What a civilised, decent bunch we are!

[linearaudio]

Just been idly toying with shoving a bigger bump-stick in the moggy engine, and typed Piper cams into the search box, which ultimately led me to one of the other A-series related forums, where someone was posting a similar query.
Reading the resulting hissy-fitty diatribe made me realise how good humoured we are on this site. We can wind up poor ole BMC and he still keeps smiling (metaphorically)!

Congratulations, fellow Moggy owners!

[mike.perry]

You have to maintain a sense of humour when replying to some of the questions, otherwise you might fall foul of the T&Cs!

[bmcecosse]

You are 'winding me up' .......... oh - didn't realise!
Did you not find me on the Miniforum ?
What sort of cam are you looking at? Hard to beat the MG Metro for a road going 1098 - or 1275.

[Blaketon]

Sorry we're going off topic here. How does the MG Metro cam compare, in practice, with standard 1275 Midget?

My (1275 Midget engined) car has a Burgess Econotune head (Basically just gas flowed) with an MG Metro carb and LCB/straight through exhaust. I don't know what cam is in there but since my father bought a standard 1275 Midget, I'm sure mine has something more peaky (Little power below 3000 and really gets going at 4000 - I'm thinking 731?). I know the Traveller weighs more than a Midget, so a cam that works well in a Midget (Or a Mini) may not suit a heavier Minor.

Kent do a cam, which is said to be good for towing and which gives a bit more mid range, which I'm thinking could be good. On the other hand BMC/BL weren't as inept as some people like to say and there is sometimes a lot to be said for standard well tested factory spec parts.

Back on topic, yes the forum is genrally well mannered. I think the moderating is sometimes an obedient interpretation of the rules, rather than a wise one but that's another issue. However, I think our moderators sometimes over cautious approach could go a long way to cleaning up one forum I could mention (I don't use many). In fairness, the other Minor forum (http://www.morrisowners.co.uk/) seems a pretty well mannered affair (Athough it is less active) and they don't seem to be as preoccupied with T&Cs.

[LouiseM]

Well the message to new members on the 'other site' includes "keep it clean, try to avoid politics, contents links & pictures should be family friendly and please refrain from making any remarks against individuals which might result in legal action or endanger the existence of this board". So pretty much the same as the T&C's here. The only real difference is that as this site is a club site it asks for any queries, complaints etc in respect of the club and it's members to be directed to the club in the first instance, not posted on the messageboard.

There may be less moderation on the other site, and less members, but they are just as likely to be subject to legal action and closed down as a result of inappropriate, libellous or defamatory comments as we are. I know that some people on here do not like having to follow T&C's but they are there for very good reasons.

[bmcecosse]

Blaketon - on the MG cam subject - your Spridget engine would NOT have the 731 cam fitted as standard. Just a very ordinary cam - in fact - same timing and lift as the standard 1098 cam, although with 1/2" wide lobes. MG Rover designed the MG Metro cam to give excellent torque, yet to fade away at higher revs to avoid too many warranty claims! In fact - it has the 731 exhaust lobes, but slightly reduced inlet lobes - both way better than the standard cam. It is an excellent cam - go for it! However unless you know what type of oil pump drive is in your engine - you can't really change it without taking the engine out. MG Metro cams are all 'spade' drive - your engine would be 'spider' drive as standard.

[Blaketon]

I'll certainly bear that in mind. I need to remove the engine to rectify a clutch fault. It was only after my father bought his standard 1275 Midget that I realised that my cam was not standard (My Midget is a 1500 and it was always said that the 1275 was more peaky, so my expectations were based on that).

Apart from a very brief drive of a 1275 Cooper S and then my Traveller, my father's Midget was the first 1275 I had driven and I don't find it at all peaky. I want to make my Traveller a bit more like that, even if at the cost of a few top end horses. Indeed, if it would fit and not upset the balance of the car (Which I know it won't) an MGB engine would be ideal for what I want but I think the 1275 A Series is the best compromise for me. A friend of mine had an MG Metro many years ago and it seemed to go well; the first one better than the later one (Which was also lower geared), which he imported new from Belgium, as was done in those days to save money.

[bmcecosse]

The later MG Metros had reduced power - fitted with the smaller valved 'unleaded' head. Cooper S cam was only very slightly better than standard (and then only the later ones) - it's benefit was in the very large valved head!

[Blaketon]

The later MG Metros had reduced power - fitted with the smaller valved 'unleaded' head. Cooper S cam was only very slightly better than standard (and then only the later ones) - it's benefit was in the very large valved head!

