Tuning

[MikeParticipant @mike89748]

Agreed, Michael. It was in this era we discovered Japanese-made NGK plugs. Being of far-eastern origin, we thought they must be rubbish. We soon changed out minds when we discovered, thanks to a local tuning shop with a rolling-road dynamometer, they gave an extra 3bhp extra on a standard 850 mini. I still ask for them now, 50 years later, when my car is serviced.

[steveteeParticipant @stevetee]

The engine manufacturer I used to work for Brought out an engine for power generation, it had a life expectancy of 25 years. Then they fitted turbo's, then they increased the maximum revs , they they doubled the turbo boost. Eventually the engine developed 5 times the power of the original normally aspirated engine, but had a life expectancy of about 5 years. This way the customer could get his money back 5 times as fast for the same floor area, in that he didn't have to buy 5 engines, to provide the power.

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

NGK plugs, that brings back a memory. I had a 3 Cyl. 2 stroke SAAB 95 and with the KLG plugs when you got down to 22 mph it would start to kangeroo a bit so I fitted NGK plugs and it would then go down to 18 mph before it started bouncing. The plugs were 18 mm size as i remember. A maximum speed of 88 mph and it ran like a sewing machine. It had a free wheel device as well and was one of the best cars I have ever driven in snow and would make way in 12 " of snow.

Later I sold it and bought a SAAB 96, this had a V 4 Ford engine fitted and did 44 mpg and over 100 mph. The only reason I sold that car was because I was going to Germany and I was told there were no SAAB agencies in Germany.

I bought a tax free Ford Escort that I then ran for 13 years. It took me all over Europe and as far as the Arctic Circle.

[Colin HeseltineParticipant @colinheseltine48622]

Ady1's comments about 2.0 Pinto engine remind me of my Mark 1 RS2000. I had the head breathed on by Aldon Automotive with Group 4 big valves, head all gas flowed. I then built it up with Burton BLF40/41 camshaft, roller cam followers, Vernier cam pulleys, 4 into 2 into 1 exhaust, twin 45 Dellorto carburettors, tuftrided and balanced crank, balanced the pistons and rods and used NGK plugs. I ended up with around 185bhp at the flywheel and a very quick car. That was quite a good power output in 1976. Just wish I still had the car.

Colin

[john carruthersParticipant @johncarruthers46255]

I played with A series engines and had a lot of fun squeezing every ounce out of them, but in the end found it easier to slip in a B series (Marina 1800 TC for choice).
An all synchro box and a Riley 1.5 diff helped the ratios, and made for a reasonably quick Minor 1000.
I used the discs off the Marina and Riley drums on the back. A direct servo off a Rover sd1 made it stop better.
lowered all round, telescopic dampers, and an anti roll bar. The major improvement was good tyres, Avons changed it completely.
Apart from being an inch or so lower it didn't look any different.
Some worried Ford SR guys round our way

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by jason udall on 30/04/2016 14:41:11:
Not bikes but.

Dave Visard "how to mod your mini"
And "tuning the A series engin"

Contain much of intrest

Any of "Vizard the Wizard's" books contain much of interest. I have "How to Port and Flow Test Cylinder Heads" and "How to build Horsepower" . The first is particularly fascinating, being based on flow-bench testing of actual port shapes. Much that appears to make sense does not actually flow that well when tested. He does not think much of the original Weslake-designed Mini A-series heads.

Best part is his details on how to build your own flow-bench using a workshop vacuum cleaner and some plastic tubing full of colored water. My kind of guy!

[Clive IndiaParticipant @cliveindia]

Some time since I tuned anything but as far as I recall the following was standard practice for a car:-
Fluffy dice hanging off the rear view mirror, Go faster stripes down the sides , Peco exhaust booster, Spacers behind the wheels to make them stick out a bit, mix up the macdonalds wrappers in the footwells & remove the wimpey ones,spray some dark spray on the windows so you cannot see in (or out), lower the suspension so tyres rub on the wheel arches when turning corners. If you had any dough then stick on mag ally look a likes to the wheels, Leather steering wheel cover, rake back the driving seat so much that you are almost laying down, Hand holds over the rear windows ( to hook girlfriends feet in) Tracey & Steve sticker along the front windscreen (changed weekly) Couple of drops of castrol R in the fuel to make a smell, White roundals on the doors, preferably with castrol emblem on one edge, never clean the car & just use wipers to clean the windows so it looks like you are straight off a rally, stick on bullet holes in the rear windows, & finally a tigers tail hanging out of the tank.
If you were real flash & had an old mini then cut the roof down so you could not get in it & grind all the guttering off. If you had a 105E cause your dad had dough, the fit a lotus twin cam & wide wheels, lower the suspension etc
All standard student go faster tuning tricks when i was a lad designed to make the 100E look quick Speed was irrelevant pulling the crumpet was the aim

I did this, but I now realise it would have been better to demonstrate my dexterity in the back seat rather than buy a tiger for my tank etc.!

