mk1-forum.net

I have been following this thread and I find it interesting what peoples choices have been.

Anyone tried any Cams from the US?

I've tried many of the 'supermarket cams' (ie, Kent, Piper etc) from the UK and to be frank, I was none to impressed by them, though Piper were of considerably better quality than Kent, which I'd rate close to the bottom of the list for quality and accuracy. It seems to me they are riding on a name (?) and the convenience of being able to buy them in Woolworths.

Have a look at some of the cams from the US, like those from APT and Isky. I'd also strongly recommend getting their followers too.

On that excel sheet cell 51 there is Evolution 001 , seems to have a broad power band, anyone had experience with this cam? getting difficult now to make a choice

cheers cpr1

Yes, I've used a few of those, but not yet in a 1071. They are fantastic, but are a re grind. This is the thing with cams, choosing one is purely experience based. I've tried a good few, driven cars with a good few more in, and have some fancy ones sat on a shelf waiting to be tried, but there is no right or wrong. For instance, I've never really been very impressed with the Kent 276, or 266, but I know people who have been really pleased with them. Perhaps they are impressed because they are the only cams they've tried, or I've not had the right combination of bits, development time or money in the job to make them work as well as I would like.

When I first tried the evolution001, it worked very impressively straight away. The second time, we put it in a customer engine with a fancy MED head, it was rubbish. We took the head off, and changed it for a less fancy MED head, and gained 20hp at the wheels. Had I not had the first experience, and an incling the ports were too big, I might not have persevered.

@ Spider, it will be too expensive to get the camshaft from the US .



"R&R" Yes, I've used a few of those, but not yet in a 1071. They are fantastic, but are a re grind. This is the thing with cams, choosing one is purely experience based. I've tried a good few, driven cars with a good few more in, and have some fancy ones sat on a shelf waiting to be tried, but there is no right or wrong.

thanks for your feedback R&R

I have tried very few camshafts over the years and on A series not more than 3. Yes I understand that there are too many factors that influence performance on an engine, but I'm not looking for something radical, I know that the biggest influence that will have on performance will be port sizes and CR, which I'm not planning to overdo , maybe a Cr a bit on the high side ( Cr is like opening a Pandora's box also) and most probably some 1.4 rockers.
What bothers me is more the the claims of poor and inconsistent grinds that you find, with today's technology and machinery, do you expect this? I live in Malta so this has to be bought from UK, which will make it more difficult to complain with the supplier if it is of poor quality.

Thanks all for your help.

Cheers Cpr1

I ahev only used original factory grind 544s.

cpr1 wrote:@ Spider, it will be too expensive to get the camshaft from the US .

Fair enough, but you only get what you pay for.

After turning to these a number of years back, I can't ever see myself buying another cam or followers from the UK again.

The EVO001 cam gives good torquey results. I have not used one myself, but know people who have.

I must admit, i ditched my 286 when i eventually wore out the SA1100 that i had converted to 1293 (Cranks swap, with Innocenti/GTS rods and Cooper/GTS pistons) and went 1380.

I got an EVO001 from Rich and man, it pulls the 3.1 FD no problem, even up here on the reef in Johannesburg at 1,600 meters above sea level, it is an amazing road engine combo.

Secretly, i do miss the buup buup idle and the scalded cat top end of the 286 though.

I've certainly had some brilliant results with it, a good class 4 grasstrack engine (1130 based on 1071) with SW23, and Brett syms head, split webbers s/c everything, 4.5 FD makes 85BHp on the local rollers. A 1330 with an ancient MED head, Webber, EVO cam with s/c box and drops made 84. On a purely scientific basis, you shouldn't directly compare results like this, but I think it goes a long way to telling the story. It is cheap too, so perhaps worthy of giving it a go. Like Sean says if you want a bit of gruffness out of it, then you need something racier. This thing is streets ahead of an SW5 in my view for fast road use in a large bore engine, less than half the price, comes in an Ivor Searle box, and is most probably an APT/Crane profile.

Hi guys, i have to start somewhat the restoration of my 1275 cooper ''S'' mk2. Unfortunately I no longer have the original camshaft. I have to get one and I would like to have it with the same original character, but a more modern profile. What do you recommend me?

Bear in mind that bore is +40, original hs2, original exhaust but modern manifolds, large valve heads. Change ratio 3.44.

