A-Series - The First 60 Years

General Chat with an emphasis on BMC Minis & Other iconic cars of the 1960's.
User avatar
mab01uk
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: S.E. England
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by mab01uk »

Pictures of BL's OHC A-Series engine for the Mini in 1975 which featured belt drive to the overhead camshaft, single or twin-SU carbrettors and retained all the familiar A-Series features, such as the starter motor, alternator, distributor and spark plugs on the same forward facing side of the original cylinder block. There were also inline versions developed for BL's rear wheel drive cars. 11 prototypes of all sizes were built and completed 3,200 hours on test beds and 2,200 vehicle miles.
The 1275cc OHC A-Series produced 84bhp @ 6750, torque 80lb/ft @ 4,500 (against 59bhp @ 5300, torque 69lb/ft @ 3000 for the pushrod engine) in standard form.
There were also 970cc and 1097cc versions produced and tested but the project was eventually canceled due to the mounting losses of British Leyland which had become nationalised during the engines development. Lots more info on what could have been in Graham Robson's interesting book..........

Image

Image

Image
618AOG

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by 618AOG »

The A Series didn't really need replacing - not in 1968, or in 1978. Yes, the small OHC engines around at the time like the Fiat and VW units were smoother revving, but the A Series had remarkable torque and part load economy. Vizard proved 35 years ago that with the right combination of bits, a 1275 Mini could easily do 60 mpg. The A Plus went some way towards that.

Graham Robson is rather arrogant - I buy his books secondhand from Amazon and will do the same with this one! :lol:
User avatar
mab01uk
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: S.E. England
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by mab01uk »

618AOG wrote:The A Series didn't really need replacing - not in 1968, or in 1978. Yes, the small OHC engines around at the time like the Fiat and VW units were smoother revving, but the A Series had remarkable torque and part load economy. Vizard proved 35 years ago that with the right combination of bits, a 1275 Mini could easily do 60 mpg. The A Plus went some way towards that.

Graham Robson is rather arrogant - I buy his books secondhand from Amazon and will do the same with this one! :lol:
But this wasn't a full replacement like the earlier Issigonis 9X engine but an OHC update of the A-Series so 'remarkable torque and part load ecomomy' would have been retained with all the advantages of OHC. IMHO the 'didn't need replacing' type decisions contributed to the steady decline in Mini sales from the 1971 sales peak. Many small car buyers were soon defecting to quieter smoother OHC competitors and 5-speed gearboxes more suited to modern motorway driving. Also had it not been cancelled, the later Metro as launched in 1980, would have been a far better car with the OHC A-Series and of course the opportunity to add a 5th gear was also sadly missed........
mk1
Site Admin
Posts: 19832
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:30 am
Location: Away with the Faries
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by mk1 »

Most of the development work done on the X9 unit was actually done at Downton so "prying eyes could be kept at a safe distance.
Old English White
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 2641
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:07 pm
Location: Southern England
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Old English White »

mab01uk wrote: Many small car buyers were soon defecting to quieter smoother OHC competitors and 5-speed gearboxes more suited to modern motorway driving. Also had it not been cancelled, the later Metro as launched in 1980, would have been a far better car with the OHC A-Series and of course the opportunity to add a 5th gear was also sadly missed........
I can only agree with you there. I knew several previously loyal BL car buyers including myself who considered buying a Metro in the 1980s until they realised that it had the same outdated mechanicals as previous offerings. (Allegros bought new which gobbled oil and chewed up gearboxes from day one.) Instead we bought VWs, Nissans, Fiats, Toyotas to name just a few.

I'm not knocking the "A" series as such and am happy with it in a "classic car" for leisure use but wouldn't put up with it even 30years ago as a "modern" unit when there was SO much better on offer from the competition.
e-type
998 Cooper
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:50 am
Location: Denmark
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by e-type »

Although I love tunning the old A series, It should have been updated in the 70s.

When they eventualy came up with a new engine some 22 years ago( The K series), it was very ahead off its time.

Not with out its faults (head gasket and thermostate location), but very light 96kg.
a Toyota engine today is 130+ kg and 2.0 Honda vtec is 150kg.

The K series have a very good torque for a 16v engine, much better than the terrible japanese 16v engines of the 80s and 90s. lots of HP but no torque.