[John FieldingParticipant @johnfielding34086]

Tuning an engine – the right and wrong way!

Common understanding is that all intake ports up to the valve should be a mirror finish to improve airflow. Sometimes this is a huge mistake. If the you study the Alfa Romeo DOHC engine design you will see there is a sort of V shaped cast into the inlet ports near the valves. Many tuners do not understand what this was put there for and grind it away. The result is a loss of power instead of a gain, and a ruined cylinder head! The V impression is an airway splitter to promote swirl at the valve head to increase the intake charge mass.

I worked on the engine management computer for the Ford series of 4-inline engines for a local company who builds Lotus 7 replicas. The Ford RoCam engine standard air intake manifold is a plastic molding and some folks ditched it and put on a fancy ali after market type, only to find they lost some 10% in power. Having cut a few up to try and understand how they worked I was surprised to see the internal passageways are a very highly polished surface, the outside is a bit rough. The bore ratio to runner lengths is also cleverly designed to induce extra ram effect in the mid rev range, as acceleration is all about torque. By re-calibrating the ECU a substantial gain in power and torque is possible with the standard Ford RoCam engine without changing any internal components, but it negates the emissions settings. The manufacturers could easily ring a fair bit more out of the engines but it impacts on warranty and emissions performance.

[gavin eislerParticipant @gavineisler66495]

I have !" tuned " my old BSA a bit.

Basic tuning, clean plugs,set tappets correctly, set ignition timing correctly, fine tune the pilot air mixture screw to give best tickover when warm. Make sure the carb float bowls are drained to get the water out. Thats it for a sweet runner on standard settings.

Tuning for more power, more ccs are good, more compression = more HP, and on and on, big valves , fancy cams, bigger carbs. basically, more bang, needs more air , fuel and compression, go too far and a very big bang tells when you have gone too far. Generally the overtuned motor will have lost all its low end grunt because the carb is too big to work at low throttle openings, it will only run properly at a zillion rpms, pinking wildly at certain rpm zones because of the extreme CR , use lots of fuel and be difficult to start. Thinks DBD Goldstar

Tuning for reliability, soft cams, small valves, low CR flat top piston, small carb, burns any poor fuel and wont overstress any thing., Thinks M20

For better economy, smaller carb,smaller valves still high compression, ideally with a squish band, high CR = more efficient burn. Think Morini 350

[gavin eislerParticipant @gavineisler66495]

In the case of the C15 it went from a 15 HP motor to the later C25 22 HP! from the same bore and stroke, by raising compression ratio, carb size and using more sporty cam timing. The all alloy B/C25 variant was well know for its fragility, A good tune up from stock for a Ceefer is to use the Scrambles cam and a higher CR piston, that wakes it up a bit.

[Bob Brown 1Participant @bobbrown1]

I have tuned a number of engines over the years, there is a trade off between torque and power and torque is a part that some people do not understand. I used to here all sorts quote I've got x or y HP but when you ask what torque are you getting more often than not you'd get a puzzled expression. As you up the power you can soon hit the limits of standard components end result blown engine, also the life expectancy of an engine will be reduced. I remember going to Cosworth to pick up some parts for a 2ltr 270 HP BDG and the guy there asked how many miles we were getting out of the engine in competition use (rallying), I said around 1000 miles to which he said we were doing very well. May be we weren't trying hard enough. The BDG was tuned for rallying and it could have been tuned to produce more power but that would have been at the expense of torque which is fine for racing but not rallying.

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

David Vizard is still out there, tuning push rod engines, flowing heads (his thing), grinding cams etc. He's been in the USA for some years now, where their engines are pretty crap and respond to blueprinting and porting work. He makes a reasonable living out of it but without being unfair on the guy, he's never really been someone whose door the industry has beaten a path to. Can't easily Google him from where I am right now but there are quite a few videos on Pootube for instance.

Production engines have always been a commercial balance of power, economy and emissions. The factors that do change are technology (research, electronics, computing power, software, sensor technology etc) and legislation. Technology and legislation tend to go hand in hand, not surprisingly, each driving the other. When did you first hear the notion that the latest exciting vehicle was tuned for performance, emissions and fuel economy? Well, exactly, it's been like that for many decades.

There's a lot of bollocks talked about engines, emissions, legislation etc – always has been – and not just down the pub. Quite simply, you can get a better power output (driveability, acceleration, refinement etc) by spending more money (variable geometry or multiple turbochargers, variable valve timing, intercooling, whilst still staying within the emissions legislation (whatever it happens to be) and without destroying your fuel economy, hopefully at a price that is hopefully going to sell vehicles. By and large they get it right and you can see how savvy the marketing boys are when you look at the range of vehicles available, their price range and their features.