Thanks for the info. The second MG Metro was late '85/early '86 and I know that was when talk of unleaded fuel was circulating.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I don't think the complaints, we have seen about moderating, are the result of the terms and conditions, rather interpretation of them and inconsistencies (That was the basis of my complaint to MMOC, which I might add remains unanswered). Indeed, there is a thread on the “Other site”, which refers to the issue ”Removed Posts on MMOC Board”, though I am not sure as to the background of some of the comments.

I couldn't see a reference to politics in the T&C to the “Other“ site but what I could see is perfectly reasonable. However I think that

try to avoid politics

is a little short of banning discussion of legislation (On the basis that criticism of a piece of legislation implies criticism of the people who passed said legislation), which may have a direct impact upon the activities of the owners of classic/historic vehicles.

Whilst I feel that comments, on this forum, (Referring to the Scrappage Scheme) like

A stupid scheme put forward by a stupid government likely only attractive to stupid people*.

A complete waste of time and clearly another bit of misdirection to stop us all worrying about how far the economy has gone down the toilet.

are perhaps a little bit near the mark (Though I don’t say I disagree with the sentiments of them), the Scrappage Scheme, although it had a limited impact on Morris Minors, was a piece of legislation which could have more of an impact, if its scope was ever widened to include the kind of legislation where such scrappage became compulsory. As such I feel such discussion is only coincidentally political and therefore not political by intent, in the same way as were my (Comparatively mild but nevertheless "Moderated") remarks, about the former chancellor and current prime minister, in connection with historic road tax exemption. These were based on conclusions I drew after very protracted and ultimately unfruitful correspondence with him over the issue of the 1973 cut off.

The other contentious issue, at present, concerns defamatory remarks about allegedly incompetent or unethical traders. Speaking as a trader, in another field, I can say that traders do not have a monopoly on dishonesty and some customers are not above a bit of deceitfulness when trying to obtain a bit of “Free rectification”. That said, factual remarks made about incompetent and unethical traders, are not defamatory. However it is also true that sometimes such matters will be decided in court and the result can depend on the competence of the respective legal councils and the opinion of the judge. I can appreciate the need for care here and I too have an unresolved complaint, concerning a well known trader. The matter has been brought to the attention of MMOC via direct contact with them and not via this forum. I shall know more when the matter has been fully investigated and I intend to update MMOC in due course. One of our posters is taking the same trader to court. If the trader loses, then to simply post online what has happened, would not be defamatory.

One question I would raise, on the naming and shaming issue, is what difference does it make whether the naming and shaming is done by PM or openly? If I have a difference with a trader (And lets assume its my fault but I’m too pig headed to admit it) and I start a thread “Warning, bad trader, PM for details”, what is the difference between this and just posting it for all to see? If I simply post it (Assume the moderators don’t remove it), people viewing the forum, simply click to view the thread. If I offer the information by PM, they just have to click a few more times to get the information (Plus they have to be members of the forum). My point is that the information is still published via the forum.

Finally I should like to reiterate that generally most members on here seem to behave very civilly towards one another. I feel this is largely to the credit of the members and in this respect I don’t think they give the moderators many headaches. As I have said before, I don’t use many forums but one general classic car forum that I use could learn something from this forum, at least so far as common courtesy is concerned.

[bmcecosse]

Aye - but that infornation is just being passed by you to them in a private message - it's not on the public forum. I had considered something similar - along the lines of a thread 'XYZ Company - PM for details if thinking of trading with them' - and that would comply with T&Cs - but overall I fell it's none of my busines and I have better things to worry about. Nevertheless - if anyone asks me (and they just did - a few minutes ago!) I will tell what I know!!

[LouiseM]

One question I would raise, on the naming and shaming issue, is what difference does it make whether the naming and shaming is done by PM or openly? If I have a difference with a trader (And lets assume its my fault but I’m too pig headed to admit it) and I start a thread “Warning, bad trader, PM for details”, what is the difference between this and just posting it for all to see? If I simply post it (Assume the moderators don’t remove it), people viewing the forum, simply click to view the thread. If I offer the information by PM, they just have to click a few more times to get the information (Plus they have to be members of the forum). My point is that the information is still published via the forum.

As BMC has said, the difference is that the club is liable for information posted on the public forum, but not for that posted within pm's. We can't view such messages so therefore cannot be held responsible for their contents. Although a word of caution for anyone intending to pass incorrect or misleading information via pm's, just be aware that you don't really know who other members are. What if one happened to be connected to the trader in question and passed the information back to them? It wouldn't be a problem for the club but you might end up with some problems of your own. I'm not suggesting for one moment that this would happen but you never know. Better to be safe than sorry.

[linearaudio]

I started this thread with a sort of rosy glow inside me..... now I'm starting to feel quite depressed! C'est la vie!

[LouiseM]

I know how it feels. I often start to feel depressed after a short time on here

Seriously, it's a pity that your original sentiments have been somewhat overtaken by 'off topic' comments but there are a lot of good things about this site and I agree, on the whole most people are good humoured here

[Blaketon]

I started this thread with a sort of rosy glow inside me..... now I'm starting to feel quite depressed! C'est la vie!

