Page 1 of 1

Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:46 pm
by Vegard
I just tried to start my freshly built 1293 race engine. I tried two starters and they both really struggled with a fresh battery. Should I expect starting my 12:1 CR engine with a SW23 cam with a Lucas starter?

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:53 pm
by ivor badger
Why not, lots of people have including the works team. The works minis used a slightly different starter with heavier internals from another vehicle. Something like M35G (?), I did some checking once and it came off something like an MG ZA.

Check the terminal connections and the commutator brushes.

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:55 am
by Red1967
No the older starters are not strong enough on higher CR. You need a good starter to crank over the engine fast enough. I have a pre A+ 1293 with 10.8:1. I burnt out the old starter pretty quick. It would cut out before the engine fired. I bought this one from Mini Mania C-GEU9404. Never had an issue. Engine turns over beautifully. They have a verto model too.

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:24 am
by 66S
I have not had problems with the old M35G bit the later M35J's are a bit hopeless.

Al

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:56 am
by Chalkie
alot of the turbo boys use High torque starter motors to fire there cars up

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:54 am
by ivor badger
RidingLow wrote:alot of the turbo boys use High torque starter motors to fire there cars up
Since you use low static CR in a turbo, why would there be any problem for it with the starter. Used the standard Lucas starter for years with 12.5/1. It just needs to be in good condition.

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:10 am
by Chalkie
ivor badger wrote:
RidingLow wrote:alot of the turbo boys use High torque starter motors to fire there cars up
Since you use low static CR in a turbo, why would there be any problem for it with the starter. Used the standard Lucas starter for years with 12.5/1. It just needs to be in good condition.
I know but its what they use though

Madmk1 he used one on his old 1293 :) before he went turbo unless hes still using it not sure

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:20 pm
by guru_1071
just get a std starter rewound 9v, pov spec crbeatrz!!!


they dont last to long though! :lol:

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:39 pm
by scooperman
Vegard, one odd thing was that the old Lucas starter would spin my race motor OK when it had the distributor, but when I went to wasted-spark crank-triggered ignition, that caused the engine to kick the inertia drive out of the flywheel before it would start. Then I got some old Honda Civic gear-reduction starters from the junkyard and made them fit the Mini bell housing, big improvement. 1989 Isuzu Trooper 2.6L starters are supposed to fit perfectly, the next time I need one that's what I will try.

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:44 am
by Austin Cooper
The reason people, like myself, use hi-torque starters in turbo minis is to save space, not because they need them. My engine with 8.3:1 compression starts very easily with a standard starter. I'm using a Brise one as the solenoid is on the end and the casing can be rotated so the terminal is in the position you want. This is very useful when you are trying to use a front mounted radiator and find space for all the pipework. It's all a bit irrelevant to this topic anyway, but I just thought I'd clear that up.

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:36 pm
by atlanticdave
1380 11:5:1 cr killed 2.5 starters, fitted a wasp Hi Torque had no issues since, also fitted one to my friends TR4A, has made a huge difference to that fires up with little effort now compared to what it used to be, no more fingers crossed moments.

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 pm
by Pete
Anyone used the Powerlite one ? Quite a bit cheaper than Brise though slightly heavier. (There again I've just saved thirty odd kgs taking off by Hornet bonnet and boot lid so not too concerned !)
http://www.autoelectricsupplies.co.uk/p ... tegory/139

Is it the same as the one Shifty sells ?

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:46 pm
by In the shed
One of the local chaps in the village was into mini racing in the very beginning. They had something like a 14.5:1 engine which needed a tow to start it!

I've never had any problems with any starter on all sorts of engines. Apart from the one I had to whack with the handle of a hammer!

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:03 am
by Spider
The Lucus Starters are not brilliant at the best of times, but when in good condition should easily turn over engines up to 12.5:1 with stock cam profiles.

Most of the time when they get like yours is, the front bush (as in bearing type bush) has worn. Try turning the whole starter motor over 180 degrees and bolting it back in, not a fix wut if it works, you'll know the problem.

There are starter motors from 4 cylinder Isuzi Cars that just about fit right in, just need to file the holes closer together. Cheap at the wreckers and last forever.

Re: Standard starter vs. CR

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:28 pm
by sracing
Lucas starters are Ok, though its worth watching out for dodgy remanufactured starters when buying a new one. The Powerlite starters are of the gear reduction type. One of the biggest benefits is that they draw considerably less current and are also more powerful. I believe Powerlite use the 1KW unit which will spin any engine regardless of compression etc, hot or cold. I have fitted Powerlite starters to several different cars, problems all solved.