I have a 700kg 1997 Lotus Elise with K series (feels light just like the Mini) ;)
The new Elise is 900kg+ what the hell went wrong :x
User avatar
mab01uk
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: S.E. England
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by mab01uk »

Interesting extract below from an AROnline 'Mini Development in the 1970's' article obout BL's research into the OHC A-Series engine:-

"In April 1982 the Mini was given higher gearing to make it more economical, but this did nothing for acceleration, and the car lost a little of its buzzbox characteristics. The fact that the ancient A-Series engine could cope with up-gearing was a tribute to its remarkable torque characteristics, even in its tamest form.
And that brings us to the subject of why the A-Series engine was never radically re-engineered to modern standards. Was it a matter of cost or were there other reasons?
Back in the 1970s BL had embarked on projects to develop overhead camshaft versions of both the A- and B-Series engines. The reason for this was that MG used both engines and as they exported to the USA where stringent anti-emissions legislation was in force, it was paramount that BL’s existing engines were made more efficient to enable them to remain both legal and competitive by using the more efficient emissions friendly overhead cam layout.

In the end the OHC B-Series evolved into the O-Series engine first seen in 1978, while converting the A-Series to the overhead cam layout proved to be a technical cul-de-sac. The immediate problem of continuing to sell the MG Midget in the USA was solved by replacing the 1275cc A-Series engine with the 1493cc Triumph engine also used in the rival Spitfire. But an OHC A-Series could be used in the ADO88 and other BL cars. In the event eleven prototype overhead cam A-Series engines were built in 1975 using Cooper S blocks in capacities of 970cc, 1097cc and 1275cc. The engines used aluminium cylinder heads.

The engineers obtained the following performance figures for OHC Minis:

970cc: OHC 59bhp @ 6750rpm, 51lb ft @ 5250rpm
1097cc: OHC 72bhp @ 6500rpm, 64lb ft @ 5000rpm
1275cc: OHC 84bhp @ 6750rpm, 80lb ft @ 4500rpm

The above figures look very impressive, and a bluff-fronted Mini Clubman fitted with the OHC 1275cc engine and twin HS6 SU carburettors could reach 100mph. It would be easy to accuse BL of another missed opportunity. But a look at the comparative figures for the existing overhead valve engines reveal another story. For a direct comparison first we will use the three Cooper S engines and then the standard tune single carburettor engines seen in the mainstream production Minis.

Standard OHV Mini engines:

970cc: OHV 65bhp @ 6500rpm, 55lb ft @ 3500rpm
1071cc: OHV 70bhp @ 6000rpm, 62lb ft @ 4500rpm
1275cc: OHV 76bhp @ 5800rpm, 80lb ft @ 3000rpm
998cc: OHV 38bhp @ 5250rpm, 52lb ft @ 2700rpm
1098cc: OHV 45bhp @ 5250rpm, 56lb ft @ 2700rpm
1275cc: OHV 54bhp @ 5250rpm, 67lb ft @ 2500rpm

Converting the A-Series engine to overhead camshaft simply pushed the peak torque further up the rev range and actually caused more problems than it solved. One of the great virtues of driving a Mini is its remarkable ability to pull top gear at low revs, something that was exploited by Austin Rover and later Rover when the car was up geared.
An overhead cam A-Series engine would have been torque shy where it mattered in everyday driving and that was indeed the case with the 100mph OHC Mini Clubman. The modern solution for the lack of torque where it matters would be to add more gear ratios, but BL’s engineers decided that a reliable revised transmission in sump gearbox was not feasible. Therefore the decision was taken to opt for the A+ programme. BL had already burnt its fingers with the OHC E-Series engine. The E-Series had been intended to supplant the B-Series, but its lack of torque resulted in the old B-Series going into the Marina and Princess, and even the O-Series was a disappointment. BL would not make the same mistake again."
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/mi ... ry-part-2/
Supersonic
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 2054
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:25 pm
Location: Crossgar County Down Northern Ireland

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Supersonic »

Mab thanks for posting and you are very correct books have to be written to appeal to non-anoraks as well.

Graham Robson is an enormously respected writer and his reputation as a motor industry researcher is firmly established. I have read both Graham’s BMC books and to me they are very educational and revealing. His book The Cars of BMC is a must read in my opinion the definitive book on BMC cars. His book on the A-series is also excellent take my word for it.

We could all pick holes in works about things we are conversant in or knowledgeable about and educated on. I believe we are all expert in different ways.

