MG-Cars.info

Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.

Recommendations

Parts

MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.

MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical - Huffaker inlet manifold

For those that may be interested I have now fitted a Huffaker inlet manifold which replaces the Edelbrock performer.
First impressions are favourable with very minimal loss in low end torque offset by a healthy sting at the top end. Looks superb too.
will take some pics.

Mark
Mark


Cool!!! Why not take a BUNCH of pictures of the car and send them in to the Newsletter?

http://www.britishv8.org/British-V8-How-To-Contribute.htm
http://www.britishv8.org/British-V8-Contact-Info.htm
Curtis

I would love to have one of those instead of the stock Buick intake!
Carl Floyd

Not on a MGB but how about a 1961 edelbrock twin two barrel on a Rover

[img]http://usera.imagecave.com/devonrod/img140.jpg[/img]
Dave


That link apparently should have been: http://usera.imagecave.com/devonrod/img140.jpg

Twin carbs? How about on an Olds 215 in an MGB? http://www.britishv8.org/Photos/1998-MG-V8-3b.jpg

That's what Kurt Schley's engine used to look like. New pics are at the bottom of this page: http://www.britishv8.org/MG/KurtSchley.htm
Curtis

Heres a pic of my manifold.

http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j30/V8bloke/?action=view¤t=RIMG0015.jpg

Hope the link works

Mark
Mark

Guys,

Along the lines of unique intakes and carb configurations . . .

Does anyone have or know of a source for the Mangolesti water-heated manifold to mount four downdraught Webers or Dellorto carbs?

A picture is presented on page 64 of David Hardcastle's "Tuning Rover V8 Engines."

I've toyed with the idea of individual EFI throttle bodies. I like the look of all those intake horns. Just something different.

What you've done, Mark, is cool.

Thanks,

JB

JB

JB,

you can have a look at www.piercemanyfolds.com/catalogpages/rover.htm and click the K154.

I think this should give you the source for the pic you mentioned in david Hardcastl's book.

Hope this helps

Ralph
Ralph

Test - I keep getting a "language not acceptable" error whioch keeps me from posting my reply which contains no offensive words that I can see.

Dan Jones
Dan Jones

The test message got through but it wouldn't allow me to post again without logging in which I didn't have to do before. I wonder if the post is too long? I'll try to break it up into a couple of posts.

> For those that may be interested I have now fitted a Huffaker inlet manifold
> which replaces the Edelbrock performer. First impressions are favourable
> with very minimal loss in low end torque offset by a healthy sting at the
> top end. Looks superb too. will take some pics.

Did you port match the heads to the intake port size? The Huffaker
has considerably larger ports than a Rover or Buick 215 cylinder head.
I know of a couple of TR8's that ran Huffaker intakes on Rover 3.5L
engines. One ran poorly and the owner replaced it with an Offy Dual
Port which he prefers. With the remote thermostat housing, he had
trouble getting the cooling system bled and, on his stock engine, it
never performed to his expectations. I'm not sure how much of a problem
it was but his heads had not been port-matched to the larger port intake
manifold. If you looked down the intake port from the plenum, you could
see a lip around the cylinder head port. The other TR8 owner running the
Huffaker loves it and credits it with why his TR8 is so much faster than
similar TR8's.

I measured several of my Buick/Rover intakes and here's a comparison of
the port sizes:
port port
width height
inches inches

Buick/Olds 215 4 barrel 7/8 1 1/2
Edelbrock Performer Rover 7/8 1 9/16
Edelbrock 2 x 2 barrel 15/16 1 5/8
Huffaker single plane 1 1 3/4
Buick 300 (2 or 4 barrel) 1 1 3/4
Shelby S2MS 289 Ford 1 1/16 1 15/16

Note that the Huffaker single plane intake just happens to match the
Buick 300 port size:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album12/Buick_300_Huffaker_ports

I suspect this is not an accident and bet some of the Rover racers were
running Buick 300 cylinder heads. Here's a shot showing the difference
between Buick 300 and Rover 3.5L intake ports:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album12/Buick_300_Rover_intake_Ports

No one has ever the accused the Ford 289 port size as being too big but
note that it is bigger than even the Buick 300.

Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel

I recently picked up a Willpower single plane intake for my Buick/Rover
aluminum V8 project. I don't have any pictures of it yet but the intake
looks just like this one:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album13/Willpower_2
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album13/Willpower_1

except it has drilled bosses for injectors at the base of each port.
The injectors are oriented vertically. The ports on the Willpower
are somewhat smaller than my ported Buick 300 heads:

width height area
Buick 300 head (ported) 1.037" 1.75" 1.815 sq. in.
Willpower single plane intake (EFI) 0.966" 1.63" 1.575 sq. in.
Rover 3.9L EFI intake 0.907" 1.49" 1.351 sq. in.

