Відео

This is years old so I really dont remember but Deck height of piston makes a big difference to calculations

⁠@@PenguinMotorsin the video you said the bottom end is completly stock. Even if the block is decked flush, using 43cc and standard gasket of 1.6, results a 10.2:1 comp. I am really trying to understand why the results are differing so much

To be honest it was that long ago i really dont remember, its always possible i miss quoted the compression, unfortunaly whatever number my brain says isnt alway what comes out my mouth! Possibly its even a video we made whilst i had covid which turned my brain to mush. I know we did record one whilst i had it and there were errors in it. Sorry i just dont have a better answer, especially so many videos/engine builds dyno runs ago.

Countersunk Weber DCD throttle spindle screws and chokes were opened out to make them a bit bigger

@@PenguinMotors how many mills were the chokes bored out? I'm playing with a 32/36 currently and learning as I go.

it would of been 2mm maximum

I doubt you will see a power difference between 32 and 33 chokes

Depends on your goal, if you’re going to run twin 40,s modified head and something like a bcf2/3 90-100 bhp but it will have NO torque to speak of. Chuck a mad mad cam in it they will do over 130 bhp at a million revs with zero torque. I have a plan in mind to build a stealth 1600 using a 1300 block, just haven’t got round to it yet

@@PenguinMotors Thanks for the reply reading what you have written I think I will build a Kent 1600 in stead sounds like a better option with a modified head with twin 40,s and a decent cam

I don’t have an rl32, but is someone wants to send me one or contribute to the cost of buying one then I will

26/27 which are standard for 32/36

that sounds about right, cam was suprisingly good, still only had 15 lobes though

It doesn’t have bigger valves, it has a smaller combustion chamber which increases compression, there is also more material in the short turn of the port so with the right port shape you can increase the heads airflow over a 2.0

@PenguinMotors I remember my dad putting a 1600 head on a transit 2.0 and it pulled a lot better and he swore it was better on fuel. Probably not so revy but more compression so more bottom end grunt.

transit engines were low compression, so a 1600 head would of given a 2.0 transit a large raise in compression so healthy power increase

I doubt it. I do know Andy Burton, well enough that I have his personal phone number, he has given me some stuff to test FOC but is unlikely to give me an alloy head because he can’t sell it afterwards, or would have to sell it as a used item and loose a lot of money on it

@@PenguinMotors next summer i will pick your brain and pay your for your knowledge on cylinder head porting size and softest springs possible for a bcf2 in your opinion while not going past 6200 rpm. i will go with 3 angle valve job en24 valves of the GT size. i'm worried going larger on the intake valves there is such little space between valves it could crack. will do a bcf2 cam- -- 234 has more power but too much lift imo i want to keep her reliable. twin dellortos on a custom made inlet manifold that is straight, not angled upward (bonnet clearance) while getting rid of the dizzy and a performance exhaust manifold 4-1 that i got for a song that is meant for a non crossflow ,but will weld on a crossflow flange. 1300 pistons at 1640cc.

@@nickyalousakis3851 im pretty certain i have run bcf2 on stock valve springs. exhaust wise a small bore 4,2,1 will probably work better, no point in going bigger than gt valves especially given the low rpm you are talking about. in terms of bank for buck i would just by a stage 2 cnc head from burtons, the head will work well and is plug and play

@@PenguinMotors -- thanks penguin

is that good or bad? I dont tend to put any effort into setting up the idle or slow speed running as it makes no difference to the power output. The absorber and drive plates can also make the engine sound different, sometimes you will hear them clatter like a wornout gearbox or dual mass flywheel

@ I’d almost say it has a misfire 😜 but it goes alright 👍

Yes if your comparing to modern engines but back in the Rovers heyday it was a different story

BLF63 probably same cam, a lot of burton cams were designated BLF B for Burton, the L stood for the cam designers name which was something like Leavey and the F stood for Ford

@PenguinMotors cheers pal 👍

Some of that will be coming in the nearish future, problem is without going down the route of channel sponsorship it’s simply too expensive to do that sort of testing unless I have a clients project which lends itself to doing some testing

Another day another set of guides and no reaming needed! At the end of the day you have to work with time and budget constraints along with tools available.

it was already on electronic ignition, but heres a bit of a spoiler alert, electronic ignition doesnt add power over a good point set up. Its biggest issues were a cam shaft with only 15 and a bit lobes and what seemed like a foot of slack in the timing chain. Rings are tired but bores were actually really good

Given that the only change was to swap two similar "rally" cams not sure I would call those "slight" differences, Load is feed in exactly the same way on each cam. just like most rolling roads, You give the engine full throttle, the dyno will hold rpm down to starting point, wait a couple of seconds for things to stabalise, then hit the go button and the dyno controls acceration rate upto the upper rpm limit set.