By way of example, BMW only make engines with 0.5L per cylinder. But they market them as models such as "116", "120", "318", "320", "335" etc, where the last 2 digits indicate not the engine capacity any more but the state of tune – they only make 4, 6, 8 etc cylinder engines of 2, 3, 4 etc litres. The difference is how much technology (= cost) you have opted for. The other guy in the inferior model enviously reads your model number through watering eyes as you drift past. It has always been this way ….

Merry

[steamdaveParticipant @steamdave]

I had a Jensen CV-8 with a 5.3 ltr Chrysler engine for 18 years. Didn't need any tuning with 300 odd b.h.p. However, it could have done with running gear to suit the engine power, instead of Armstrong lever-arm shocks up front and a live rear axle on cart springs with 4-1/2 J wheels (originally on cross ply tyres!)

There were explicit instructions in the handbook about not using kick down at speeds of less than 60 mph. Even at that speed it was quite entertaining.

Dave
The Emerald Isle

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 30/04/2016 15:44:42:

To be honest, by the time I started using the dwell meter and the Colortune, engines were rapidly heading out of the DIY maintenance league, and so they didn't get that much use. And then I moved to diesel for 16 years which stopped all attempts to home tune.

Only threw out my colourtune 'manual' about a month ago!

[RobboParticipant @robbo]

Still have two Colortunes. Do they work on chainsaws I wonder.

Also the electronic timing light, but have lost the "SPQR" tappet adjuster!

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

When the Escort RS Turbo(?) came out back in the early-mid 80s, the industry 'spurts seemed to believe that 140BHP would probably be the limit for FWD vehicles. IIRC, around the same time, we also heard that 130-140mph would be the best a motorbike would achieve. Last time we looked, both figures had been somewhat surpassed. There is a Moores' Law for the automotive world, although aerodynamic drag has a disproportionate effect on the progress of maximum speeds….

[mgnbukParticipant @mgnbuk]

By way of example, BMW only make engines with 0.5L per cylinder.

Really ? I had a 6 cylinder 2.8 litre 5 Series company car in the late '80s. At the time there were also 2.5 litre and 3.5 litre sixes, non of which would have been 0.5l cylinders ?

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Muzzer on 01/11/2016 15:08:00:

When the Escort RS Turbo(?) came out back in the early-mid 80s, the industry 'spurts seemed to believe that 140BHP would probably be the limit for FWD vehicles. IIRC, around the same time, we also heard that 130-140mph would be the best a motorbike would achieve. Last time we looked, both figures had been somewhat surpassed. There is a Moores' Law for the automotive world, although aerodynamic drag has a disproportionate effect on the progress of maximum speeds….

I used to work with an ex top flight rally team mechanic & he used to say that anything more than 400'ish BHP through the front wheels only would be pointless because the car could never benefit from the extra HP. I remember him saying that they had the best results from 350-380 HP engines.

I also remember that he'd very little respect for the MacPherson strut arrangement that most production FWD cars use. He reckoned that 80hp is about the limit !

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

No different from locomotives. Tyres can only give so much traction so for any given adhesive weight there's a top limit to how much power you can put through to the road at any given speed without wheel spinning. Yes you can use traction control (it may be essential) but all that's doing is limiting your horsepower anyway.

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 01/11/2016 17:54:38:

No different from locomotives. Tyres can only give so much traction so for any given adhesive weight there's a top limit to how much power you can put through to the road at any given speed without wheel spinning. Yes you can use traction control (it may be essential) but all that's doing is limiting your horsepower anyway.

I think physics has a lot more to do with it than just pure traction from the tyres.

You can put a lot more power down with the rear wheels than the front whilst using the same tyre.

This is because physics dictates things like weight distribution & transferance . . . If you want a car to go forward do you push it from behind or pull it from the front?

[JAParticipant @ja]

It's all physics. If the car is accelerating the weight is transferred to the rear until, given enough acceleration the front wheels lift off the ground and there is no further increase in acceleration. Just like a wheelie on a bike. Obviously this is on flat road with a good surface. If it is bumpy lots more things matter. The conclusion is that, as already said, above a given power, although you should really be considering torque, at the rear wheel nothing further is gained.

Railway locomotives are exactly the same. Once the locomotive starts accelerating the load of the train acts to transfer the locomotive's weight to the rear wheels. I remember seeing LNER and Southern Pacifics produce spectacular wheel spin when starting with a train. I don't remember every seeing a GWR 4-6-0 do the same.

JA

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

I have a X drive BMW which seems to have astonishing grip but I don't think the power of it is likely to trouble the amount of rubber it has on the road, they do seem to have a bit too much especially when it snows.

