
1600Cc A-Series
#1
Posted 04 July 2012 - 05:22 PM
its a bored and stroked 1275 but it gives out about 1596cc
has anyone else ever made such a thing on this forum?
#2
Posted 04 July 2012 - 06:07 PM
#3
Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:09 PM
#4
Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:19 PM
Pretty much pointless - since it won't want to rev - and the cylinder head will restrict power . Of course - you can go 16 valve and/or pressure charge the thing....... But the cost will far outweigh the returns........
If you had almost 150 hp at the wheels and torque second only to a diesel and would blow the tires off in second gear (2.9 something diff) just by standing on the throttle I really don't think you would be in too much of a hurry to complain that it peaked at about 1000 rpm sooner than a 1275 .
I helped my friend David Anton on this build which was done for a close friend of famed actor James Garner. We were told this was a project they both wanted to get done so Mr Garner would be driving this tire smoking monster.
David Vizard
#5
Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:36 PM

#6
Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:50 PM
In all seriousness, bmc' is correct.. Most of the fun of minis is revving the nuts off them, so why would you want an engine that's not really going to bring that smile to your face..
Oh yea, I remember now- Because you can!!!

#7
Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:35 PM
David Vizard
#8
Posted 05 July 2012 - 02:43 AM
#9
Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:51 AM
I will tell you what brings a smile to your face. It's when your innocent little mini with a big engine squares off at the lights against some California hot rodder with a 440 inch Chrysler with big back tires and a rumpty rump cam and Lord knows what else who thinks you are a joke. The lights go green. You do your best to not stand still and burn rubber off the line but to move - quickly. With great clutch and throttle manipulative dexterity you manage a start that, for a mini and FWD, comes under the heading of lightening. Not unexpectedly that big Chrysler weight transfers on to the big rear tires, hooks and, almost immediately, puts you a Detroit cars length behind. But in a few brief seconds you catch third gear, 70 mph and one very surprised Californian hot rodder. That's fun - rpm is OK but only if the outcome is the same i.e. one downed hot rod yank tank! Try that without all the inches you can muster!
David Vizard
I am sure you will have also seen a lot of very fast yank metal in a straight line. My chev powered Cobra would never be embarrassed under acceleration by any mini. Find lots of twisty corners, and that's a different matter!
#10
Posted 05 July 2012 - 12:10 PM
I am sure you will have also seen a lot of very fast yank metal in a straight line. My chev powered Cobra would never be embarrassed under acceleration by any mini. Find lots of twisty corners, and that's a different matter!
Without doubt you are right. What kind of Cobra would it be if it could not outrun any A Series powered Mini.
That 1600 mini was good for a low 13 second 1/4. It has been my experience that many guys brag about their 13 second cars but I am always so amazed that this is an estimate not a figure from a time slip.My point about rousting the 440 inch Mopar machine was that a 1275 would not have done nearly so well. My point is that if rpm is not a means to an end it is just that - rpm. On the other hand lbs-ft and hp, how ever attained is a performance producing commodity. The point I was trying to bring home here is that the expression 'there is no substitute for cubic inches' has a great deal of merit as, when used correctly, it leads to raw performance. Forget opinions here - all I am attempting to do is convey what the dyno tells me and the real world results brought about by stretching the A Series to the limit.
But back to your point. That mini, in reality should not stand a chance against an equally well prepped Detroit V8 powered machine. My track day 5.0 Mustang will reel off a 1/4 mile in 11.2 seconds and show a trap speed typically around 124 mph. The Street Performance Malibu I drag race with my next door neighbor is good for a 9.8 second 1/4 at around 134 mph. I have a video of this car on my Facebook page (facebook.com/davidvizardauto). The video is shot from inside the car so that it shows what it's like to ride in a machine that will go zero to 100 in six seconds.
David Vizard
#11
Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:08 PM
Who won I here you ask??
The Healey of course!!
That cobra simply could not manage the corners, it was braking 80yards sooner than the healey and coasting the corners..Might of been something to do with its value as well.
It lost....But my god!!... what a noise..
#12
Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:16 PM
That 1600 mini was good for a low 13 second 1/4. It has been my experience that many guys brag about their 13 second cars but I am always so amazed that this is an estimate not a figure from a time slip.
Here you go, sat on the limiter at 7500rpm for the last few seconds (maybe it'd go faster with a taller diff, but maybe it'd go slower?). Only a 998 too, and although the head is expensive, the actual short engine only has £500 in it.
I've shown you mine, now let me see yours.

Edited by Wil_h, 05 July 2012 - 05:17 PM.
#13
Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:52 PM
#14
Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:15 PM
#15
Posted 05 July 2012 - 07:21 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users