BiTurbo228

Very nice. What does it do, cut ignition whe the clutch dips or something?

Interested to see what the exhaust sounds like. I was sizing up different options for mine when the headgasket blew...

Maybe it's just the Triumph cams both myself and another chap on Sideways have measured, but neither of us could get any aspect of any cam we tried to line up with any aspect of its advertised duration at any lift figure. The only thing that bore any resemblance was the advertised max lift. The conclusion people came to was that the advertised specs were mainly designed for advertising purposes, and to make sure anyone that tried to copy the specs makes a scrap cam. Maybe it's just UK cam manufacturers that are cagey about it. It would be good to corroborate that against other cams to see if it's a universal thing. It's easy enough to do. Couple of v blocks on the bearings, dial gauge and a degree wheel.

Yeah you don't want fine threads into ally. Ask anyone who's attempted to do up Triumph semi-trailing arm studs (which also have the problem of being too small). If you were masochistic you could helicoil them to M12x1.25. That would work alright. Oh, and annoying that the skew in the part is away from the drain plug. Someone hasn't thunk that through...

I used to think some stuff was impossible to weld, then I started watching this guy and realised it was just that some things are impossible for me to weld Though I do get it. Would have to cut out and rebuild a lot of the head to get to where it needs welding together (or do it with a stupid tiny TIG torch in the ports, no idea if they even make those). Just an excuse to post an Allen Millyard video really...

Very interesting wizardry. I've found that it's quite useful to actually measure a cam lobe rather than rely on advertised duration. Especially with aftermarket cams, they seem to prioritise advertising numbers that sell over any sort of relevance to the shape of the lobe itself. There's also some impact of the rocker geometry (though less so in moderns). Best to actually measure the movement of the valve over a rotation as that's what the engine actually sees. Also, it tickles me that while manufacturers experiment with Atkinson cycles to improve emissions and fuel economy...you're doing it because your throttle stepper motors are junk and don't synchronise properly.

I'm conflicted as to whether I want to see the high port make more power or not. On the one hand it would be great to see it unlock a new level of 4AGE power and justify all the work that's gone into them. On the other hand, if it makes more power it means you'll have to keep working on them... Something else capping the power makes sense though. As you say, they are very similar indeed despite having very different ports. I suppose if you do get them making more power by changing something else it would be worth testing that on the standard engine to see if that's capped somehow too. And at that point it might make sense to weld the inserts in to stop any leaking issues.

Oh I would have absolutely nil tolerance for shenanigans like that.

Man this thing is going to be hectic 👍

Yeah agreed, I usually struggle through his videos for that reason. But yeah, looking at rod length of various different applications it's clear that it's pretty much the very first thing to get compromised in any given application, so it can't matter all that much. That's my take anyway.

I bumped into Damo on faceache and we were discussing this. His engine's an '89 build date for a '90 registration, but comes from Japan. The UK spec of that year won't have a cat (and thus no O2 sensor) but we couldn't get an official answer on whether a Japanese spec car would have done. Interwebs says that Japan started mandating catalytic converters in the 70s so it may well have done, but no idea if that extended to import cars. Probably. Who knows. Not me. The guy who makes the Andy Bracket (Andy, funnily enough) has stopped making them. But he didn't patent anything so others have started selling them. The ones sold by Simply Performance and co only fit the late 93/94 AJ6s, though you can shim them to fit the earlier cars (I think it's shimming the sensor up a bit, but I don't know for sure). Supposedly there's a 'David Marks Garage' in Nottingham that does 3D printed ones that fit the earlier cars. I'd expect it's something that one of the Oldschool CAD wizards could knock up exceptionally easily. It's literally just a bracket that moves the crank position sensor 5 degrees round to advance the timing. There's boatloads of carbed AJ6s running in the Jaguar grassroots racing series here in the UK. Some on triple Webers, others on bike carbs. But yeah, simplest option is to just do a bit of wiring. Early stuff like this really isn't rocket science.

If it's one of those bead rollers like I've got then they benefit from some reinforcement. Even with this it spreads apart when trying to run a bead on anything thicker than 0.9mm. it does work, just a pain. I need to make some bolt-in braces at different positions along the jaws to beef that up a bit.

My X1/9 was a hoot with the Uno Turbo engine, even at only 1 bar and 130hp (if that, it had a fair bit of blowby). Definitely felt like the power the car should have come with. Yours should be around that as standard too shouldn't it?

Are we sure it's not piston stuck in the bore then crank tore the rod apart? Probably not, but could be. I suppose you could test the failure point for the rods. At ~9k rpm there's about 2.5 tons of force on the downward swing of the rod. So pop a bar through the little end and suspend a female Indian elephant from the other, then see what gives way first.

I have found peppermint oil works, but you need to keep reapplying it.