Yes, and that's fine if you are building a turbo. As we go with bigger overbores getting the C/R down becomes a problem. I recently had to reshape combustion chambers to get a couple of CCs. I do not like sinking the valves to get there.

Steve (CTR)

The unskimmed 295 head is perfect for a turbo engine.

Jean

Just me but I'm not fond of any of the exhausts that have a flare with clamp connection. I do use the SPI cast with Maniflow down pipes on large bore units but they are hard to find and if run hot they tend to warp. They require a little port work and matching to look the high flow part. My 1360 Cooper S has one and you have to grind a ton of metal off the back of a pre A+ block to get in on. The front tappet cover breather has to be worked as well. The O2 hole does not accept a wide band sensor so that has to be machined out also. I like the bolt up flange on this one. The early 90s carbed coopers had a cast LCB also but it had two of the flanged clamped connections. The one . maniflow LCB with a professional coating works fine and in a Choke the sound will not be an issue.

Steve (CTR)

I have been told the 90's spi cast iron exhaust manifold flows as well if not bettter than some aftermarket headers and the big benefit is they are plug and play and quieter whereas the aftermarket ones are usually "not quite" to spec with crap workmanship and require a little work to make them right.

If you chop the inlet off, the standard cast iron exhaust manifold is actually pretty good.
Combined with a Maniflow magic-pipe and an RC40 it works perfectly well and is much easier to live with than an LCB.

Can't help but wonder if we scared the orginial poster away with all the fuss. As stated engines are no more than air pumps. The 1 pc. intake exhaust manifold with the funky connection is the first draw back. With a real tube type exhaust and seperate intake you can get air and fuel in and out. A proper size exhaust system from there on back can't hurt. On the late 998 heads the ports are very small. I'd have no desire to do that much grinding. The 295 heads have correct size ports but the chambers are way to big for a good compression ratio. Current machine shop rates skimming the head would be in the $100 range if not more. Most are 40 years old or more. The 940 heads I have been buying need a couple of guides, hard exhaust seats, new valves and springs. I like to do a little port work on the exhaust side and clean up the bowls. With all that has been done with camshafts over the last few years we can pull a lot from the small bore units.

Maybe yowzaa will let us know how his project is coming along.

Steve (CTR) 

Head, exhaust system, carb(s), cam (if you want to) in that order should create a decent pulling 998 engine that honestly will be tougher than a 1275 imo.

I've got a fairly well warmed-up 998 and I'm building another engine that'll be just a whee-bit warmer.  Tons of fun, and I don't regret a penny.  Heck, the money invested isn't why we have classic minis anyways, it's the fun of having them. 

I haven't got the Hamill book, though I did skim through a copy a few years ago.  Didn't think it was much cop, and the Trickey books combined with the Vizard books are a much better bet.

Modded small bore engines are fantastic fun, and generally more reliable than 1275s - they can certainly be revved to valve bounce more often without having issues !

I'm sure those small bore race engines cost more than what is wanted to be spent. And it is always prudent to check for a dead hooker in the boot when looking at a car. You pointed out one sentence in the entire post (which the person asking didn't have a problem with) to make your point. You no doubt read the rest of the post that was dedicated to helping. I see why we are having problems now. It's ok to share opinions as long as no "clowns" push your buttons. I agree my post didn't help. But it was intended for comic relief and to make a point. It was pretty tame compared to other responses I find on here.

I just can't believe you think it's ok to revert to name calling.

Yowzaa probably stopped watching this topic long ago. I'm following suite. Good day.

And again you miss the point.

You are quick to share your opinion when it was not asked for. There may be better options for you but that does not mean they will appeal to the original poster. Nothing wrong with wanting a more powerful 850 or 998 (if that is what yowzaa is looking for). And there are plenty of options using factory parts along with aftermarket bits to increase the output of the small bore "dinosaur". Stop and think for a moment about the number of small bore race cars (open wheeled and full body) that were built over the years, there is HP to be found.

I did take a quick look at a few of your posts and found when you are asking the questions everything is on topic. And when lending a hand your recommendation was to check for a dead hooker in the boot.

If you like please look some of my posts over and I think you will find these responses to you are out of character for me. Generally I keep a low profile and help or seek help when I can. I really try to stay clear of the drama and politics that pops up every now and then. But for some reason your input on this thread just pushed my button so I pushed back.

Sorry for derailing your thread yowzaa.

John

A lot of people here try to help, which is great, but they don't tackle the root problem. If he wants a fast car there are better options than spending money on the mini engine. There's only so much that can be done with it. I'm not the one that started the name calling, but I am the one warning there are better ways to make a mini go faster than working with the dinosaur in the bonnet. The mini in it's stock form is not or ever intended to be fast. Aftermarket parts are needed for that.

Look at my other posts. They are all serious and helpful. Thank you for exagerating my statements, John.

I did not see where yowzaa was asking for opinions, only a simple request for a book or where it could be found. Your post was out of line. I can just imagine a muscle car owner giving the same attitude to a Mini owner wanting to build up their little weak 1275 lump. Why bother when you could build up a 454ci big block? Why even waste time and money on such a funny little car?

