31 replies to this topic

[Cooperman]

I always think how much quicker my 'S' would accelerate if i took all the rally equipment off, like sump shield, trip computer, spotlights, etc.

haha and without a passenger and then add some semi slicks should see it sub 7?

You will enjoy competiting in it, I'm sure.
One comment, if I may. Your engine is very long-stroke to get the capacity and with that configuration a top-end cam like a 296 may mean that you are not getting the full benefit of all that extra torque lower down, yet are unable to benefit fully from the real top-end power of the 296 which, if you look at the cam chart, really only comes on strong from about 5800 rpm. You might find the car would actually be quicker overall and especially on acceleration with a 286 as the area under the graphs would start lower and peak out lower, enabling you to use the awesome mid-range torque which a 1400+ cc engine is capable of putting out. Just a thought, but if you go on nthe Kent web-site, the cam graphs are easy to read and compare.

[Ethel]

The long stroke will also increase the piston velocity relative to the rpm. I suspect that will effect the cam's performance too.

[Cooperman]

The long stroke will also increase the piston velocity relative to the rpm. I suspect that will effect the cam's performance too.

Yes, it certainly will, but the lower rev limit with that crank will mean that a slightly 'less-hot' cam will probably perform better.
A call to Kent Cams Technical Support Dep't might be a good idea as they are most helpful. To me it seems likely that a 286 might just enable the engine to give of its best potential. With the increased piston mean velocity at given revs, top-performance pistons will be necessary.
It's a difficult one to make a good judgement on and easy to give poor advice. It would just be a shame if the engine was just coming on cam strongly at the point at which the safe rev-limit were to be reached, if you see what I mean. I don't think I would want to rev a 'stroked' non-'S' (i.e. not EN40B) crank, even with it wedged and balanced, much over 6500 rpm sustained in the gears and that is a bit low for a 296 power-wise, but just about OK for a 286 on a standard stroke 1275 engine.
Kent Cams will know the answer, one might suppose.

[danrock101]

I agree and I did plan on using a 286 but also had a 296 that managed to get cheap, only been used on a dyno for testing, and a few people pursuaded me to go with a 296. The crank is worked a fair bit, it's wedged, drilled and hardend. I contacted MED to ask them what they think (as it was machined by MED) they said it would be safe to 8k rpm which I was quite suprised about. So I thought with the extra capcity and megajolt it should be a bit better off cam and with it being long stroke I thought there would be extra tourqe no matter what revs I'm at, which should also help it off cam. The 296 isn't set in stone though, I was going to test it out and if it isn't any good then will probably use a 286. The 296 I'm using is a scatter profile cam which appanrtly helps with off cam power aswell as on cam but I've also heard people say it makes it worse :S I am slightly anxious about how the 296SP will be with a long stroke engine though.
The reason I went long stroke in the first place was to get maxium power without going too high on the revs but I ended up doing the opisite kind of haha!

Edited by danrock101, 01 March 2011 - 06:05 PM.

[Cooperman]

I agree and I did plan on using a 286 but also had a 296 that managed to get cheap, only been used on a dyno for testing, and a few people pursuaded me to go with a 296. The crank is worked a fair bit, it's wedged, drilled and hardend. I contacted MED to ask them what they think (as it was machined by MED) they said it would be safe to 8k rpm which I was quite suprised about. So I thought with the extra capcity and megajolt it should be a bit better off cam and with it being long stroke I thought there would be extra tourqe no matter what revs I'm at, which should also help it off cam. The 296 isn't set in stone though, I was going to test it out and if it isn't any good then will probably use a 286. The 296 I'm using is a scatter profile cam which appanrtly helps with off cam power aswell as on cam but I've also heard people say it makes it worse :S I am slightly anxious about how the 296SP will be with a long stroke engine though.
The reason I went long stroke in the first place was to get maxium power without going too high on the revs but I ended up doing the opisite kind of haha!

Well Dan, that shows you've given it some serious and sensible consideration. Good luck with the build.
Now we need to get you competing in it. Would be good to see it reallly going.

