madforfishing
|
| posted on 10/11/03 at 07:01 PM |
|
|
Mk II 1300 v. 1600 ?
Gentlemen, I am the fortunate position of owning 2 engines at present.
First one is a rebuilt 1300 from a Mk II that had done about 68k before rebuild.
Second one is a 1600 from a 'granny owned' MkII Ghia...untouched with around 38k on it.
My question is, in your opinion is it worth pulling out the 1300 that is in (but with the head off) or pulling it out and dropping in the 1600?
It'd be nice if someone had tried both and could say yeh or neh, all things considered.
Having never actually checked, will the 1600 drop straight in or is it longer, deeper, higher, same mounts ?
Thanks all.
|
|
|
|
|
rell
|
| posted on 10/11/03 at 07:14 PM |
|
|
i would go for the 1600.
someone had put one in after a 1300 and thay said it was a much beter drive
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 10/11/03 at 07:17 PM |
|
|
The 1600 block is almost identical to the 1300, with just 0.5 - 1.0 inches of extra height at the top. The mounts are identical.
I'd change to the 1600, given the chance (and the lower mileage is also A Good Thing.)
Hope that helps!
David
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 11/11/03 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
Concur with the above statements, much better to have a bigger capacity engine as ther is potential to extract more power if you want to tweak it
later.
|
|
|
Project7
|
| posted on 11/11/03 at 01:27 PM |
|
|
To Quote Henry Ford
'Theres no substitute for cc'
|
|
|
UncleFista
|
| posted on 11/11/03 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
Have a look at Rob Lanes site, he mentions his impressions of changing from a 1.3 to a 1.6.
site here
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
|
|
|
madforfishing
|
 posted on 12/11/03 at 09:24 PM |
|
|
Thanks for your replies Gents.
I think I will drop in the 1600.
Only now I have a spare 1300 + Box + Diff.
Standby for an Ad on 'For Sale / Wanted'
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 12/11/03 at 09:55 PM |
|
|
I also started with a mk 2 1300 x flow,
It seemed ok so just new oil and bits. then in the car
I thought it would be ok but alsas It gave up after 3 months , so in went a 1600, what a difference, no comparison at all
I can not say for sure but I would have thought even a mildley tuned 1300 could not compete with a 1600
my car now has a 1700 stage 3 lightened balanced etc with twin 40's , and my acceleration times must be around twice as quick than the 1300
with standard carb
only good side of a 1300 is cheap tax, and you could sell the engine to the racing boys
steve
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 13/11/03 at 12:51 AM |
|
|
you must have had a rubbish 1300 engine then!
NO, before people start THE only sensible crossflow option is to fit a 1600 engine - although I reckon most of the top Locost racers now have standard
1300 engines that are built well enough to seriously worry most 1600 x-flow engined kit cars - carbs allowing obviously.
|
|
|