All these tests were done on 38mm chokes.

torque will be a lot lower everywhere, even down the bottom of the rev range there will be a significant loss

@@PenguinMotors Thank you, i'm struggling to choose the ideal cam for burton CNC-head-small bore ashley-32/36 carb., that later on (or maybe never) can be replaced for IDF-carbs (DCOE =no option here for lhd escort mk2 and MOT rules)

i did run 40/41 on 38 dgas and twin 45 doce, at about 2700 the Dgas was down nearly 30 lbft, @ about 4000 it was down 10lbft. your going to be in the same position whatever cam you go with. i would be temped to fit a GTS1

@@PenguinMotors That is some interesting info! Thought about a high torque cam like BF134, because i like low down torque, but maybe the GTS1 is a better compromise torque/hp. Thanks for spreading all this information, is much appreciated !

i have quite a few engines in for rebuild so no spare time at the moment, but i do plan on doing test GTS1 against BF134 FR30 etc

With all the cams I swung the cam timing to get best compromise between torque and all out hp

Ok I’m assuming your referring to a “flat” x/f as I can’t see which video you’re referring to, but yes flat x/f is likely to be a negative cc in the head. Piston bowl cc I do by actually measuring with a burette with piston installed, better to measure than calculate where possible

the catherham 1600 forged pistons, 234 where you show cam timing as well - is there a trick how to measure the negative cc in the head? 🤔 Do you then also measure the whole capacity at BDC or that’s calculation based on throw of crank? Cheers!

engine capacity is purely a calcultion based on bore and stroke. negative cc on valves is difficult, basically meassure valve protrusion and work out area, problem it the valve are actucally dished, so you then need to burette dish in valve and subtract from calculated area

@ cheers for the response Graham! Then i’m thinking to do the valve volume calculation based on height protrusion and diameter, and leave the dish in the valve face as the buffer that is effectively lowering the CR - to be on the safer side… Quite looking forward to the build :)

sometimes your find if the dish in the valve is substancial, and the valve isnt overly proud the valve is actall neutral in terms of compression ratio

overall duration also plays a part, but you cant always trust timing figures quoted!

It takes about an hour and several burnt fingers to swap a cam on the dyno, i dont usually time them, i just swing the cam timing on the vernier, takes a good few runs to find the sweet spot but you end up with what the engine actually wants rather than an arbitory book figure

Thank you!, I ran 9 different cams back to back it literally took at whole weekend two 12 hour days

it tends to just raise or lower the upper part of the curve and only at or close to full throttle

More rover stuff is in the pipeline

i usually use either early non stretch bolts or ARP studs, in theroy you could reuse a MLS gasket but i never do. with these tests i didnt keep swapping heads, i ran all the cams with one head, swapped head then ran all the same cams again

Cheers for that Graham.

Indeed! Watching endlessly Graham’s channel I wanted to ditch my 1700 XFlow build and go Race CNC head 185bhp RL31 or WR40 Pinto - only now to see i’d be missing out by a massive margin what i’d be using for 99.85% of the time on the road - mid range torque. Awesome test Graham! 🙌 torque over peak power unless super smooth wide and long straights track or oval racing

​@@luka_theoldfartI'm in the same boat. My Pinto is nakard so I'm trying to work out what combo will work for me a usable power is the name of the game as far as I'm concerned.

The problem there is everyone has a different idea of what usable power is

@@PenguinMotors hit the nail on the head there.

Never tried to build maximum 2.2, but with a conventional head/ cam etc theoretically something like 230 bhp 180lbft

Dunno about ID, but from memory od is 38 primary 44 secondary and somthing like 54 tail pipe

Trouble is the Lima engine is a different kettle of fish to our European pintos, Esslinger are the people to talk to about lima

@@PenguinMotors Thanks for the reply. I've looked at the Esslinger videos and products. You're correct, I should give them a call. I feel like a 65 year old kid in a candy store when I look at their web site. I get a little twitchy because I can see my budget going out the window. Self control, self control....must have self control. Hey, thanks again for the work you do on the channel.

Yes but is it fair to compare a 1950’s design engine against 1980’s?

I have run a couple of chinese carbs one i couldnt stop leaking fuel the other was ok, but powerwise they are no different to a genuine weber assuming the jet ok

DGAS is a poor choice

yes they do, ive has several in here which ran remarkably well with only about 14.5 cam lobes!

troube was back then everyone claimed silly big bhp figures, so who knows what really made what

true 2.0? not run many werent over size, but 1999cc on 12.25 cr ive seen 200