Moggy Modifications

Post by **Willie** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:09 pm

Come on Gareth....fitting the Duplex chain kit is a nice job and
the end result is well worth while........If you haven't got a countersink
bit then use a suitable large drill as a countersink.

Post by **rayofleamington** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:25 am

Well, not like me to fan the flames of 'discussion' but..

Having trawled all my bits in my my mum's garage today I picked up
1) the unknown big valve head that was on a 1098. cast number #2G 94#
2) the head from my 1275 Midget engine. cast number #2G 940

The shape was near identical and the size and layout of the combustion chambers and valves was the same. I would bet money they are the same thing though maybe made in different years, as the casing nuber was spaced differently, hence more numbers missing on the 'unknown' one. The only difference I could see was that the valves were more recessed on the 'unknown' one but that was probably from high mileage.

From that I expect that a 1275 midget head ?2G 940 WILL fit on a 1098 without machining the block. This may be because the CAM does not open the valves enough to hit the head?
anyone know how much valve openeing you get with a 1098 CAM with a standard rocker?

Post by **MikeTrav68** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:53 am

Jumping back to page 1 Cam, my 1380 NA mini with 125hp (calculated from 1/4 mile speeds) ran 7.0 and 7.2 when I took it through the lights, 0-60. It was 700kg on the weighbridge, and my traveller is 800kg in the book, surprisingly light in comparison. Given RWD, I'd expect your Moggie to run at least mid 7's, I think you are being conservative with 9 secs! About 1s extra if you have to catch 3rd to get to 60.

Post by **Cam** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:26 am

Mike,

Spot on!! Since writing that I tested the 0-60 at some traffic lights and calculated it based on engine revs and not the bouncy speedo! I did it a few times (both directions) and it was averaging 7.6 seconds, so you were right about 9 being conservative! I was also only taking the engine to 6000 RPM as opposed to the 7000 - 7500 limit (because I have the wrong dizzy and rocker assembly on the engine) and an SU needle and fuel mixture that was guessed at rather than rolling road tuned!!

Maybe I will be closer to 7 seconds then when everything is set up properly??

And yes, I do have to grab 3rd before getting to 60 as it is quite low geared. 60 MPH = 5400 RPM in 3rd.

Post by **MikeTrav68** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:11 am

Hi Cam,

You'd crack 7 if you don't need 3rd, and maybe had a tad more traction (looks like std wheels on the '69). Maybe you should borrow a couple of 14in rear wheels or 175/80 tyres for a test... You're only a few % off 60 in second.

Two other thoughts - if you borrow a GPS you can calibrate your speedo. Might be dissappointing though, beware! Mine's 10mph out.

You can use a Lambda sensor up the exhaust with a digital multimeter to do a pretty good tuning job, cheaply, on the road. Email for details r49961@email.sps.mot.com

Post by **Cam** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:45 am

Mike,

For the traction I have 14" 185 60 profile Ford Sierra rear wheels to mate to my Ford Escort mk2 axle, but really cr*p budget tyres, you can only just see them in the picture below (black coloured).

Because of my low gearing I can only get to 54 MPH at 7000 so unfortunately I have to use 3rd.

I can get my speedo calibrated for about £40 from Speedy Cables, but it's not really on the list of priorities at the moment. And it reads about 11% high so I don't really use it except for speed cameras (good safety margin!). I usually go off the rev counter.

Yes, I thought about the colourtune / lambda sensor route, but to be honest if I wanted it spot on then I'd get it rolling-road tuned. It is close at the moment, and seems to run pretty OK. I'll get it done eventually but I have other things to do first!!

Thanks for the info though.

Have you thought about posting the lambda sensor info in the 'tips' section on here??

Post by **MikeTrav68** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:04 pm

Ford axel, that makes it easier. You need another 11% rolling radius to hit 60 in 2nd. Currently you have 185mm width * 60% aspect ratio = 4.4in tyre height. Add the wheel radius, 7in for a rolling radius of 11.4in. Say you found a couple of 4 bolt Ford alternative wheels with 185R14 tyres instead (Scorpio? Sierra?). These tyres are 80% aspect ratio so rolling radius equates to 12.8in. You'd get to 60 in 2nd at just under 7000rpm. Handling would suffer so you wouldn't want to leave them like that, but makes for an interesting test.

