..denn damit das Ganze sicher läuft und das Auslassventil nicht auf den Block aufschlägt musst Du Taschen in den Block fräsen.
Besser wäre ein gut gemachter 12G295 artiger Kopf mit 31 / 26,5 Ventilen.
HTH Uwe
Hallo,
Ich würde auch zum 12G295 Kopf raten. Die waren z.B. auf den kleinen Innos drauf.
Der small bore LCB sollte reichen auf einem small bore block. Ev. verhält sich der Freeflow- Fächer sogar noch etwas besser - hier endet aber meine Erfahrung - eher den Händler des Vertrauens ausfragen.
Beim Zündverteiler vom Vergasercooper dürfte dann das nächste Problem kommen, da Flansch (A+) und Antrieb nicht passen.
Der 10H- Motor ist aufgrund seines sehr grossen Hubs nur bedingt tuningtauglich. (Basis 99H, d.h. die schmalen Pleuellager etc. limitieren die Leistung)
Ich will damit nicht sagen, dass es nicht geht - die Lebensdauer dürfte aber leiden. Mehr als das von dir beabsichtigte (266er, Fächer, guter Kopf) würde ich nicht machen. Diese Massnahmen werden dich vermutlich leistungsmässig in den Bereich eines Serien 1300ers bringen.
Gruss
nerd
Finger weg, ich hab´s hinter mir. Taschen im Block usw. War nie richtig glücklich damit.
Wie oben schon gesagt, mit einem Serien 1300 hast du mehr Freude.
Gruße awe
Der 12G202 passt besser zu einem leicht gemachten 10H also 1100er. Habe den 12G940 auch schon drauf gehabt - sehr schwer einigermaßen ans Laufen zu bringen. Und war auch von der Leistung her nicht so toll. Auf meinen 1000er A+ lief der 12G940 wie die Pest! Und das OHNE Taschen im Block war sehr sehr knapp aber ging. Kopf kam vom 1275GT und war noch nicht geplant, also sehr dick.
Mach dem 12G202 die Kanäle auf, vielleicht die Ventile vom 1001 Kopf 12G295 rein und es wird ein besseres Ergbnis bei rauskommen.
Den Verteilerumbau würde ich lassen - habe auch dieses schon probiert, die Verstellkurve passt auf keinen Fall zu 10H Motor. Nehme auch hier den originalen und lass den Unterdruck auf jeden Fall dran!! Zum leicht gemachten 10H passt auch sehr gut der Verteiler aus dem Inno 1300 oder Cooper S, welche aber schwerer zu beschaffen sich und sich selten in einem brauchbaren Zustand befinden.
ALEX!!!
Der Verteiler orientiert sich nicht nur an der Nockenwelle, alle Komponenten des Motor spielen da rein - besonders der Hub bzw. Hubraum und da ist der 10H nun etwas anders.
Zu Deiner Info: std 99H A+,erst Ducellier Verteiler (funktioniert nicht auf einem getunten Motor) später A+ Verteiler vom Serien Motor, Serien Nocke, Doppel HS2 mit Luftfilterkasten, LCB und RC40. Funktionierte Falbehaft! Nach einiger Zeit habe ich das ganze auf einen 10H Motor umgebaut ( habe auch hier keine Taschen in den Block gefräßt sondern die Ventile tiefer in den Kopf geschnitten - es geht hier bei std Nockewellen Hub nur um 1mm. Bei der MD266 sind es wesentlich mehr! Aber der Motor hatte wesentlich weniger Leistung als der 99H. Da habe ich dann aud 12H umgebaut.
Mit dem 99H habe ich auf der Bahn einen serienmäßigen 1300er Inno abhängen können, sowahl in der Beschleunigung als auch in der Endgeschwindigkeit - 10" 3,44 und 6700 U/min im vierten! Ich hatte lediglich weniger Hubraum und kleinere Einlassventile aber eine höhere Verdichtung.
ALEX!!!
Wie wäre es mit einem bearbeiteten 12G295 oder 12G202 mit größeren Ventilen!?