There have been many clowns on this board in the past and I dont see a need for another.

John

I owned a copy at one time (and may still have it, I will try to locate). It has been several years since I first cracked the book open. I was very disapointed with the content I found. If recall correctly most of the engine build information gave tips on adapting a large bore 12g940 cylinder head to a small bore A+ bottom end? Not really what I would consider "Power Tuning an 850-1000 A-series".

I will take a look for my copy and let you know if I find it.

John

Here in the US we get away with about anything. There are places where the engine size makes a big difference in insurance costs. Building 60/90 hp engines on a small platform is a hoot. Have you tried to buy a half dozen 1275 core engines lately? My 1360 with 2.56 finial drive ratio spins the tires in the dry if I'm not careful. In the wet there is nothing to do but buzz them. I'm thinking a 998 is in my future. Carry on.

Steve (CTR) 

I have it on my shelf, and as Coopertune says " There is far more BS, misinformation and cute answers here than hard facts." Yes, I know he was talking about this forum, but it applies equally to the book in question. My copy is heavily marked up and stikky noted because, it seems, it was self-edited by Hammill, who is not a technical writer. It does contain a lot of serious errors which I pointed out to the publisher, who confirmed that they were acting basically like Hammill's vanity press. It also appears that they pay by the word since there is an apalling amount of blatant repetition between sections.

The book violates the fundamentals of technical writing:

• Never say in a paragraph what can be said more clearly in a bullet list
• Never say in writing what can be shown in a table
• Never show numbers in a table that can be shown in a graph
• Never say in a words what can be shown in a figure or photograph.
• Always credit your sources

The last bullet refers to the fact that Hammill pulled from other works without acknowledging them. In particular, chapters 13 and 15 are essentially based on my work on ignition and clutches!

Seriously, how can you publish a book about engine building without an engine build sheet? The specs are peppered around the manuscript and never pulled together in one place which means to make any use of the work, the reader has to build the table himself, and that’s just stupid.

I’m not saying the book is worthless, there is a lot of good information here, and it does build on the work of others (ie, Tricky and Vizard), but it’s hardly a complete treatise on the subject of engine building. Whereas Vizard’s work from 30 years ago (!) completely missed the subject of valve train geometry, Hammill acknowledges that any change in the design of the engine necessitates a correction in valve train geometry, but he got it wrong in the end. He also does not seem to be aware of bearing crush and how to check it during a build.

For what you are doing you can get everything you need on modification from Vizard’s last book, for tolerances from the factory manual, and the good stuff from Voegelin’s Engine Blueprinting.

Basically, all you are trying to do is improve volumetric efficiency. That's it. You do that by careful cylinder head work, detailing the inlet manifold, setting up the mechanical geometry exactly right for your engine formula, then optimizing the ignition on a dyno. This all takes a lot of time and money, but there's nothing like a non-tempramental, calm, strong running engine to make your Sunday drive more enjoyable.

Finally, I'm an official member of the peanut gallery! I want my first poistion to be that of shenanigan organizer.

Don't be such an emo. My point was this: Why would you want to try to soup up a 35 HP engine? So you will have a slightly more powerful weak engine? If you want performance and speed it needs to be a different platform than a 998 or 850. All that time and money you'll spend will go for naught when a Toyota Sienna pulls away from you at a light. Let the mini engine be what it's supposed to be.

Man, don't you know where you are? There is far more BS, misinformation and cute answers here than hard facts. While I have had some of his books I don't think I ever saw that one. I do have Clive Tricky's 850 book. If I might suggest all those books are very dated. We are living in a very interesting time for the small bore A series. I'm currently building a 1000 for a customer and we hope to pull something like 60 HP out of it. If this works out well I plan to build the next one to 1070 cc + - spec and look for closer to 90 hp. If you are in Japan it will be just as easy to get your stuff out of OZ. That's where a lot of this info and parts is coming from. I'm a old school kind of guy till you show me numbers I can't resist. My thread " Baby Cooper S anyone? " will have some pictures as soon as cosmowog gets back from the track.

In your last thread you mentioned the head you bought was not srfaced. If you are building a turbo that would be a good thing. Consider the 295 head was designed for a 1100 and to get compression up on a 998 they used dome pistons. There are none of those any longer. These little motors depend on compression to make power. 10 to 1 is a good target. At that the timing and fuel needs to be correct. You can e mail me direct if you like.

Steve (CTR)

Edit: sorry this is a much newer book than what I was thinking about. Any of Vizards books will help you with the basics and the latest stuff about pistons and cams may still be newer than this book.

//www.amazon.com/How-Power-Tune-Rover-850-1000/dp/1901295265/ref=sr_1_44?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339936305&sr=1-44&keywords=Des+Hammill 

//www.biblio.com/9781901295269

Seriously, it is available at Amazon.com and other places and it looks like they want some serious cash for it.  I did check my bookshelf and I have the one for the 1275.

It was a serious question otherwise I would have asked comments from the peanut gallery.