Morris Minor Owners Club

What was the worst engine produced by Austin, Morris, BMC, BL etc?
My vote goes for the E Series engine as fitted to the Austin Maxi.
It was designed as a 1485 cc engine and when it was found to be gutless in that capacity the only way it could be enlarged was by increasing the stroke in what was already a long stroke engine as there was absolutely no space to increase the bore, indeed there was so little space between 2 & 3 that blown head gaskets were a frequent occurance.
The valves were operated by overhead cam turned by a long chain which disappeared onto the bottom of the engine and which had to to be carefully supported when removing the camshaft gear lest it should be lost in the sump/gearbox, meaning a strip down to retrieve it.
The crowning glory was the tappet adjustment by removable shims.
Assemble the engine and torque down the head. Measure the valve gap and note the shim size. Take one from the other to get the required shim size then wait until the dealership opens on Monday morning to buy the correct shims before stripping the cam assembly down to repeat the process.
The E Series had I believe , one of the shortest lives of any contemporary engine, being used in the Maxi, Allegro and in 6 cylinder form in the Princess before being dumped on the scrap heap.
Can anyone suggest a worse contender for the title?

You didn't need to assemble the head to engine and torque the head to measure and set the valve gaps - it's done on the head way before it gets to the engine ! Not defending this particular engine in any way - just defending the method of setting OHC gaps - used on many many engines very successfully.

Lots of sports bikes use this arrangement, with a special tool and a magnetic screwdriver the shims can be changed without dismantling the valve gear.

The Lotus/Ford twin cam requires the shims to be changed. With that engine, you have to remove the camshafts to change the shims. Wicked little engine when its going though .

Worst engine, I wouldn't know. The Austin 3 Litre (Not the same as the Healey 3000) engine, also fitted to the MGC wasn't one of their best efforts. The first 1275 Midget engines had a weak block, so they had to fit some EN40B cranks, in order to get around the problem, whilst the block was redesigned.

Wasn't the O Series developed from the E Series?

Best 'engineering trick' (nervous/PC readers {refers to steering wheel nut thread!} please look away now) was on the morning of the last day of the Scottish Rally - 1967 or 8 I think. The leading Lotus Cortina had valve problems - the gaps had closed up. The car was started and driven out of Parc Ferme - the cam covers were removed - and the base circles of the cams were 'adjusted' using an angle grinder !! It went on to win the Rally.

[quote="

Wasn't the O Series developed from the E Series?[/quote]

Think that was the R and S series 1600cc engines used in the Maestro/Montego that were developed from the Maxi 1500/1750 engine. I had a 1600 maestro for 61000 miles (left me at 91000) and had no engine probs at all. Now the camshaft destroying Talbot engines must be contenders for worst engine ever, they made a racket virtually out of the factory. As for the BL stable the Triumph V8 must stand accused due to its poor manufacture and material standards (shame as it sounds nice).

That would be the 3 Litre V8 with single row timing chains, main bearing journals narrower than an A series, inclined head studs which corrode solidly into the heads, heads that warp after the engine overheats, which it will. A truly awful engine. The Stag should have had the Rover engine, if it had it would have been a fabulous car.

Rover K-series in my experience.

After years of defending them I bought a Rover 400 and WANTED the K-series version NOT the Honda one.

It revv'd ok but the 1600 was very poor on torque and the clutch was not strong enough.

Not long after I needed a water pump and a head gasket!

Then the cam tensioner went, the cam belt danced the fandango and totalled the engine.

for me i think it was the 1.4 engine in the renault 5 my sister-in-law had one for years but it kept dropping the liners the last time it went i refused to do it and at last she got rid and bought a bmw mini

Cam wrote:Rover K-series in my experience.

After years of defending them I bought a Rover 400 and WANTED the K-series version NOT the Honda one.

It revv'd ok but the 1600 was very poor on torque and the clutch was not strong enough.

Not long after I needed a water pump and a head gasket!

Then the cam tensioner went, the cam belt danced the fandango and totalled the engine.

The idea of the main bearing caps being held in by the cyclinder head bolts doesn't sound too clever from the maintenance point of view.

Having had an MGCGT for several years I'd say the motor was superb. Okay it doesn't rev highly and weighs the earth, but its silky smooth and very torquey. Any engine that can pull 4th overdrive from 900rpm and top out at over 120 mph in that gear deserves respect.
The Rover K series is a brilliat design which Rover did their usual level best to wreck by lack of investment and cost cutting which lead to the infamous head gasket issues.

As for the BL stable the Triumph V8 must stand accused due to its poor manufacture and material standards (shame as it sounds nice).

A friend of mine loves them and is building a 32 valve one
It's a dog - and only worth having if you're a masochist IMHO.

K series was a very good engine until they had to expand the range overnight (When Rover was sold out secretly from underneath it's partnership with Honda)
Then the accountants expected 3 times as many engines to be made with the same tooling, and cost pressure allowed porous heads to be re-worked instead of scrapped (impregnation - not a fix it's a band-aid) as making a non-porous head cost more money and needed investment Added to that were the plastic dowels and under funded development allowing cooling issues to be ignored.
It's a real shame as it was a world beating engine in its day.

I was to an extent involved in the development of the bearings for the K series - during my time at Glacier. The through bolts to the main bearings are an excellent idea! Only snag is - you are supposed to fit new ones each time the engine is stripped down - and many don't do that, and then wonder why they get problems.

The idea of bolts instead of studs sounds well enough but from what I gather, every time you remove the head, the crankshaft has to be disturbed? If so, that's the illogical part to me.

What makes them an excellent idea?
Were they stretch bolts?
Why are they so common now?
I replaced the head gasket on a diesel Golf and buying all new bolts made it an expensive job .

The long studs clamp the whole engine together when tightened up - so the block can be relatively lighter. That was the theory!

Blaketon wrote:The first 1275 Midget engines had a weak block, so they had to fit some EN40B cranks, in order to get around the problem, whilst the block was redesigned.

Not heard that one before and how did a stronger crank overcome the problem.
I don't remember the Cooper S having a problem either and that used basically the same block 2 years earlier.

Exactly! However - some in-line 1275 engines seemingly DID get EN40B cranks - so they could be used in competition engines. But it was nowt to do with 'weak blocks' . Later 1275 blocks (S and in-line) did get thicker flanges - on high power Minis it was seemingly possible to crack the flange off the block!