Interesant ist auch, was Keith Calver zum 10H schreibt:
Alles anzeigen
The Modifications
Minimal cost for maximum gain is the name of the game. The parts I decided to alter slightly were the camshaft and rockers. I've been itching to get some real data on how the Swiftune Racing (01233 850843) SW5 cam performs in something other than a 1380. Comparing the profile data using standard sintered rockers against the 997 Cooper cam with 1.3 ratio rockers gave fairly similar results. I can't give exact data on what the special SW5 cam is - well I could but then I'd have to kill you, and to be honest I simply don't have the time for 165,000+ assassinations right now! Anyway, as the match was so close it was a good chance to see what this cam did in a small-bore unit, and thought the 1100's characteristics would be able to deal with the slightly sportier profile. This whole cams/rockers decision was based around the problems that higher-ratio rockers can cause with various sportier cam profiles in certain engine sizes/build specifications. The crucial point is at overlap; at best it re-arranges where the engine performs or at worst it can kill an engine's prospective whole power/torque output.
Unlike the 998, the 1100 is a little fussier on the ignition advance curve side of things so I contacted those illustrious folk at Aldon Automotive (01384 572553) to brew me up something a little different. I gave them some suggested criteria to work to, as I had planned on doing the dizzy myself - but 'the best laid plans of mice and men' and all that…Aldon's 'dizzy-master' built me a dizzy along the suggested lines and a little of his own magic - and it works perfectly! It isn't a great deal different to the Aldon 'Yellow' spec dizzy, so one of these would function admirably. I'm also running one of the excellent Aldon/Petronix Ignitor electronic ignitions. Having used these almost incessantly since their inception they never cease to amaze me where performance against cost is concerned. I've long since become blasé with how easy they are to fit.
So the camshaft, rockers and distributor were the only difference to that if the 998 test. Same spec Mini Spares Centre-derived cylinder head, same compression ratio, same induction and exhaust, same gearbox and final drive. Same car even.
I swopped the motors over, using the same carb, exhaust, etc. from the 998 test - even down to the carb needle. A little contemplation revealed that it wouldn't be too far out. In fact from previous 1100 experiences they seem to end up a slightly leaner needle compared to a directly similar 998.
The Method
This time, instead of doing the standard head and rockers thing to start off with, I'm doing the Full Monty from the off. I already know what a standard 1098 is capable of. We have relative and accurate data on what the various changes made on the 998. Passed experience has proven the data collected when applying up-rated equipment to a given power unit on GRV's rollers in stages is accurate enough to make meaningful percentage-based comparisons. Plus it keeps the costs down on this development work. What? You thought I was accruing all this limitless expense out of the goodness of my heart and for your delectation! You're mad.
The Facility
Once again I visited the excellent GRV (01706 377410) rolling road at Littleborough, Lancs. This maintained the comparative test idiom, and ensured the engine was set up perfectly by the venerable Andrew Preston. For further information and comparative data, I popped down to see my good buddies Peter Baldwin at Wilshire's Garage in New Whimpole, Cambridgeshire (01223 207217) and Michael Barratt of MBE in Lincoln (01522 545189). Sticking it on their individual rollers after setup at GRV will give those of you obsessed with rolling road comparative figures something to work on.
After having the 1100 engine setup on GRV's rollers I then zoomed down to M.B.E., and then down to Peter Baldwin's at Wilshire's Garage. I picked the other two as they are well used by many a Mini owner, and are within reasonable striking distance of my home in the wilds of North Yorkshire. Least of all because they're both good mates of mine.
The result was M.B.E.'s gave exactly the same as GRV's (54bhp at the wheels) and Peter Baldwin's gave 70bhp. I haven't said 'at the wheels' here because Peter has had his machine set up by legendary UK Sun Rolling Road expert (now retired) Peter Last to read near crankshaft outputs. Hence the reason why Peter's figures are always higher than most other rolling roads give. He admits it isn't 100% accurate on all cars - but reasonably so on engines up to 180bhp. The smaller the engine/lower the output, the more accurate it is. And on my Mini - 14bhp loss through the drive train is about spot on.
And this week's winning numbers are: astounding. KC1100 - Re-built 1098cc engine, standard apart from Swiftune Racing SW5 camshaft, stage three cylinder head and stage one kit.
KC-MINI (graph 'B') - Standard 998 engine with 997 Cooper profile camshaft, same stage three cylinder head as KC1100, 1.3 roller-tip rockers and stage one kit over-laid on KC1100 graph.