I could post Lambda info but it really needs pictures. Any suggestions?

Post by **Peetee** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:56 pm

You would still need more power to turn the higher gear so you may be no better off.

Post by **rayofleamington** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:19 pm

The other option to the 80 profile 185 on a 14" rim is to go for 195/60 15.....
Ford steels 15" rims are getting more available, but it would be even worse to find a compatible spare.

You would still need more power to turn the higher gear so you may be no better off.

Yes and no - there's a balance point somewhere.
With a high powered, low geared car - you can't apply the engine torque without getting wheelspin. Therefore increasing the gearing reduces that effect slightly in 1st gear (and maybe in second also?).
And as a 1 to 2 shift is usually quicker than a 2 to 3, you can take away more than half the dead time caused by gearshifting if you get to 60mph just before the rev limiter.
As for gear ratio matching to 60 mph -> These kind of things were done deliberately on certain cars (I think the MG Montego was one) More likely they would match the gearing on performance cars to a kph test spec not mph these days :?

On a low performance car you are likely to get slower acceleration by raising the gearing - and maybe even reduce the top speed.

Post by **Cam** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:07 pm

My engine only turns out about 120 BHP so when doing these tests you still feel like you could benifit from more power and lower not higher gearing.

I had the option of a 3.9 diff which I used for a while and it was noticably slower on acceleration than my 4.44 diff (which is in now). The top end also suffered as the 3.9 did not allow enough torque at my terminal speed (due to the lower revs). The 4.44 was much better and I can get just over 120 MPH with it (6500 RPM in 5th). I can't remember the figures exactly, but I could not get anywhere near that with the 3.9.

The change in tyres should / will have a similar effect. The gearchange thing I can live with as you don't often race to 60, and my general low gearing gives me an advantage throughout the entire range.

Post by **Peetee** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:01 pm

Yes and no - there's a balance point somewhere

Yes indeedy. And bhp/torque figures don't always give the game away. One performance car I had got to it's maximum speed in 4th gear, not 5th. Also acceleration for overtaking on A-roads was dreadful because there was a yawning gap in the power around 40-50mph where, because of the big difference in the ratios, no gear seemed to do the job properly.

Post by **Cam** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:01 am

Yes, I remember such a situation (well a lower performance version!) with a mk2 Allegro 1300 super that we had once. I loved that car but the gap between 3rd and 4th was rather large. Seriously it was one of the best cars we ever had!

Post by **Gareth** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:43 am

My engine only turns out about 120 BHP

"only"

"only"

Nope - still can't get my head around it!!

Post by **Kevin** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:33 pm

Nope - still can't get my head around it!!

Gareth it just means its a tad quicker than our cars, whatever a tad is

Post by **Gareth** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:41 pm

Dictionary definition:

tad, (ta'd) n. Whacking great lump. see also A LOT

That ends our trip to Dictionary Corner for today. ;)

Post by **Kevin** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:58 pm

Thanks Gareth so I used the word in the right context and it was only a wild guess.

Post by **Cam** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:52 pm

Mine might be a tad quicker but it probably has slightly less character! AND I don't have an exhaust run on 'parp' anymore!

It's just different! To be honest, you soon get used to the power and start hankering after more (and less, oddly enough in my case - see 1952 sidevalve

)

Post by **turbominor** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:28 pm

i find that you need more and more power then go back to basics!, i went from moggie to golf gti, to sierra 4x4 to cosworth and back to moggie a few years back

always seem to have more fun with less power.

made it official today, sold the golf so i have to use moggie every day

Post by **Gareth** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:53 pm

I can agree with that - the Morris is so entertaining, it's difficult to believe you are going so slowly!

Morris Minor Owners Club

Moggy Modifications

timing chain