Leigh...as above, you can get more power from a few sensible mods to an A or A+, however, if you want Air Con and absolutely all the room under the bonnet taken up....well go for it
| ausmini https://ausmini.com/forums/ |
|
| Power and other differences for Rover motors? https://ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27893 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Moriarty [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Power and other differences for Rover motors? |
Howdy y'all, I've done a search and found related discussion but none that answer this directly. Can anyone tell me the power figures for the 1980s/90s Rover engines - ie 998 and EFI 1275. I can appreciate that the engineering (hopefully!) improved over the years, but also would like to hear about any power improvements etc. Not looking for a drag car by any means! I was window shopping at Brikworx last week and had a chat with Steve, now I'm thinking about whether to go for a Jap Rover front cut for my 68 Deluxe, tho it will be a fair way into the future... so for now just trying to do my homework and get some options. Cheers |
|
| Author: | drmini in aust [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not sure about the 998, but the SPI 1275 was advertised as 61HP and the MPI, 63HP. This compares to the previous MG Metro with single carb, ~72HP. So- injection was purely for emissions, it was definitely not a great leap forward for HP. |
|
| Author: | slinkey inc [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
78 bhp produced by the Cooper S was the most powerful stock 1275 produced I think. They did make those very rare John Cooper Rovers, but the are overated at 90bhp. And the even rarer ERA turbo Minis. Second to Cooper S is MG Metro I believe. A 1.3i is a good decently pwered engine. Not high performance by any means but qill keep up in traffic. The made around the 60bhp mark I think (all these figures are flywheel figures.) |
|
| Author: | WhoDat [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Power and other differences for Rover motors? |
Moriarty wrote: I can appreciate that the engineering (hopefully!) improved over the years, but also would like to hear about any power improvements etc. Not looking for a drag car by any means!
Cheers I think you may be dissapointed in the figures. The Engineering "improvements" as I understand were aimed at lowering manufacturing costs while meeting ever tougher anti-pollution laws, than making things more exciting for the driver. The change to EFI - the oft quoted prof of engineering "improvement" was the only way to meet the emmissions targets - it did bugger all for added power. |
|
| Author: | 9YaTaH [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rover |
Leigh...as above, you can get more power from a few sensible mods to an A or A+, however, if you want Air Con and absolutely all the room under the bonnet taken up....well go for it
|
|
| Author: | Moriarty [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rover |
9YaTaH wrote: if you want Air Con and absolutely all the room under the bonnet taken up....well go for it
Well, i was thinking of putting in a pool and a zen garden, but perhaps I'll just stick with the current arrangements and look to make some renovations... 
Cheers for all the knowledgeable and prompt advice folks!!! 
|
|
| Author: | Moriarty [ Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What about the late 80s model carburettor 998s? Are they the same physical size as the 1960s engines? |
|
| Author: | sports850 [ Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yes , the blocks were basically the same size all the way through , various things changed along the way (they even lost the distributer towards the end ) but the block/gearbox are around the same size , just minor changes . |
|
| Author: | 1018cc [ Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The 90hp conversions done on the late 90's mini's never (usually) actually pull 90hp on a dyno. I hear the Burlen 52mm (is it 52mm???) throttle body is a good upgrade with the 90hp conversion - with that it does start to pull about 90hp. |
|
| Author: | Spaceboy [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
with efi i imagine the fuel economy is drastically improved, and throttle response too.. cold starts are a breeze.. |
|
| Author: | Harley [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Spaceboy wrote: with efi i imagine the fuel economy is drastically improved, and throttle response too.. cold starts are a breeze..
They get around on about 6 litres per 100 kays or so (specs) but drivers claim it can be more like 8-10. They are very smooth to drive as well. 
|
|
| Author: | boho [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Harley wrote: Spaceboy wrote: with efi i imagine the fuel economy is drastically improved, and throttle response too.. cold starts are a breeze.. They get around on about 6 litres per 100 kays or so (specs) but drivers claim it can be more like 8-10. They are very smooth to drive as well. My carby fed '92 specs 6.8 to 100k. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|