Taking graph 'A' on it's own, the results look quite impressive, considering it's a 40+year-old design engine with some relatively minor modifications. Peak power out-put is 54bhp at 5,741rpm at the wheels, pulling strongly from way down at 1,500rpm with a slightly up-ward bulging curve all the way. Nice. But just look at that torque! Torque is what accelerates the car - and this has plenty of it in exactly the right place. When motoring generally the engine is usually working in the 2,000-4,500rpm bracket. This little baby is producing prodigious amounts of torque throughout the whole of this range - starting with very nearly 50lb ft at 2,000rpm, peaking with 59lb ft between 3,500rpm and 4,100rpm, but hanging on with 50lb ft at 5,500rpm. Monster. And there may have been a couple more horses, but Andrew didn't feel too comfortable about running this near-standard motor up to 6,500rpm just for the fun of it. After all, it's a long walk home from there to home!
Over-laying it onto the previous 998 engine test results (graph 'B') the true picture really shines through. The 998 was good - but the 1100 is stupendous. It makes an average of 7.5bhp (10bhp in most places) more than the 998 all the way up, and a huge 13+lb ft torque! As with the 998 - we both decided messing with the cam timing wasn't worth the effort in view of the results. Ignition setting was 6.2 degrees at 1,000rpm, no vac advance, 15.4 degrees at 1,000rpm with vac advance connected. Nice one Aldon. All this and it's still on a standard air cleaner case.
What this doesn't show is how incredibly emissions-efficient this set-up is. At idle with 3.5% CO showing, the hydrocarbons were a mere380! Now that IS unusual in a tuned 'ancient' engine.
And just to prove how repeatably accurate this rolling road is - it even reproduces the 'weirdism' that is the vertical line at the start of the 998 torque test results. On the last test on the 998s - it was KC-MINI1 that had the line.
Comparison
Standard 1100 34-36bhp 44lb ft torque
Standard 1275GT 45-47bhp
998 'KC-MINI2' spec 48bhp 46lb ft torque
1100 'KC-1100' spec 54bhp 59lb ft torque
That's a stonking 50% bhp increase and 35% torque increase. That's the effect the SW5 cam has.
The modified 998 went very well, but you had to work it to get the best from it. That means revving it a little harder most of the time. The 3.44FD was just a shade too high with the standard A+ gear set. But then again a 3.15 would have been just a bit too much considering how it needed to be buzzed to keep it active. The 1100, on the other hand, just pulled. From anywhere in the rev-range. It swallowed gears faster than the 998.
Conclusion
Far from being the 'non-revving, boring, slug motor' the 1100 has been drubbed with, it's a very capable engine that gives exceptional results for little cash input. It would quite easily pull a 3.1FD without loosing the performance results here. In fact it would probably enhance it, allowing further distances to be covered in all gears with a more relaxed cruising speed.
Further - what I think it REALLY needs is a Mini Spares Centre 'Clubman' close-ratio straight-cut gear kit and 3.1FD to see what it can do!
Despite all this, the mpg is pretty good. Thrashing the thing mercilessly back from GRV, it returned 35.2mpg. More sedate urban driving and general duty use has raised this to a very respectable 43.6mpg! The 'motorway' run result is very similar to that gleaned from the 998, the urban use is far better. Further testament perhaps to the slightly less 'busy' nature of the 1100. And this would improve again with a fresh jet.
The SW5 cam is a blinder. Buy it and use it in anything road going - you won't be disappointed. It gives - without doubt - the best performance increase throughout the usable rpm range without causing emissions problems. In fact it gives better emissions than most standard, un-tuned, carbed engines I've come across! It has become my first choice road-cam over the 997 Cooper one I've used for so long.
This all goes to prove what I've been banging on about for years - the A-Series is not an rpm monster, so should be tuned accordingly. And an engine built to give best power at 6,500-7,000rpm on the road is a waste and unnecessary. Good torque over a wide rpm band means big fun on the road. You really ought to drive this motor! And a final word from Andrew - 'Blimey! Fit, isn't it?'
das macht mir richtig Lust auf einen 10H Drehmoment-Renner 
Du hast noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registriere dich kostenlos und nimm an unserer Community teil!
