mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Performance Was Re: Priorities!

To: garyb@pentek.com
Subject: Re: Performance Was Re: Priorities!
From: todd@nutria.nrlssc.navy.mil (Todd Mullins)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:22:44 -0500 (CDT)
Gary Burrell writes:

> [ I wrote: ]

> > One distinction which I feel needs to be made here, and for some of you
> > it may fall into the realm of nitpicking, but I'll make it anyway:
> > Brake performance has nothing to do with engine performance.  Sure, it's
> 
> > The only case in which an engine upgrade necessitates a brake upgrade is
> > top speed.  If you increase your top speed, then braking FROM THAT TOP
> > SPEED will require more energy dissipation.  But it takes a whole lot of
> > horsepower to overcome the aerodynamics involved.
> .... Much deleted
> > 
> > Please note that this is explicitly NOT a suggestion to take a cavalier
> > attitude regarding brake performance.  You can never have too much
> > brakes, no matter how powerful your engine is or how fast you go.  My
> > point is simply that there is no direct causal relationship between
> > motor and brakes.
> > 
> I beg to differ here.  A higher performance car will get you to 
> a higher speed faster, thus giving you less time to brake, hence
> the need for better brakes.  Illistaration 2 cars at a stop light
> 1 low power, 1 high power.  Some distance down the road is a 
> obstruction which can be see from X yard away.  Both cars leave
> the light but don't have a chance to get to top speed before reaching
> braking point, high power car would be going faster hence need better 
> brakes than low power car.

You didn't read what I wrote (and you snipped the most important part).

Fact:  Higher speeds require the brakes to dissipate more energy than
       lower speeds.

Fiction:  More powerful engines force you to drive faster.

Understand?

> > > 3) Competition Style exhaust with Long Center branch Header
> 
> > Actually, the dual-carb factory exhaust manifold is pretty darned good.
> > Does anybody have any hard numbers on the performance gain that a LCB
> > header nets?
> > 
> Yup, see below
> 
> > > 5) Electronic Ignition kit.  I used the crane/allison kit
> > > but the new in the distribuiter type looks nice too.
> > > (cost $100) I also used a sport coil ($40)
> > > (More power to sparkplugs)
> > 
> > All the electronic ignition really gives you is reliability and
> > stability.  It doesn't actually make any more power.  The Sport Coil may
> > allow you to open up your spark plug gap, which will make power, but not
> > a whole lot (again - anybody have any hard data, so I can quit making
> > such qualitative musings?).
> >
> Well no quanitiative data but qualitative data.  Sport coil allows
> higher voltage at plugs.

Agreed.

> Electronic Iginition also supplies more
> power to plugs than points,

Disagreed.  Electronic Ignition doesn't send a damned thing to the spark
plugs.  Electronic Ignition ONLY tells the coil when to fire.

> Also at high RPM (5500) points suffer 
> from point bounce)

Right; forgot about that one.

> A quote from  "Performance MGB" about the
> Newtronic (Pirhana) Electronic Ignition: "We ran a rolling road 
> comparison test against conventional points.  The resultant power
> curves prove the Newtronic Ingintion system offered greater power"
> My results on my car (qualitative) support this. 

There isn't enough information here to debate.  And I still contend that
any increases in power due to "hotter spark" come directly from the
coil.

> > > After you've done this you probably want to change the carb
> > > needles on your SU's to something slightly richer
> > 
> > I've never quite understood this thinking.  If you need a richer
> > mixture, why not simply turn the jet screw a few flats?
> 
> This only serves to richen the mixture at Idle not accross the
> entire power band.

I'm sorry, but this is blatantly incorrect.  Do you know how SUs work?

And can anybody else tell me why engine modifications require a
different needle?

> O.K. Now for Some real # from  MOSS UK "Performance MGB"
> 
> Stage 1: K&N Filters, LCB Manifold
> 
> And now the numbers measured on a dyno
> 
> Stock:  74.1 bhp  105 ft/lbs
> Stage 1:  80.7 bhp 110 ft/lbs
> 
> My obsevations 9% more power just by adding K&N and LCB header

Yes, but how much does the LCB header alone net you?  K&Ns are routinely
claimed to yield 3 to 5 horsepower; how much does that leave for the LCB
header?

-- 

Todd Mullins
Todd.Mullins@nrlssc.navy.mil    On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast

'74 MGB Tourer with unknown coil

Atheist #685                    "Whatever, baby."

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>