I have read both books:- John Parnell’s Original Mini Cooper & Cooper S and David Vizard’s Tuning BL’s A-Series Engine many times and have found error or omission if not mistakes.

With my anorak removed and on reflection, I believe no book could ever be 100% correct in its context.

I should say I know Graham and have both my books signed in person. :D :) :D

Alan
Supersonic
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 2054
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:25 pm
Location: Crossgar County Down Northern Ireland

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Supersonic »

618AOG wrote:The A Series didn't really need replacing - not in 1968, or in 1978. Yes, the small OHC engines around at the time like the Fiat and VW units were smoother revving, but the A Series had remarkable torque and part load economy. Vizard proved 35 years ago that with the right combination of bits, a 1275 Mini could easily do 60 mpg. The A Plus went some way towards that.

Graham Robson is rather arrogant - I buy his books secondhand from Amazon and will do the same with this one! :lol:
The long stroke 1098 cc is a much more smooth running engine, why was it not developed? Graham Robson is a true gentleman, wish I knew 50% of what he knows about BMC stuff :D :)

Alan
User avatar
mini63
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:24 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by mini63 »

my favourite pushrod mill....
"You must learn, Keats, there are more things to life than breaking and entering."
User avatar
Simon776
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: Shakspere's county

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Simon776 »

I was surprised to read this
Graham Robson is an enormously respected writer
Then it all became clear
I should say I know Graham and have both my books signed in person
So hardly an objective view. Graham was once described as the Catherine Cookson of the automotive book world.
The long stroke 1098 cc is a much more smooth running engine, why was it not developed?
Oh, come on! Smooth? It has a longer stroke than a 1275 - an engine not noted for its smoothness. It was developed, but it was no good as a performance engine thanks to the crank. They tried 2" mains to make it last better but soon binned that version from the Midget/Sprite in favour of the 1275, although to be fair, the original in line version of the 1275 wasn't a great success in the Midget/Sprite either.

In Spain, Authi ditched the 1098 and made their later 1100s with 998 engines; is that in Graham's book? :o
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who do not possess it.
Supersonic
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 2054
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:25 pm
Location: Crossgar County Down Northern Ireland

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Supersonic »

Simon776 wrote:I was surprised to read this
Graham Robson is an enormously respected writer
Then it all became clear
I should say I know Graham and have both my books signed in person
So hardly an objective view. Graham was once described as the Catherine Cookson of the automotive book world.
The long stroke 1098 cc is a much more smooth running engine, why was it not developed?
Oh, come on! Smooth? It has a longer stroke than a 1275 - an engine not noted for its smoothness. It was developed, but it was no good as a performance engine thanks to the crank. They tried 2" mains to make it last better but soon binned that version from the Midget/Sprite in favour of the 1275, although to be fair, the original in line version of the 1275 wasn't a great success in the Midget/Sprite either.

In Spain, Authi ditched the 1098 and made their later 1100s with 998 engines; is that in Graham's book? :o
Hello Simon,

Firstly and foremost my views on the books I refer to have never been influenced or affected by the fact I know the author. So yes in my view a very impartial overview and why not?. If you knew Graham Robson like I do, you would see the deep-seated interest this man still has in the BMC story. I’m sorry you do not see it from this point of view.

I will stand by what I said earlier in this thread about the 1098 cc engine. It is quieter and smoother than the 998 and 1275. Because of its long stroke it has often been dismissed and true not the best competition engine. We all know the 1275 will produce more power with greater reliability. I’m old enough to have seen 1098 engines tuned quite effectively. In the late sixties David Vizard build one that would safely rev to 800 RPM despite the long-throw crank.

Without getting into geometry for some reason no engineer to date has ever explained the reason why the longer stroke 1098 is the much soother engine.

I have tested numerous well set-up examples and can say without fear the long-throw 1098 is smoother than the 998 or the 1275 engine. That is fact and I have never heard anyone other than yourself saying otherwise.

Perhaps Simon you can answer this question?

