Bob

Moderator: Keith 'Supaimpy' Laming
The Nun wrote:Ive got the swivel badge on my Chamois, but to confuse the thief theres no lock behind it
Arent your thieves there Andy are more used to removing the garage roof first though to get into the car ??617sqn wrote:Well I think I can out fox this would be car thief
Andy G
On a later four headlight front panel there is a reinforcing ring welded on the back of the front panel that will located the holes for you, you just have to drill through it from the rear, Im not sure but assume so, the standard non swivel round badge is in the same place as it would be on its original Chamois grille? or is it slightly different?Dave ' Linwood ' Lane wrote:. Its not an easy mod , you have to keep the badge centered where it was to look right then work the lock around that , and thats after cutting the hole in the dummy grill
This is indeed true. That's how they stole my work tools. BA$TARDS. Perhaps I should place a Chamois badge up there tooArent your thieves there Andy are more used to removing the garage roof first though to get into the car ??![]()
Got a NOS single headlight front panel in the loft with that plinth , i think the badge is in a different place , slightly higherThe Nun wrote: On a later four headlight front panel there is a reinforcing ring welded on the back of the front panel that will located the holes for you, you just have to drill through it from the rear, Im not sure but assume so, the standard non swivel round badge is in the same place as it would be on its original Chamois grille? or is it slightly different?
The swivel badge should also be on a thick rubber plinth that spaces it outwards so the swivel doesnt foul on the grille if fitted.
Plainly ive got this tuning by ear off fairly well thenThe Nun wrote:0.4 error, So it was 3.9 then really when you set it with your ear, more accurate to the ideal than after you adjusted it with the machine ?
I thought this too , Vuskys idle is on 3.2% which is still high compared to yours however its lower than the Singer . with the Singer on 3.5% it ran fine but needed ages before i could get it off fast idle ( choke is only needed for starting ) , i found this annoying , set on 4% fast idle can come off in a mile or so .Maybe its the SU / Weber difference however Im sure your engines are in far better state than mine :)Im also sure mine wouldnt even idle on 0.75% COLotus-e-Clan wrote:
I think a CO of 4.0 (AFR = 13.0) is a little rich for idle.
My 1040 idled at 14.2:1 (CO = 0.75%)
Currently my 875 Sport engine with the same DHLAs idles at 13.9:1 AFR (1.5% CO) ..and I was feeling guilty about it being a tad rich compared to the 1040!![]()
Possibly, however on twin SUs altering the idle mixture also alters the mixture right across the rev range so by going to 2.5% id be weakening it everywhere which would then entail more needle research etc etc as the mixture is spot on above idle . Vusky did 50.9 MPG on the way to national a few years back , that aint badLotus-e-Clan wrote:TBH it's the ignition side that allows mine to run smooth with a lot less fuel.
Mapped ignition with the twin coil pack provides a big, fat, very consistently-timed, spark - plus iridium plugs help too.
I reckon you should be able to get it to idle OK @ 2.5% CO (AFR 13.5) ( and save a bit of fuel).
Good point. You were probably on the money when you said it was more achievable with DHLAs.Dave ' Linwood ' Lane wrote:Possibly, however on twin SUs altering the idle mixture also alters the mixture right across the rev range so by going to 2.5% id be weakening it everywhereLotus-e-Clan wrote:TBH it's the ignition side that allows mine to run smooth with a lot less fuel.
Mapped ignition with the twin coil pack provides a big, fat, very consistently-timed, spark - plus iridium plugs help too.
I reckon you should be able to get it to idle OK @ 2.5% CO (AFR 13.5) ( and save a bit of fuel).
So for best economy NOx rockets upLotus-e-Clan wrote: Good point. You were probably on the money when you said it was more achievable with DHLAs.
As a general point of interest - don't you find it amusing that modern lean-burn engines produce more health-damaging NOx than most classic rich-burn engines (Imp included) which stuggle to idle above 13.5:1 (less than 2.5% CO) . Look at the first Toyota Chart and how NOx peaks for lean burn engines running AFRs around 16:1 (CO less than 0.5%). The EU should ban lean-burn engines from city centres and allow only much-healthier classics!![]()
Ouch , my old radically tuned 5 pot Quattro would go to single figure MPG if really ragged617sqn wrote:No, that's very good. My mildly tuned 3550 Rover SD1V8 (plus my lead foot) used to give 28 on a run, but more usually about 12 mpg !
Great sound, though![]()
Andy G
Zackly. That's why it had to go. Sad day, but.... I bought Rover 600ti instead. Fab car, very underrated. It would have been an "MG" back in the day. That had been tuned by the previous owner and was supplied with rolling road readouts at 220 bhp. Pretty quick for a plain looking sleeper. Rear arches went though and weren't available.totally unaffordable
What an ingenious tuning mechanism Rootes provided there...Dave ' Linwood ' Lane wrote:The Singers engine lid vibrates slightly when its up and the mixtures not bang on - an easy way for me to tell if its moved at all.
No , obviously electricery isnt free but its not much , il work it out later in HP617sqn wrote:Not knowing any better, Dave, but I guess you can't get summat for nowt, so will it take mega bhp to run it ?
Andy G
TBH Ive no idea , im guessing the batteries AH rating plays a part and of course its RC ( Reserve capacity ), its state of charge and its age .Having a battery with a large RC would mean you could keep going longer with no charging . The alternator only pumps out what the battery needs to stay charged and supply the cars needs , no more and no less .617sqn wrote:I see. Very informative.... how does the alternator output relate to battery size ? For example, if its better to have extra capacity in the alternators generating capability, does the same go for the size of your electron storage facility ?
Andy G
Probably so , cut in on this is really low - see post abovejohnh875 wrote:I dare say it is fair to say that the alternator has much better efficiency than the old generator, and would take less power to drive even with the higher output?
Also the cut-in rpm would be for the alternator, so below idle speed for the engine when installed?
no extra wire , its all trickery . For example lets say 10 turns of 1mm wire so 10 wires per slot gives 40A , so if you put in 5 turns of 1mm wire but run two in parallel its still 10 wires per slot but the output as gone up to 60A , 3turns and 3 in parallel and it goes up again , the combinations are endless however the more you get out the higher the cut in speed so it wont start charging until much higher up the rev range .African Imp wrote:Dave, how many meters of extra wire went into the third stator you made up?
More than would normally be used or is it another trick?
stator is the output , the rotor controls the voltage so winding that would do nothing to the volts , the rotor would need changing to get the 12V you want.African Imp wrote:Dave, Thanks, I think I have the grasp of what your talking about?![]()
Can you tell me why the Aerogen 4 wind generator stator that I have is 24 volt and not the 12 volt that I required at the time?
Windings or wire numbers? etc etc.