| ausmini https://ausmini.com/forums/ |
|
| 2" SU https://ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18050 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Blokeinamoke [ Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 2" SU |
Anybody put a 2" SU on an 1100? |
|
| Author: | clubmn [ Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | mini |
That would be overkill. Really not worth thinking about. |
|
| Author: | bnicho [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You'd have no bottom-end torque with that carb on any Mini engine. A 1 1/2 SU or pair of twin 1 1/4 is a better choice on an 1100. If you are building a really hot 1100 which revs high (unlikely with an 1100 crank!) you may want a 1 3/4. |
|
| Author: | tainted [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The largest I've seen in captivity was a 1-3/4" SU, ran well few a few years, once the right needle was found. |
|
| Author: | Mini Mad [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
1 3/4 produce good power on an 1100... |
|
| Author: | simon k [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know a guy whop ran a 2" on a 998, and lost hays heroes on a technicality.... did just find on the torque department and they do fine with a forced induction device on either side of them... |
|
| Author: | poeee [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
skssgn wrote: and they do fine with a forced induction device on either side of them...
Well torque really isn't an issue there, is it?! 2" on an 1100? Well unless it was one HOT 1100, then it's too big. |
|
| Author: | simon k [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
it was a 998, and there was definitely nothing special about it - the head that was on it had been taken off a couple of years earlier cos it was cracked, he put it face down on the concrete floor, and when the replacement head crap itself, he picked the cracked one up, gave it a clean, the rust had sealed the crack so he shoved it back on... 
|
|
| Author: | bnicho [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have to differ with you SK on this one. 
Maybe he got it to work on a 998 somehow, but I still reckon he would have got a better result with a smaller carb. Especially on a road car, not one just used for 'khanas? There is no point fitting a carb with a hugely bigger airflow than the engine is capable of digesting. All that happens is you lose bottom end torque. Read the carburation section of any of Vizard's books if you don't believe me. Or ask Graham Russel. They know a lot more about this stuff than I do. |
|
| Author: | TheMiniMan [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
here`s one i prepared earlier
oh...ok...it`s on a 1510cc donk, don`t really count then ey?
|
|
| Author: | simon k [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bnicho wrote: I have to differ with you SK on this one.
Maybe he got it to work on a 998 somehow, but I still reckon he would have got a better result with a smaller carb. Especially on a road car, not one just used for 'khanas? There is no point fitting a carb with a hugely bigger airflow than the engine is capable of digesting. All that happens is you lose bottom end torque. Read the carburation section of any of Vizard's books if you don't believe me. Or ask Graham Russel. They know a lot more about this stuff than I do. you were there that year Brett, remember the short guy from SA with a fairly untidy blue clubby?? weren't nuthin' special, but he had some good little mods |
|
| Author: | bnicho [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
skssgn wrote: you were there that year Brett, remember the short guy from SA with a fairly untidy blue clubby?? weren't nuthin' special, but he had some good little mods
No, don't remember it, sorry. I will have to go through my old Hay photos. |
|
| Author: | TK [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
we've talked about this many times, hey Matt? Just to refresh. The SU is a brilliant carb only allowing as much carb as what the engine needs. The damper/piston will only lift as much as the engine needs, just enough air, just enough fuel. Think about it. I ran twin 1.75 inch SUs with no probs on a 1330. I built a mild 998 with a 1.75 (went like the clappers). Anyway do it man!!! the response that you'll get with the 2 inch will be brilliant. Kick ass. |
|
| Author: | gafmo [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
We use a HIF44 on a hot 1100 no dramers here
|
|
| Author: | Mike_Byron [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GR spoke about this at a MCC meeting in Sydney last year. He did tests on carby's measuring hp and air flow. They had a 998 with 295 head, RE13 cam with not much else except a HIF44. The engine was sucking the damper to the very top and pulling all the air/fuel mixture that was available. I think the 2" should go bck on the Jag it was stolen off before the owner misses it but bigger carbs work just fine on small bore motors. As somebody said the beauty of an SU is that its only going to suck as much as it needs. The reason the 2" should go back to the jag is because the HIF simply is a better carb. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|