17 replies to this topic

[ashley00]

ok im going to building a good spec engine.not sure which route to go.sorry if this is in the wrong place moveifit is.would like some opinions advice etc.

ok spoekn to a few people

but ouwld like to know form people with experience friends with experience etc

shoudl i go n/a or forced

benefits for all .n/a,supercharger and turbo

also whats reliabiltiy like with supercharge turbo

and big bored like 1380 and 1430 all help would be greatly appreciated
cheers in advance

[Paul Wiginton]

We need to know what it'll be used for

Paul

[biggav]

Tuning the A Series Engine by David Vizard.

Best £10 you'll ever spend on an engine. you can read it and refer back to it, but all the research on each aspect of the engine is in there to help you decide what spec suits your needs.

I have a 1380, 296 cam, stage 4 head.. and i wished i'd super charged it... but its summer/show use only and i have nitrous fitted (won't use that until engine is rebuilt though)

[ashley00]

its gonna be for weekend weapon type thing.i got a 2 litre focus as normal car and want a really punchy quick mini.im going for the whole retro racer look,army pea ish green,with graphite arches and roof,lowered a lot on ten inch three piece split rims.but its just the engine route im wondering about going
again all help would be greatly appreciated

[Paul Wiginton]

Then build either a monster n/a 1380 with 310 cam and full race head or a turbo that can run around 15+ psi. Turbo is a big learning curve so to build a very quick engine quickly, I would go n/a. Dont be tempted by long stroke unless its a trackday car as it wont rev as well which means youre limited to a 3.9 diff ratio. With a 1380 you can have 4.1 or more to make it unbelieveable.

Paul

[biggav]

depending on vehicle/engine age, you will need to consider mot emmissions test.. very loopy cams behave rubbish at idle and will struggle to get through.
since (from what it looks like,)you are looking at 100 bhp plus, gearbox will be the most important investment. if you can get a 1380 engine and sccr box on ebay, then choose your cam, head, exhaust, carbs etc. once its up and running, you could always add a little giggle gas for extra oomph.

Trust me on the vizard book though.

[alexcrosse]

i got a 1430 with a weber 45 DCOE on it, that i drive when im home and its nice. Absolute tool.


"Dont be tempted by long stroke unless its a trackday car as it wont rev as well"

And it revs to 7500rpm. They just dont NEED to rev as high because they produce so much more torque low down. Itll tear ur neck off.
im running 105.7bhp at the wheels and 130bhp at the flywheel. Which is higher than quite a few turbos if you check the rolling road section in mags.

Edited by alexcrosse, 23 February 2008 - 02:51 PM.

[ashley00]

building an engine quickly isnt my main thing i want to get it right more than anything,i have spoken to the people at med,and am waiting a call back form avonbar.becuase i want it half ok ish as a raod car (eg does 65-70 at about 4k ish)also a silly wild cam will be terrible in the traffic.
the turbo route why would it be a big learning curve worked on turbo cars before just not carbed turbo cars.

the three engines i woudl be looking at are(all will have alot of head work,sccr,sc drops,all lightened up and a good tune)

-1380-like semi race,wild ish cam lots of head work

-1430-same sort of spec as above just heard they give a lot of lower down torque(i like the lotsmore tourqe after that massive kick)

and a 1293,forced induction special from med.shoudlbe able to run decentish boost

all helop is greatly appreciated cheers so far all

[wolfys_mini]

i got a 1430 with a weber 45 DCOE on it, that i drive when im home and its nice. Absolute tool.


"Dont be tempted by long stroke unless its a trackday car as it wont rev as well"

And it revs to 7500rpm. They just dont NEED to rev as high because they produce so much more torque low down. Itll tear ur neck off.
im running 105.7bhp at the wheels and 130bhp at the flywheel. Which is higher than quite a few turbos if you check the rolling road section in mags.

i have never been in a car that throws me back as much as alex's mini, and i couldnt help but smile when in it and didnt stop smiling for a long time after!

[Sam Walters]

100bhp mark could be obtained from a 1380 with a fully worked head.

for cam choice i would look at

Kent cams 286
morspeed`s Phase3
swift tune`s sw5



if its emmisions your worried about i suggest the swift tune sw5, its been described by someone as "the limp willy of a 286", but it will still produce 90-100 pounds per foot of torque at around 3k-4k rpm, however will also produce 100bhp, and in a mini with 100bhp its a little bit of a monster. even if you only get 80 at the wheels.



turbo, well thats a whole other world, 160bhp and 120 pounds per foot of torque achived from a 998. however it will be a little awkward to control when boost kicks in if your not used to it!

i would suggest a super charger as its a nice and progressive.




trust biggav on the visard book though.

[Sam Walters]

"Dont be tempted by long stroke unless its a trackday car as it wont rev as well"

And it revs to 7500rpm. They just dont NEED to rev as high because they produce so much more torque low down. Itll tear ur neck off.

your engine is something quite special though.

[wolfys_mini]

after a discussion on friday at work, apparently the sw5, a lot of people buy it and then are disappointed with its performance etc.

so maybe steer away from the sw5

[JetBLICK]

People get dissapointed with the sw5 because they try and compare it to the 286, when they are completly different... the sw5 is a short duration, high lift cam - great for making low down power and increasing power without compromising driveability... a 286 has a much longer duration and overlap, which is what makes it lumpy, but makes much more power higher up the rev-range.

[mini93]

whats the 286scatter patern in comparison to the SW5 then blick if you know?

[JetBLICK]

Never used my 286 scatter mate, so fraid i dont know mate - i'd imagine its closer to the 286 than the sw5 tho. From what you read about them tho, they seem to be just smoother, but with the same top end power, i think thats what they where designed for... something to do with lobes for the valves on the shared exhaust port?

If the SW5 was designed to compete directly with the 286, then why would swifty go to the trouble of re-designing the 286 in the form of their SW10?

I'm not saying the SW5 is poor - let me make that clear, but i think you cant compare them in terms of how they perform/make their power.