Finally I should like to reiterate that generally most members on here seem to behave very civilly towards one another. I feel this is largely to the credit of the members and in this respect I don’t think they give the moderators many headaches. As I have said before, I don’t use many forums but one general classic car forum that I use could learn something from this forum, at least so far as common courtesy is concerned.

It's not perfect but its not all bad

[Kevin]

Back to the off topic bit on Cams don't forget the SW5 cam I find it excellent in my 1275.

[Blaketon]

Back to the off topic bit on Cams don't forget the SW5 cam I find it excellent in my 1275.

In what way - is it nice and torquey? What does normally fit? I'm not looking for a tractor; I like a bit of life above 5000rpm but I want to get away from having to rev it. That's why the MG Metro cam sounds good!

[bmcecosse]

The MIni lads have finally realised the SW5 is not all it's cracked up to be! it gives high lift - with very soft timing. This because it's reground from standard cams - so it's very difficult for them to extend the timing significantly - they just grind the base circle and get more lift. It is however supposedly a 'torquey' cam - and if that's what's wanted it could be your best bet! But don't use strong valve springs - and do check it doesn't cause coil binding at full lift on the valve springs on have.

[linearaudio]

The MIni lads have finally realised the SW5 is not all it's cracked up to be! it gives high lift - with very soft timing. This because it's reground from standard cams - so it's very difficult for them to extend the timing significantly - they just grind the base circle and get more lift. It is however supposedly a 'torquey' cam - and if that's what's wanted it could be your best bet! But don't use strong valve springs - and do check it doesn't cause coil binding at full lift on the valve springs on have.

But Mr Calver swore it was the best thing ever!!

I've seen some timing figures for it at 244/244 degrees-less exhaust timing than the standard 1098 cam!
How would the SW5 be so good in a small bore engine with its' high lift figures when the great Vizard amongst others (BMC?) advises against high lift rockers on a small bore engine?

[Kevin]

Back to the off topic bit on Cams don't forget the SW5 cam I find it excellent in my 1275.

In what way - is it nice and torquey? What does normally fit? I'm not looking for a tractor; I like a bit of life above 5000rpm but I want to get away from having to rev it. That's why the MG Metro cam sounds good!

I find it works really well with a very smooth tickover and a nice smooth pickup and the torque is most noticable when needed on the motorway.
By a tractor I assume you mean a lumpy running cam well the SW5 is not at all lumpy, when I had the MG Metro cam in another 1275 it was not very good at tickover. As for life above 5000rpm and not revving it that sounds a little contradictory.

The MIni lads have finally realised the SW5 is not all it's cracked up to be! it gives high lift - with very soft timing. This because it's reground from standard cams - so it's very difficult for them to extend the timing significantly - they just grind the base circle and get more lift. It is however supposedly a 'torquey' cam - and if that's what's wanted it could be your best bet! But don't use strong valve springs - and do check it doesn't cause coil binding at full lift on the valve springs on have.

I know you love to quote mini's inspite of them being a totally different type of car with different requirements but where are the facts.
First you are wrong about the Cams being reground from standard cams as this was at one time just a cheaper option to a new billet camshaft so you could choose how much you wanted to spend but the regrounds have not been available for some years (get your facts right)
You then say supposedly a torquey cam so you obviously haven't actually tried one but I certainly find it ideal as wanted an engine with torque rather than a screamer as I was after a smooth engine with good motorway performance when needed.
At the end of the day a cam that suits your needs is the main requirement, and all I did was to offer an alternative option, and I do know of a couple of other Moggie owners that are happy with the SW5 cam fitted to 1098cc cars.
Although I do appreciate that some prefer second hand Metro cams.

As an aside Swiftune did rather well at the Goodwood Revival meeting so Mini fans should be rather happy me-thinks.

[bmcecosse]

I'm sure some will make you an SW5 from new stock - but the ones I have seen have very small base-circles and were regrinds. The general consensus in Mini world these days is heading away from the SW5. As I said -- it's supposedly great for torque, and you are right - I haven't used one due to it's general bad publicity. But if you are happy - that's fine! It's your car. Vizard (and others) are against high lift rockers for many good reasons - but not against high lift on the valves, where the power output calls for it. This is better generated at the cam than by fiddling the geometry at the rockers. The 544 cam has more lift than the 'standard' cams - and the 649 is slightly higher again. Neither i hasten to add are much use in a 1098 - because they both need to be revved. They are great in a 1275 - provided you want arevvy engine, and not a slogger. The MG Metro will give you the slogging - and revs well up to ~ 6000 - which is plenty for a 1098.