|
|
Post by indianajones on Oct 17, 2011 5:37:40 GMT
Righto, time to start a thread.  Uploaded with ImageShack.usThis is Wendy, not very original I know lol. Long story, but she's my first car, which I sold and brought back within a year lol. She's 1970 according to her licence. Manual (Thank God!). Not sure on the Mk. though, she has an 18H engine, but has a MK. I dash and interior. Also I think she has rods for her gears over cables. She's far from perfect, but she's mine and will slowly get her all better  Started a thread elsewhere, but that's a bit long etc, so will update as I go along from here on out. Cheers, -Indy (Andrew) |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 17, 2011 8:48:48 GMT
I like it, colour matched with the background! Looks very nice
regards
David
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Oct 17, 2011 13:10:32 GMT
Nice atmospheric pic, Indy.
Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Oct 17, 2011 19:29:37 GMT
Cheers guys. Will make an effort this weekend to get some more up to date pics.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Oct 18, 2011 0:39:16 GMT
I am taking a liberty here by answering a question which Indy posed on another forum. As I wish to avoid the ignorant, asinine comments of certain members of that forum, I will deal with that here. Mod/admin please feel free to delete this post if you feel that it will compromise the integrity of the board. Indy asked about the fitting of a twin carburettor set-up to his car and the pros and cons of doing so. If we start from the point that our 5 bearing engine is basically shared with the A55 sports car, sorry, MGB, we know that there is a wealth of tuning information out there. At the simplest level, adding twin carbs will pep up the acceleration somewhat and will yield some fuel economy advantages if the car is used for long distance travel on a regular basis. My own car has twin HIF4s on an MGB inlet manifold and the set-up works very well for me. Additionally it has one of Simonbbc's electronic ignition modules fitted. Beyond getting the carbs balanced and the timing about right, I haven't spent a great deal of time fine tuning it; it just works rather well and will give about 36mpg on a decent run. Pottering about town, it's pretty dreadful, down to about 22mpg. If you're intending to drive mainly locally for the forseeable future, don't bother. The installation requires some bravery. The "S" models came with their own inlet and exhaust manifolds; the exhaust manifold is certainly made of unobtainium. To fit to the standard manifold requires it's removal and attacking with an angle grinder to remove the inlet portion on the top. You also need to consider that an "S" airbox to fit is up there with rocking horse droppings on the availabilty scale. Mine runs K & N pancakes, which leave some space between the engine and the bulkhead, but the look is not "authentic". The HIF4 carbs are a better bet if that is the chosen way to go. It is a more advanced carburettor than the HS6 and will stay in tune better once set up. If you've got the time to plough through 28 pages, THIS is the most comprehensive guide on what is possible with a "B" series engine I've ever seen. A remarkably comprehensive review of what can be achieved. The simple answer, Indy, is that it's your car and you should do what you feel to be right. No need to go mad with it - it'll never be a racing car, but it can be improved a bit if you wish. Chris. |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 18, 2011 1:08:42 GMT
Downton Engineering made Stage 1, 2, 3 tuning kits for BMC engines and were available as after market or with new vehicles and supported by the BMC warranty in the late 60s and 70s . The 1800 stage 1 conversion produced 93 BHP and would apparently pull 10mph in top gear. This conversion used a single HS8 SU on a bored out manifold with polishing to the ports and head plus a different needle. I may be able to find out more details. It may be simpler to replicate than trying to go down the twin SU route and could provide for improved fuel consumption for town driving.
It is interesting that the MGA and MGB conversions included changing to the Austin 1800 Mk11 camshaft offset by 5 degrees as used in some Mk1 Landcrabs.
