On Feb 1, 4:40*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
* *The Other Mike wrote:

(BL got it right with the SU)
That'll be why they got better torque figures and a flatter torque
curve with single port injection on the Mini then, and why it's
impossible to get 90bhp on a 1000cc Mini 7 engine without dumping the
1.5" *SU, but you can do it with a single port of a 40DCOE Weber, but
don't let facts get in the way of your Maestro 1.3 A series fantasy.

Surely a DCOE is a twin choke carb so more akin to twin SUs? It's

So it should have been 1.1/4" max to have any drivability.

basically just two separate carbs in the one body. Flows better than SUs
at full throttle, but a much poorer bottom end due to the fixed choke
size. So fine for racing,
When there's no corners. Ah, drag racing!
but not road use.

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fine for maximum power, but the SU is much better at lower engine speeds
due to the variable choke size. Faster airflow over the venturie gives
better atomisation. So for road use an SU is better.


didn't the Weber twin-choke essentially have a 'road' carb and a 'race
carb' coupled up so that you got the best of both?

Not the DCEO. It is just two identical carbs in one body. There are twin
choke types with a large and small choke though. Often the larger opens by
engine vacuum.

--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fine for maximum power, but the SU is much better at lower engine
speeds due to the variable choke size. Faster airflow over the
venturie gives better atomisation. So for road use an SU is better.


didn't the Weber twin-choke essentially have a 'road' carb and a 'race
carb' coupled up so that you got the best of both?

Not the DCEO. It is just two identical carbs in one body. There are twin
choke types with a large and small choke though. Often the larger opens
by engine vacuum.

DCOE, sorry. No idea what the letters stand for.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Feb 1, 10:54*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Fine for maximum power, but the SU is much better at lower engine speeds
due to the variable choke size. Faster airflow over the venturie gives
better atomisation. So for road use an SU is better.

didn't the Weber twin-choke essentially have a 'road' carb and a 'race
carb' coupled up so that you got the best of both?

Not the DCEO. It is just two identical carbs in one body. There are twin
choke types with a large and small choke though. Often the larger opens by
engine vacuum.


Trying to be a constant depression type. Mimickry is the highest form
of flattery.

--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Feb 2, 12:28*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
* *The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fine for maximum power, but the SU is much better at lower engine
speeds due to the variable choke size. Faster airflow over the
venturie gives better atomisation. So for road use an SU is better.

didn't the Weber twin-choke essentially have a 'road' carb and a 'race
carb' coupled up so that you got the best of both?
Not the DCEO. It is just two identical carbs in one body. There are twin
choke types with a large and small choke though. Often the larger opens
by engine vacuum.

DCOE, sorry. No idea what the letters stand for.

Two bits to get wrong.

On Feb 1, 11:13*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:33:06 -0800 (PST), thirty-six

wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:34*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

*No other regular Ford has come close to the performance with the little
Maestro engine

That'll be why the Maestro unit was so popular for other cars and in
competition while the Ford ones not? *Wally.

Ford Motorsport , *geddit? * There was no equivalent support from BL..

If you wanted to race or rally in a recognised category, you went
direct to the factory competition department (in later years at
Cowley) and the parts arrived on your doorstep next day. *If you bent
the vehicle and needed 'standard' parts then the savings by buying
those direct were astronomical - they cost less 'retail' than a dealer
would pay. *Of course if you were a nobody, say someone tweaking a
Maestro 1.3 to apparently accelerate faster than a rat with a JATO pod
attached to it, then they would have simply ignored you and ****ed
themselves laughing...20 odd years on I can see why they would do
that.

