too /\ . remeber reading this article a while back

http://www.calverst.com/cc110f.htm

#25 CMcB

CMcB

    One Carb Or Two?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • Location: Burnley, Lancs

Posted 25 September 2009 - 08:52 AM

Are you american or british? Its a common slang to say 'to breath' its not the first time i see that. Whats the matter with that?



err, no it's not. It is either laziness or ignorance towards the English language. And most certainly not accepted slang.

You take a 'breath'

While you 'breathe'

there is no mix and match.

#26 bmcecosse

bmcecosse

    Crazy About Mini's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,699 posts
  • Local Club: http://www.srps.org.uk/

Posted 25 September 2009 - 12:50 PM

7 boy - I have no figures - just my personal experience! It was immediately noticeably faster just with the head change from 295 to 940. It pulls like a train ( <<<<) at all revs - I've just changed my final drive up from a 4.55 to a 3.73 - and it pulls that in top gear easily. 3.73 not high you say - well, it has 14" wheels and 80 section tyres - and it weighs a lot more than a Mini!
But carry on - buy expensive 295 heads and have less power than a cheap 940 from ebay. Do I care? Not a jot!
Mr Calver I'm sure used to have an article about 940 head on a 998 - which gave fantastic power - probably too fantastic to be true, but the principle certainly worked!
I also know of a 1098 from years back that had a full Cooper S head and carbs fitted (after the 1071S engine broke) and it went very well indeed! If Mr Badger reads this - he will probably remember!

Edited by bmcecosse, 25 September 2009 - 01:00 PM.


#27 M J W J

M J W J

    One Carb Or Two?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • Location: Midlands
  • Local Club: not yet

Posted 25 September 2009 - 01:39 PM

I may be missing the point here. Is it you want more power out of the 1098 engine or is it you just want more power in the car.

If it you just want more power in the car then why not just drop in a 1275 or if you can get hold of one a 1275 turbo engine out of a metro. To get a 1275 engine for £200-300 should be easy enough to do and may be possible to get a turbo lump for that. This way just seems a lot less hassle to me.

#28 Calver ST

Calver ST

    Stage One Kit Fitted

  • Noobies
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 01:42 PM

The article on the 998 with the 940 head was in Mini Mag yonks ago, more recently in Mini Expert Issue 1... now out of print - BUT... I will soon have a CD of ME1 on my site. A number have questioned the performance numbers reported, taking the acutally figures out of context. I took great pains to point out in the article that the numbers are somewhat irrelevant - it was the percentage gained over a standard 998 that was important. As is most RR tests. I ran a standard 998 on the rollerd first, then the modded 998. KC

#29 liirge

liirge

    Up Into Fourth

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,097 posts
  • Local Club: EDMC AND MMC

Posted 25 September 2009 - 02:13 PM

Roy,
I have said to you before that the change you noticed can probably be attributed to the increased compression ratio from the chamber size of the 940 Head. The 998 is usually very low compression something like 8.5/1, so putting your 940 head on could have bumped it up to more suitable 9.5/1, making you see increased torque throughout the rev range.

#30 Nightrain

Nightrain

    One Carb Or Two?

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 976 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 03:04 PM

Yet, I am qualified to comment on it.


If your to be believed we've seen no evidence of this fact !


The second thing to consider is just what is meant by the question 'where does it pull from'? Cam manufacturers often quote power bands for each cam saying '1,500rpm to 6,000rpm' and the like. What it does not state is in what gear this performance is likely to actually work in. When somebody states that such and such a cam 'pulls hard from 1,500rpm' they often fail to state what gear they are using when doing this.


The engines powerband is the same in every gear ! Whether or not the gearbox has suitable ratio's is a different matter ! The powerband is stated to help with cam selection, as you sort of touched upon. But the gearbox should be built to match the engine spec.

What really disappoints people with there build is reading exaggerated performance claims in magazines/books etc

People will get disappointed when they've spent all there hard earned cash on a 1098, followed certain articles to the letter. Yet only get 65bhp from there investment, stupid as it sounds there biggest disappointment won't be how it drives, but the fact there missing nearly 25bhp's.

This is one issue I have with forums and psuedonyms - you simply do not know who you are dealing with.


Says it all really :thumbsup:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users