Regards
David
|
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Oct 18, 2011 2:47:36 GMT
Cheers Chris and David, Great write up, there. I'd like a little bit more pep from her, but don't want to lose huge ammounts of mpg for it. I'll be driving her around town and to the beach mainly, so for me the set up is worthless I guess. If I wanted a race car I'd go buy another BGT lol. As I said on another forum, with that info on hand I shall give my SU carb a bit of a service and grab myself a new filter, I'm thinking K&N Pancake Couldn't agree more Chris, it is my car and I want to make some minor mods to make her more suited for my needs and wants. I know some of the boys elsewhere are well into their concours style of car ownership. She's been around for 41 years, she's had mods, different owners... it happens. So will take the carb off and get some cleaning done soon. As I also pointed out elsewhere I shall look at the SU refurb kit. Not just to blow money, but to also actually try and learn something about carbs! Cheers, Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Oct 18, 2011 5:27:57 GMT
 Well I've already got electronic ignition How can you tell what Dizzy I have? I'm guessing it's a 25D4? -Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 18, 2011 6:50:49 GMT
The Lumenition ignition has a good reputation. From the picture I can't see the vacuum advance mechanism. If it has been taken off (they used to fail) that will really screw your economy other than under hard acceleration ie most of the time. The best way to see what distributor you have is to look for the number on the outside of the body. In the UK the MK1 cars used nos 40969, 41034; Mk11 41234, 41238 (S model). These were all 25D4 distributors with vacuum modules that had a vernier adjustment. Later cars 1972/3 on had a 45D4 distributor with no vernier adjustment - sorry haven't got the number to hand. If it any other number, Google it and check that the advance curve is suitable. Regards David Well I've already got electronic ignition How can you tell what Dizzy I have? I'm guessing it's a 25D4? -Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Oct 18, 2011 7:16:07 GMT
Ummm odd. On another note my lights have stopped working? I put the lights on, only the side lights and the badge come on. hit the full beam switch, same again, just the side lights and badge. Use the pass switch on the stalk and all lights, including spotties come to life. This just came out of the blue? only thing I did was take off my dizzy cap and rotor arm?  Here's a pic of the engine bay from a while back. Circled the things that might be affecting it. One of the fuses (but they seem fine) or this silver box thingie (A relay?)  Any tips? Cheers, Andrew PS: dw Dave I have the vacuum advance mechanism, that's the trumpet looking thing on the side of the dizzy that connects to the carb right? |
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Oct 18, 2011 8:04:42 GMT
Don't worry, fixed it lol. The wiring on the dip switch came out a little bit, just pushed it back in and she's all good!  Andrew |
|
|
|
Post by Penguin45 on Oct 18, 2011 9:16:16 GMT
and would apparently pull 10mph in top gear . Can't see that being a very popular modification........ ;D ;D ;D ;D Chris. |
|
|
|
Post by indianajones on Oct 18, 2011 9:20:15 GMT
I donno, 10mph sounds pretty safe lol.
So after I put the rotor and cap back on it took a little bit of effort to get her started. I didn't upset the ignition set up did I? I didn't rotate the dizzy, and I'm fairly sure I didn't rottate the rotor?
I need to stop asking so many questions lol
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Oct 18, 2011 9:39:37 GMT
There's always one joker around isn't there Chris  The specs were 93 BHP @5,300 rpm compared with 84 BHP and slightly increased peak torque still at 3,000 rpm so it was a match for the "S" given the likelihood of carb imbalance on the latter - so it would pull more than 10mph! regards David and would apparently pull 10mph in top gear . Can't see that being a very popular modification........ ;D ;D ;D ;D Chris. |
|
|
|
Post by threelitre on Oct 18, 2011 13:57:52 GMT
There's always one joker around isn't there Chris The specs were 93 BHP @5,300 rpm compared with 84 BHP and slightly increased peak torque still at 3,000 rpm so it was a match for the "S" given the likelihood of carb imbalance on the latter - so it would pull more than 10mph! regards David Sounds very close to the S. The S revs higher and has the torque peak higher up if I remember right. The S has a wonderful pull all through the rev range, although at about 55mph it always felt like it needed a kick into 3rd... But the standard single carb engine is so different in terms of noise and subjective refinement - it is just a sweet innocent sounding engine. Something that cannot be said of the S. The S has rather good drinking habits in town - agreed - but way better than my 3litre  Regards, Alexander |
|