Thanks for the answers.

Geroch, worth thinking about what other engine components you might be using in the rebuild.

For example if you're going to use the forged S rockers for originality but want decent performance then you should consider a cam with 15-25% more lift at the lobe (SW5 or similar) to compensate for the relative low lift of the forged rockers. Even with offset bushes these may struggle to reach 1.25 lift ratio.

If you're happy using 1.5 ratio high lift forged rockers such as those from Minispares then my recommendation for cam profile with decent idle, really good spread of torque and lively top end would be the MD266 coupled with the Minispares '1.5' forged rockers. I am using this combination in a 1293 with pretty much standard head, twin HS2s, maniflow freeflow and twin box RC40.

Thank you for the reply carbon. I have an old 1.5 high lift forged rocker. Does the 266 have the same character as a factory engine?

Thanks

Tom

In all fairness, if you want an engine with the same characteristics as a standard engine, build a standard engine. Changing any part is going to alter these standard characteristics either for better or worse.

mk1 wrote:In all fairness, if you want an engine with the same characteristics as a standard engine, build a standard engine. Changing any part is going to alter these standard characteristics either for better or worse.

I very much agree with this.

A carefully machined and built engine goes surprisingly well, and is easy to drive.

mk1 wrote:In all fairness, if you want an engine with the same characteristics as a standard engine, build a standard engine. Changing any part is going to alter these standard characteristics either for better or worse.

I agree... unfortunately the block is what it is. I no longer have the rocker lift and the camshaft. I'm progressive. I'm not going to put the original camshaft, it's obsolete now. I do not look for performance. My question is just how to make it the same as the original, with the parts I have. If someone has the original rockers, they do not use them anymore, I gladly take them.

Fair enough, I understand where you are coming from now, I am sorry if my last answer looked a bit smug, it wasn't supposed to be.

I have attached a chart of many A Series can shafts, that allow you to compare the characteristics of one against another. For what you are after a 266 is probably a good bet, as has already been suggested. The original 1.3:1 forged rockers are available from the usual Mini parts suppliers.

I hope that this data is useful.

I have the correct 1071 from my 64 S. I have also had a SA 1100 crank restroked and ground to S size rod journals. I have also recently picked up another correct 1071 crank. Seems I should be busy building a 1071 for something. I also have a NOS 643 ST cam which seems to work well from 2000 with a little help from the CWP gears. I have also found that the 643 does not like 1.5 rockers. Steve (CTR)

once you fit a well built 1071 to a car, you wonder what all the fuss about a 1275 is...

sure, more power, but the smoothness and revability of the 1071 are just a joy

CooperTune wrote:I have the correct 1071 from my 64 S. I have also had a SA 1100 crank restroked and ground to S size rod journals. I have also recently picked up another correct 1071 crank. Seems I should be busy building a 1071 for something. I also have a NOS 643 ST cam which seems to work well from 2000 with a little help from the CWP gears. I have also found that the 643 does not like 1.5 rockers. Steve (CTR)

Which 648, the kent or the bl profile? Mine (which has got the bl profile) came alive when I fitted 1.5 rockers?

I think I said ST 643 or ST 544 depending on pump drive. I'd think the 648/649 would respond differently. Rich, my current plan is to build a street 1071 for the daily driver. If I can find a set of 6 inch rods I will build a race 1071 using the SA crank ( which was heat treated after grinding ) A+block with steel four bolt center cap. Six inch rods, 13 to 1 CR, ST 643 cam and a cyl. head ported just for the job. I have so many Weber set ups I think the splits 45 s would look the part.

I have all the CWPs, bushel basket of A and A+ 3.44s. The 3.65, 3.76, 3.9, 4.10 are the ones I suspect I may use for the street. Will be a far cry from my 2.56 finial drive in my 1360 Cooper S. Rolling along at 96 mph at 4000 rpm is a hoot. 3000 is 70 mph and wind noise gets much worse above that. I don't think a 1071 would pull the gears I currently use. Guess two maybe three cars will be required to enjoy all the different combos we can come up with. Steve (CTR)

Got word last night about a very nice 59 mini coming up for sale. 1275, 7.5 all adjustable suspension 5x10 cosmics, 008s just a very nice car. Located in PA USA.