Mike

[John FlackParticipant @johnflack59079]

The concept that careful assembly leads to accuracy and efficient state of tune is confirmed when you consider that ancient Myfords are revered, whilst up to date cnc lathes from the Far East have to be upgraded and tweeked to get the best performance . Perhaps the desire to tune improve etc has moved from motor vehicles to mechanical eqpt??

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by John Flack on 02/02/2017 10:17:33:

The concept that careful assembly leads to accuracy and efficient state of tune is confirmed when you consider that ancient Myfords are revered, whilst up to date cnc lathes from the Far East have to be upgraded and tweeked to get the best performance . Perhaps the desire to tune improve etc has moved from motor vehicles to mechanical eqpt??

Please don't take what follows as an attack on John, who has expressed a widespread point of view. What do people make of my analysis?

I sometimes wonder how much damage our national addiction to "careful assembly" did to traditional British industry. Is it part of the problem or a virtue?

Over the last century and more in a seemingly unending decline, legions of famous names, including Myford, have gone to the wall. Do we Brits like making top quality stuff for tiny unprofitable markets? Aircraft like the Brabazon and Concorde, technically brilliant and commercially unattractive.

Many innovations, including the metric system, are British ideas. We are not so good at profiting from them and they often end up abroad. Government and European politics often get blamed but traditional British Industry has a long record of small 'c' conservatism. Owners who wouldn't invest, workers who refused to modernise, and a culture of short-termism,.

One thing that stands out over and over againin our industrial history is the notion that old fashioned methods are 'better. Perhaps this is because they demand skill and good materials to get a result. 'Obviously' wrought-iron was better than mild-steel. 'Obviously' Brass was better than Mazak. 'Obviously' Mahogany was better than MDF. 'Obviously' anything made of plastic was rubbish. People still defend the Whitworth Screw form perhaps unaware that Sellars revised it the US so that american threads would be easier to make. Not inferior, just cheaper.

A few more examples, Britain once had a large small-arms industry. It bit the dust because it was very reluctant to move away from 'careful assembly'. Good products but very overpriced in comparision with mass-produced American, Belgian, and German equivalents. Enfield was set up when the government found during the Crimean War that British gunmakers were incapable of producing rifles with interchangable parts in volume.

Britain was once famous for clockmaking. Around 1895 the americans started mass producing clocks, cheap yes, but they kept time. Suddenly British Clocks were expensive compared with imports, for whatever reason Britich clockmakers did not adopt the same methods, and most of the industry died.

Around 1900, British lathe makers were roughed up by the Americans. Back then British practice was to make lathes to order with delivery a year or two later. Not good if you want one in your factory to make a living. When they eventually arrived British lathes were massive, hand fitted, old-fashioned, and expensive. Nothing wrong with their quality, but the americans were offering cheaper, lighter and more advanced tools off-the-shelf. The american tools were not intended to last because the state of the art in manufacturing was evolving quickly. In a world focussed on driving the cost of production down, the British notion of fitting factories to last 50 or 60 years was often foolish. Owning the best conventional lathe in the world does you no favours at all if your competitor has an automatic.

Of course there is a market for 'careful assembly', but my proposition is that there isn't much money in it.

If you want a strong industrial base, then it has to be competitive and efficient. It's no good whinging that foriegners are somehow 'cheating', you have to beat them at their own game. I'm afraid this means dumping Imperial measure, old certainties, old methods, old equipment, old skills, old ideas, and old habits in favour of new ways, not just of making things, but also finding new ways of making money.

That's the world today. When fossil fuels run out, I think the economy will shrink. That probably means that 'old-fashioned' methods will become apppropriate again. It will be better to make things to last, and to make them repairable. Then it will make sense to train cobblers and have a blacksmith in every villiage!

Feel free to disagree: I'm not claiming to be the new messiah.

Dave

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

The difference with Myford is that almost everything is adjustable, and therefore to get it spot on great deal of skill goes in at the factory.

A typical far-eastern lathe will be mass produced using jigs and generally designed so that little skill is required for actual assembly whilst still giving in-spec results.

One example is the Myford headstock which requires careful adjustment using jacking screws in order to turn parallel. This requires a degree of skill and a significant amount of time and testing.

Most far-Eastern lathes are bored on a jig that matches the inverted-v form of the lathe bed; place the headstock in position, fit screws to the required torque, and you have headstock alignment.

The need for careful assembly has been superseded by a design that requires more advanced machinery and initial setting up to produce (an inverted V bed instead of a flat bed). This latter approach is better suited to mass production. In the end it's like sliced bread, mass produced loaves from value white to multi-seeded batches at prices fit for every pocket, with the option of artisan loaves for those who can afford them.

I'd also venture to point out that 'upgrading and tweking' is not unique to imported lathes. Before the days of inexpensive far-Eastern machines, there were an awful lot of articles in Model Engineer on how to improve and fine-tune a Myford. We even ran three such articles in MEW recently.

Neil

[Author]

Posts