[danrock101]

cheers it's the only advantage to not having the money to buy parts right away you end up spending lots of time choosing a spec

[IWasNotYetBornIn1959]

Just found the topic.

MANY PERFORMANCE FIGURES HERE : http://www.miniresou...performance.php

[RossKnight]

I don't think mine does 60?...

[IWasNotYetBornIn1959]

In Graham Robson's book "Mini Celebration" times in seconds ...

Austin Seven / Morris Minor 26.5 but 29.7 in an 1963 test ...

1965 AUTO (hence 850 Mk1) 32 sec (with a 1/4 of 24.3 vs 23.6 for manual and mpg 33.1 vs 36.6)
slowest found but Elf 850 is as slow in "Mighty Minis" times to follow

Moke 21.8

1275S (1964, 76 bhp) 11.2

Hornet MkIII 24.1

Clubman 998 (38 bhp) 21

Clubman 1098 (45 bhp) 17.9

Rover 1.3 (1990, 61 bhp) 12.2

Rover 1.3i (1991, 63 bhp) 11.5

[IWasNotYetBornIn1959]

in "Mighty Minis" by Chris Harvey, there are dozens of pages of tests !


Here are some 1962 tuned Coopers :

1122 Cooper that took 8,000 rpm !
8.5 sec in Autosport in July 1962 and 10,7 in Autocar in September !
Maybe much used and abused ...

1088 Downtown 8 sec !




Also some early tuned 850 ...

850 Arden 11.5

850 Derrington 14

850 Shorrock S/C 15.5 sec with everything else stock !!!! Good ... and reliable.




850 Elf 32 sec (42 mpg) in small car mag and 28 sec in Motor (36 mpg)
Where came the wind not recorded ...

[andydclements]

I've never bothered timing mine with a stopwatch being the "bigger more powerful" 998cc Elf not the 850cc it has potential to be better than 32 seconds, unfortunately the auto gearbox may hinder it a bit.
When it had the carb issues it wasn't 0-60 time, it was a question in itself, will it do 0 to 60 EVER.

[IWasNotYetBornIn1959]

Some more found in "Mighty Minis":

Speedwell 850 : 15 sec (20 sec to the 1/4)
Speedwell Cooper (Clubman head, 1150 cc) 8.4 (16.9 for the quarter) in Autosport (December 1963)
Speedwell Elf with same engine 12.4 (18.8 for the quarter) ELFS/HORNETS ARE THAT HEAVY ???

Broadspeed 1275S (reg 5 NOB) 8.5 sec
Broadspeed GT 2+2 (reg EOP 89D) 9 sec both in Car and Car Conversions

Three STOCK Minis :

Traveller in 1960 (one of the first, reg 240 KFC) BAD PERFORMANCES DUE TO HIGH WIND :
67 mph
35.8 for 0-60
24.3 for the quarter

Hornet September '65 21 sec (34.7 mpg)

Mini 1000 reg TOF 509N (Autocar) : 18.7 (21 for the quarter)

[danrock101]

Tech Specs
Mini Miglia
Engine 1293cc
Brakes Vented Cooper S System/Carbon Metallic Pads. Lightweight "minifin" rear drums. Front/rear bias control allowed. Maximum of 4-pot Calipers.
Suspension Dual adjustable gas dampers. Adjustable ride height, camber ,castor and tracking. Adjustable Anti-roll bars front and rear allowed. Rose jointed Bottom arms and Tie rods.
Body Standard steel body shell must be used. Carbon Fibre bootlid , bonnet , Frontend. Subframes must still be used and in original positions.
Interior Purpose built multi point roll cages and carbon fibre dashes etc allowed.
Tyres Dunlop racing slicks on 10" alloy wheels.
0-60mph between 3.5 and 4 seconds
Bhp 145bhp at Flywheel

[Mini Cheddars]

^

Blimmin' 'eck!

[danrock101]

Would be interested in what 1/4 mile time they would manage