Yeah, my Weber is a DCOE...
Laura G. and Nigel
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Altomare <MTAltomare@Prodigy.net>
To: Peter S. <alfapete@pacbell.net>; Laura Gharazeddine <Laura.G@141.com>;
Craig Smith <CraigS@iewc.com>; Terry L. Thompson <tlt@digex.net>;
<spitfires@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: BHP ?
> I don't necessarily agree about not passing the smog test with a Weber. I
> rebuilt my 1500 using a standard cam (the hi-lift cam made the engine too
> "lumpy" at idle), dual valve springs, high compression pistons, 32/36 DGV
> Weber, Mallory Unilite distributor, headers, Monza exhaust, and free flow
> catalytic converter. I added a crankcase breather using the mechanical
fuel
> pump opening and connected it through a hose to a PCV valve that is
threaded
> into the Canon manifold. I get about 10.4:1 compression (172 psig) since
> the head was milled. I passed the Georgia test with no problem. The test
> standard was 6% CO, the engine spec was 1.5% +/- 1%, and the engine put
out
> 2.5% at idle and 1.9% at 2500 rpm. I don't know what the horsepower is,
but
> I've increased it a noticable amount while keeping a smooth idle.
>
> You probably won't pass with a DCOE (racing) Weber, but the dual downdraft
> DGV gives good performance and is much easier to keep tuned than the
Zenith
> Stromberg.
>
> Michael Altomare
> '77 Spitfire 1500
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter S. <alfapete@pacbell.net>
> To: Laura Gharazeddine <Laura.G@141.com>; Craig Smith <CraigS@iewc.com>;
> Terry L. Thompson <tlt@digex.net>; spitfires@autox.team.net
> <spitfires@autox.team.net>
> Date: Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:14 PM
> Subject: Re: BHP ?
>
>
> >
> >But unlike you're arrangement, most of us have to pass some sort of Smog
> >test - which wouldn't pass with a Weber.
> >PS
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Laura Gharazeddine <Laura.G@141.com>
> >To: Craig Smith <CraigS@iewc.com>; Terry L. Thompson <tlt@digex.net>;
> ><spitfires@autox.team.net>
> >Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 8:43 AM
> >Subject: Re: BHP ?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Get rid of the Strom-it's slowin' you down, man! (besides-they're
> >> such a pain!)
> >>
> >> Really, my other spittys had the stock strom-I hated those!@#$ things!
> >> The Weber is so much easier to live with!
> >>
> >> LG and Nigel
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Craig Smith <CraigS@iewc.com>
> >> To: <Laura.G@141.com>; Terry L. Thompson <tlt@digex.net>;
> >> <spitfires@autox.team.net>
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 8:36 AM
> >> Subject: RE: BHP ?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Ok, I believe...
> >> > I have a question.
> >> > A stock MKIV
> >> > Head shaved .020
> >> > Valve job new rings, bearings
> >> > Long Flow header
> >> > Balanced Crank and Pistons
> >> > Stock Strom.
> >> > HP ???
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Laura.G@141.com [mailto:Laura.G@141.com]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:25 AM
> >> > To: Terry L. Thompson; spitfires@autox.team.net
> >> > Subject: Re: BHP ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > has anyone heard of a 1500cc Spit engine being brought above 100
hp?
> >> > > (I know a twin SU equiped spit is rated at 71 bhp without
catalyst.)
> >> >
> >> > Yes. When the engine on my car was being rebuilt, the PO had the
> >intention
> >> > of
> >> > racing it-so....it was tweaked. Remember-F1 engines used to be
> 1500-it's
> >> > not the size-it's the skill of the mechanic!
> >> >
> >> > The engine was completely taken apart. A lot of time and effort was
put
> >> into
> >> > putting it back together. (Remember-he does this for a living-and he
> >used
> >> to
> >> > build
> >> > race cars-) Combined with the headers and side draft Weber...Oil
> >> cooler...I
> >> > mean
> >> > every little detail. It's a very fast car. And there haven't been any
> >> engine
> >> > problems-
> >> > and I drive it hard. But, he and his son took it out to test it when
> >they
> >> > finished-to see if
> >> > he could "break" it-and he couldn't (and he drove it REALLY hard!)-it
> >> > redlines up
> >> > around 9500.
> >> >
> >> > I know that no one on the list believes me-so, I won't even go into
the
> >> > datails-
> >> > the answer to your question is emphatically YES-given the time, skill
> >and
> >> > money-
> >> > YES!
> >> >
> >> > Laura G. and Nigel
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > The reason I'm asking is that since an engine swap for another
engine
> >> > (289?
> >> > > 302?)
> >> > > is a very daunting task, requiring mods for frame, body,
drive-train
> >and
> >> > > suspension,
> >> > > I'm wondering how effective it would be to have another Spit engine
> >> built
> >> > > up with
> >> > > performance cam, dual point distributor, roller rocker, tubular
push
> >> rods,
> >> > > competition valves, dual valve springs, etc. (I'm specing the cost,
> >and
> >> it
> >> > > seems
> >> > > a lot more reasonable to do than to modify the car with a larger
> >foreign
> >> > > block and
> >> > > drive train.)
> >> > >
> >> > > Terry L. Thompson
> >> > > '76 Spit 1500
> >> > > Maryland
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
|