--

So are you saying that you could actually buy cast manifolds and
cylinder heads that didn't require a burr taking over them to open
them to the standard gasket? You could buy high-flow oil filters and
dry sump kits? Up-rated anti-roll bars? Variable road dampers?
Shortened and up-rated road-springs? Proper supportive driving
seat? Boot-moumt battery tray and retainer? Racing tyres? What'd I
miss?

thirty-six wrote:
On Feb 1, 11:13 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:33:06 -0800 (PST), thirty-six

wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:34 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
No other regular Ford has come close to the performance with the little
Maestro engine
That'll be why the Maestro unit was so popular for other cars and in
competition while the Ford ones not? Wally.
Ford Motorsport , geddit? There was no equivalent support from BL.
If you wanted to race or rally in a recognised category, you went
direct to the factory competition department (in later years at
Cowley) and the parts arrived on your doorstep next day. If you bent
the vehicle and needed 'standard' parts then the savings by buying
those direct were astronomical - they cost less 'retail' than a dealer
would pay. Of course if you were a nobody, say someone tweaking a
Maestro 1.3 to apparently accelerate faster than a rat with a JATO pod
attached to it, then they would have simply ignored you and ****ed
themselves laughing...20 odd years on I can see why they would do
that.

--

So are you saying that you could actually buy cast manifolds and
cylinder heads that didn't require a burr taking over them to open
them to the standard gasket? You could buy high-flow oil filters and
dry sump kits? Up-rated anti-roll bars? Variable road dampers?
Shortened and up-rated road-springs? Proper supportive driving
seat? Boot-moumt battery tray and retainer? Racing tyres? What'd I
miss?

a Life as far as I can tell.

Certainly all those parts were readily available. Where they came from I
don't know, but I bought many of them.

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
Not the DCEO. It is just two identical carbs in one body. There are
twin choke types with a large and small choke though. Often the larger
opens by engine vacuum.


Trying to be a constant depression type. Mimickry is the highest form
of flattery.

That would be a Stronberg.

The problem with the SU is poor flow when wide open - you only have to
look at the design to realise why. All the competition BL cars dispensed
with the SU and went to Webers. Before injection.

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
That would be a Stronberg.

Or even Stromberg. I've misplace the correct specs. ;-)

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Feb 2, 4:11*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On Feb 1, 11:13 am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:33:06 -0800 (PST), thirty-six

wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:34 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:
*No other regular Ford has come close to the performance with the little
Maestro engine
That'll be why the Maestro unit was so popular for other cars and in
competition while the Ford ones not? *Wally.
Ford Motorsport , *geddit? * There was no equivalent support from BL.
If you wanted to race or rally in a recognised category, you went
direct to the factory competition department (in later years at
Cowley) and the parts arrived on your doorstep next day. *If you bent
the vehicle and needed 'standard' parts then the savings by buying
those direct were astronomical - they cost less 'retail' than a dealer
would pay. *Of course if you were a nobody, say someone tweaking a
Maestro 1.3 to apparently accelerate faster than a rat with a JATO pod
attached to it, then they would have simply ignored you and ****ed
themselves laughing...20 odd years on I can see why they would do
that.

--

So are you saying that you could actually buy cast manifolds and
cylinder heads that didn't require a burr taking over them to open
them to the standard gasket? *You could buy high-flow oil filters and
dry sump kits? *Up-rated anti-roll bars? *Variable road dampers?
Shortened and up-rated road-springs? * Proper supportive driving
seat? *Boot-moumt battery tray and retainer? *Racing tyres? *What'd I
miss?

a Life as far as I can tell.

Certainly all those parts were readily available. Where they came from I
don't know, but I bought many of them.

You mean not directly through Cowley. I forgot camshafts, but there
were some nice variations from the smaller engined minis, could be
908cc?

On Feb 2, 10:53*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

Not the DCEO. It is just two identical carbs in one body. There are
twin choke types with a large and small choke though. Often the larger
opens by engine vacuum.

Trying to be a constant depression type. *Mimickry is the highest form
of flattery.

That would be a Stronberg.

The problem with the SU is poor flow when wide open - you only have to
look at the design to realise why. All the competition BL cars dispensed
with the SU and went to Webers. Before injection.