Alan
Last edited by Supersonic on Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rich@minispares.com
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 6806
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:16 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by rich@minispares.com »

Supersonic wrote:. In the late sixties David Vizard build one that would safely rev to 800 RPM despite the long-throw crank.

slight error there - but quite funny :lol:

ive only ever had one tuned 1098 and it threw its bearings in after about three weeks

it was utter rubbish.........................


there is only one decent smooth a series and that's the mighty, mighty 1071cc
should you wish, you can contact me on rich@minispares.com

'long beard boss'
Supersonic
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 2054
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:25 pm
Location: Crossgar County Down Northern Ireland

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Supersonic »

Rich,

You are very correct the 970 and 1071 engines are super smooth engines being large bore designed for racing. The point I'm making is the 997 / 998 / 1275 engines are very rough running machines. Nobody to date has ever figured out way the 1098 cc is the smoother engine?

The smoothest engine I ever had was a 76.2 mm stroke 1299cc engine, some baby.

Alan
mk1
Site Admin
Posts: 19832
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:30 am
Location: Away with the Faries
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by mk1 »

Nobody to date has ever figured out way the 1098 cc is the smoother engine?

I cannot agree with this statement. Maybe "smoothness" is in the eye of the beholder, but I have NEVER heard of anyone before who truly believes that the 1098 long stroke A series engine is more "smooth running" than the shorter stroke 998.

I have had a number of 1100's some tuned, some not & although they are without exception better than most people make out they are in in my opinion no way as smooth as a similarly tuned 998.
Supersonic
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 2054
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:25 pm
Location: Crossgar County Down Northern Ireland

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Supersonic »

Mark,

I should point out that when I referred to the 1098 engine smoothness it was in the context of standard engines. I have had a number of 1100 engine cars over the years and always found them quiet and smooth. The 998 is noisy and the 1275 rough even in standard tune. Many people have pointed this out to me over the years and I’m sure it is not a figment of their imagination.

I am not a fan of the 1098 engine and for sure would never build one for racing, but I did have an 86mm x 74.5mm motor and it ran as smooth as a baby’s bum and that is a long stroke engine again. :lol: :D

Alan
User avatar
Spider
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 4848
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Big Red, Australia
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Spider »

rich@minispares.com wrote:
Supersonic wrote:. In the late sixties David Vizard build one that would safely rev to 800 RPM despite the long-throw crank.

slight error there - but quite funny :lol:

ive only ever had one tuned 1098 and it threw its bearings in after about three weeks

it was utter rubbish.........................
Rich,

There's a knack to getting them to spin and hold together, but can be done ;)

I've got a circa NA 140+ HP one in the workshop at the moment.
User avatar
vulcanbb18
Basic 850
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Brisbane, Oz
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by vulcanbb18 »

Spider wrote:
rich@minispares.com wrote:
Supersonic wrote:. In the late sixties David Vizard build one that would safely rev to 800 RPM despite the long-throw crank.

slight error there - but quite funny :lol:

ive only ever had one tuned 1098 and it threw its bearings in after about three weeks

it was utter rubbish.........................
Rich,

There's a knack to getting them to spin and hold together, but can be done ;)

I've got a circa NA 140+ HP one in the workshop at the moment.
+1. We got a lot of 1098s here as we began to fit them into minis from 68/69 until about 74.

Their torque potential makes them really good road motors. I haven't seen many bearing failures but crank failures are getting more and more common.

IMHO smoothness seems more influenced by the overall engine package than just the stroke length. I've had rough & smooth 998's & 1098's. the "1300" engines seem like rumbly, rough units but I've only really seen them when they are getting to being life-expired.

This thread is quite topical; I was just this week thinking of buying this book, and now seeing the comments on it I really want to get a copy!

cheers,

Jacob
Supersonic
1275 Cooper S
Posts: 2054
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:25 pm
Location: Crossgar County Down Northern Ireland

Re: A-Series - The First 60 Years

Post by Supersonic »

A good friend emailed me last night regarding the A-series subject. I have his permission to copy two paragraphs of his email, so here it is:-

“as you know we are not into all the technical stuff on this forum and sometimes ask ourselves are we alone as so much we cannot contribute to simple because we have not a glue. The writing about the A-series engine on this forum we cannot help with but want to give our perception based on the two cars we own.

As you know we have the 1100 Mini Special and the 1275 GT both completely original. In our humble opinion the 1100 Mini is super smooth as you can hardly hear the wee engine running. The GT is much more boisterous and we always blamed the large bore exhaust system. Come to think of it sitting ticking over the 1275 makes more juddering than the wee 1100 car”n :|

Furthermore, my friend claims there was a technical article about the 1098 engine in the January 2015 Miniworld magazine?

Must get a read at that then :|

Alan
Post Reply