621 replies to this topic

[supermotolee]

run it in hard !

[alexcrosse]

as i said, everyone has their own oppinions. The car manfacturers for years (not modern) have stated long running in procedures, mines ran in perfectly with no problems now, all of the old mans engines were perfect on 1000 mile run ins, and its not just about the rings bedding, its also the bearings. Mate ran his 1380 in over 1000 miles and thats still going strong after 2 years too!

This is just a modern thing for 'quick running in' and in my oppinion, its for people who havnt got the patience to wait a couple of months.

[mini93]

months to run in an engine? if you actualy drive it will take less than 1 month, mine did and i was doing sorta a mix between the boot it and go all soft on it....well soft on it lasted a week at most and evening when people complain due to noise lol

[alexcrosse]

yer, i cant gauge how long it would take to be honest mate, i was at uni so i could only run it every other weekend or so.

[JetBLICK]

At the end if the day i think as long as your not stupid, then you cant really go wrong. Aside from that, my bearings arnt new, only my rings are (and the honed bores) There are sooo many opinions on this, and for sooo many different reasons too, but at the end of the day, its all just an educated guess.

Someone should start a topic with a poll on how people have run engines in, and how they getting on with them. I bet either way, so long as the motor was built properly in the first place, people wont have had problems.

[alexcrosse]

nah, its not worth the discussion because peoples oppinons wont be changed! lol. GET A VIDEO

[tedmcedd]

did you make it to bingly then? i was there, shame i didnt see you... the bean was there too and i bought him some presents for making it there wiythput any hiccups!

[JetBLICK]

made it yea, just not in the car

Did notice your car in the carpark actaully, very nice, really looks the part some low mudflaps would really set her off

[tedmcedd]

i have flaps on the back, one got pulled off recently on someones drive i was reversing into, havnt got round to fitting the fronts! glad you saw it, shame i didnt see you though.. i think i saw is it oli's car, the beige C reg?

[Pie]

Oli took two of his three. The beige one, yeah C222 and then the Teal Blue mkIII CooperS/1275GT mongrel.

[JetBLICK]

Got a bit of an update

Got it to the rollers today, drove it there... goes lovely above 3000rpm Its been on the rollers for 4 hours and still strugglin to sort out a big flatspot where there is absolutly no power till 3k. Something to do with the air speed or something? I think malcom must have tried absolutly every singe jet in his box, and he's even changed the 45 for a 40 with 30mm chokes, instead of the 36's it had before. Its getting better, and it certainly looked and sounded like it was better on the rollers, but after taking it for a spin it still wern't that great. Its much better than it was, but it aint great.

Of course its expected that its gonna be a bit flat before the cam comes in, but as it is, its a bit dangerous. When pulling off it crawls and bounces along very slowly till 3k and its easy to stall. The only other option is to pull off at 3k in a cloud of tyre smoke, not ideal!

For those who want to know its consistantly making between 75 and 80 at the wheels so far. His dyno's all analogue, no graphs or anythin, and it reads in mph on the guage, but glancing at the rev counter in the car it was at about 6500/7000rpm i think, or 100mph on the rollers guage anyway. Seems like there's more to come from it too, the needle on the bhp guage handnt reached its peak yet i dont think, it was still climbing at 7000rpm and showed no signs of stoping

Its still at the rollers, left it there and malc's gonna have another play tomorrow.

Bit gutted its still not done, but it is getting there... if not a little slow

[mini93]

which bit of the engine spec is causing it to be so difficult? to do with the induction length and cam/head choice?

[JetBLICK]

I got no idea mate, may well be induction length, or the cam and head i ent got a clue. Maybe the demands of the slightly lumpier cam now need a longer manifold. I was thinkin that tonight acctually, and i mite mention it to him tomorrow, i would have thought he'd pick up on it tho.

I must admit that i find it a bit odd that barkers mini is runnin fine on a 45, all be it without the 1.5 rockers, yet mine is strangly running a bit betters on a 40, with more lift? :S He does have a 5 inch manifold tho maybe its the way forward? ..... hurmmmmmm

[mini93]

the manifold length has a part to play at which point torque comes in, longer it is the higher up the rev range it is...measured from centre of the valve to the bellmouth

once you get past a certain valve lift aswell further lift isnt actualy benificial and just waisted movment or such, you may not be there but maybe with the roller rockers your getting close...probably some cr*p to do with volumetric efficiency lol

[retroracer1380]

Tale it to sam at DNG!