I slimmed down the throttle spindle, the leading edge of the plate and
radiused the rear edge. This really benefitted 3rd and 4th gear
acceleration over 1/2 revs and improved throttle response over small
openings. I was very tempted to radius the edges to the venturi and
piston but didn't get around to it. I wasn't confident it would not
upset the accurate fuelling ratio which already existed. I felt that
rolling road sessions with sniffers would be appropriate to ensure
that this modification would not unbalance the fuelling.

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
You mean not directly through Cowley. I forgot camshafts, but there
were some nice variations from the smaller engined minis, could be
908cc?

998cc was the short stroke Cooper S screamer.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:40:45 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
(BL got it right with the SU)

That'll be why they got better torque figures and a flatter torque
curve with single port injection on the Mini then, and why it's
impossible to get 90bhp on a 1000cc Mini 7 engine without dumping the
1.5" SU, but you can do it with a single port of a 40DCOE Weber, but
don't let facts get in the way of your Maestro 1.3 A series fantasy.

Surely a DCOE is a twin choke carb so more akin to twin SUs? It's
basically just two separate carbs in the one body. Flows better than SUs
at full throttle, but a much poorer bottom end due to the fixed choke
size. So fine for racing, but not road use.

It is the equivalent of a twin SU on the surface but in the Mini 7
category you were only permitted to use a single choke carb hence the
'single port' I mentioned previously. This usually resulted in a
Weber 40 DCOE or a Dellorto 40 DHLA offset on a custom made manifold
with half the carb hanging in mid air. The jets on the unused side
were soldered up, the throttle plate and everything else like the
choke and auxiliary venturi etc were also removed. Some even hacked
off the unused bit of the carb in an attempt to loose even more weight

1200lb empty weight, 90bhp corrected at 8500rpm (on an honest engine
dyno) with a straight cut dog gearbox and nice sticky Dunlop slicks.
Somewhere in my archives I'll have the acceleration and in gear times,
which in the days before affordable data logging were done with a huge
video camera focused on the rev counter and homebrew digital speedo
that read off a toothed ring shrunk onto a specially machined rear
brake drum.

Idle was around 1500rpm, more for getting the extremely undersized
alternator supplying the ignition load than anything else. So not
really usable in traffic, but with a lot of attention to the carbs
there was little popping and farting and you could drive it to the
shops, just a little bit more quickly than a standard car fitted with
an SU.


--

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:35:35 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
Oi! Don't diss the mighty SU!

I'm not, alt least not for the road. The SU is good, and quite
tolerant of twiddlers. But to get the ultimate performance you need
something better, and a properly set up Dellorto or Weber sidedraft
carb is measurably better than an SU on the dyno, and on the track.
But it's only a few %, and with much emphasis on 'properly set up'

Fine for maximum power, but the SU is much better at lower engine speeds
due to the variable choke size. Faster airflow over the venturie gives
better atomisation. So for road use an SU is better.

Those aspects of the Weber have now been more or less fully
understood, some five decades later such that it is possible to
have perfect progression from idle and part throttle. Perfect in this
case being measured by sniffing the exhaust gases with a wideband O2
probe and then proving it with a seat of the pants test.

--

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:28:01 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
You mean not directly through Cowley. I forgot camshafts, but there
were some nice variations from the smaller engined minis, could be
908cc?

998cc was the short stroke Cooper S screamer.

998 was the Cooper and near identical to all other 1000cc engines with
the exception of the head (12G295) the cam, a pressed steel three
branch exhaust manifold and the twin 1.25" SU's.

There was also a 997 Cooper in the early days which was a POS due to
the very small bore and restrictive valve size that made it very
asthmatic

The 'short stroke ' Cooper S was the 970 having by a long way the
shortest stroke of any A series with the same bore as the 1071 and
1275. Heads were identical across the three Cooper S variants.

A 970 is quite unlike any other A series, I briefly drove one maybe 30
years ago and its a car that brings back smiles. Really smooth and it
just revs forever. Prices secondhand were silly even then. Cranks
were in very short supply and I suspect many got scrapped with tinworm
or were fitted with the 1275 cranks.

By no coincidence, the 970 on a 20 thou (I think?) overbore became
999cc, just below an FIA class limit.


--