The width between the two inner ports is actually a bit wider on the
Willpower than it is on the Buick 300 heads (0.197" versus 0.172").
I put both the Willpower and the Huffaker:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album13/Huffaker_front
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album13/Huffaker_side

on a flow bench to determine which was best for my project engine.
The Huffaker matches the ports better than the Willpower but the
Willpower already has injector bosses (I'll be running it as an EFI
intake eventually), a better shape on the end runners and an integral
thermostat housing (the Huffaker requires a remote thermostat housing).

Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel

Going into the test, I expected the larger ports of the Huffaker would
flow more than the Willpower. I mainly wanted to know how close the
two would be and whether or not it would be worthwhile to port the
Willpower out to match the Buick 300 heads. The heads were tested
on Dave McLain's Superflow bench in Cuba, Missouri. Each intake was
bolted to a ported 1964 Buick 300 aluminum head fitted with larger
Stage 1 Buick V6 intake and exhaust valves (1.775" head diameter for
the intake and 1.5" for the exhaust):

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album12/Buick_300_ported_stands_chambers_001
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album12/Buick_300_ported_stands_intake_ports
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album12/Buick_300_ported_stands_exhaust_ports2

On both single plane intakes, the center runners are short and straight
while the end runners are long and curved. To get representative numbers
for both port types, we tested one center port and one end port. The head
was first flowed without an intake attached to get a baseline, then re-flowed
with each intake manifold bolted in place. Also, a Holley 780 carb body
with the throttle plates at full open was bolted to the intake to represent
the pressure drop across a carb or fuel injection throttle body. I'll be
using an EFI throttle body later but have not purchased it yet. When the
heads were ported, they were tested on a Superflow bench at a 28" H2O
pressure drop. The head had a clayed intake radius but no exhaust pipe stub
was used on the exhaust. Those numbers are shown below in the 2nd and 3rd
columns. The 4th and 5th columns are the same head flowed on Dave's bench
which has a 10" H2O pressure drop. The numbers were converted mathematically
to 28" to be on a consistent basis. Note the numbers are somewhat lower than
those of the 28" bench. I'm not sure if this due in part to the pressure
drop conversion or is simply bench-to-bench variation. In any case, it
doesn't influence the results of the intake manifold tests. The Huffaker
was bolted to the head and tested first, followed by the Willpower. The
results are shown below and are best viewed in a non-proportional font like
courier:

Valve Buick 300 Ported Buick 300 Same head with Same head with
Lift 1964 head on McLain's Huffaker intake Willpower intake
(inch) aluminum flow bench center runner center runner
ported 10" numbers
Int Exh converted to 28" CFM % of CFM % of
1.775" 1.5" Int Exh bare bare
1.775" 1.5" head head
Int Exh
center
port

0.050 -- -- 26.3 22.6 26.1 99.2 27.6 104.9
0.100 66 47 56.3 51.6 55.1 97.9 56.4 100.2
0.150 99 82 86.8 75.0 87.8 101.1 89.0 102.5
0.200 129 104 115.1 98.4 117.2 101.8 119.1 103.5
0.250 155 119 140.4 114.1 141.4 100.7 142.8 101.7
0.300 174 130 158.1 125.4 160.6 101.5 160.0 101.2
0.350 187 139 171.7 134.4 169.9 98.9 167.9 98.0
0.400 191 146 179.8 140.2 170.5 94.8 172.2 95.8
0.450 194 150 181.3 143.2 172.6 95.2 174.3 96.1
0.500 196 152 182.1 144.3 173.9 95.5 175.3 96.2

Valve Buick 300 Ported Buick 300 Same head with Same head with
Lift 1964 head on McLain's Huffaker intake Willpower intake
(inch) aluminum flow bench end runner end runner
ported 10" numbers
Int Exh converted to 28" CFM % of CFM % of
1.775" 1.5" 1.775" 1.5" bare bare
end head head
port

0.050 -- -- 25.5 22.6 26.8 105.9 26.9 105.5
0.100 66 47 55.0 51.6 56.6 102.9 55.4 100.7
0.150 99 82 87.0 75.0 88.2 101.4 88.6 101.8
0.200 129 104 116.9 98.4 114.1 97.6 119.8 102.5
0.250 155 119 143.4 114.1 132.5 92.4 144.6 100.8
0.300 174 130 157.8 125.4 146.5 92.8 164.8 104.4
0.350 187 139 171.6 134.4 155.6 90.7 173.3 101.0
0.400 191 146 178.3 140.2 156.9 88.0 175.0 98.1
0.450 194 150 180.8 143.2 156.6 86.6 176.0 97.3
0.500 196 152 182.9 144.3 157.6 86.2 175.3 95.8

Despite the smaller runners, the Willpower is the better flowing manifold.
The center ports on both intakes are quite close to the head flow but
the Huffaker end ports are not as good. I think it would be worthwhile to
port just the ends of the Huffaker intake end runners with a better radius
to see if the flow loss could be recovered. There's a slight drop off in
flow as lift increases on the Willpower intake that may be due to the small
port size. The Willpower could be ported to a larger size but given how
close the intake is to the bare head flow, it's probably not worth the
trouble. The worst flows are at 96%. As a point of comparison, I've
recently flow tested a couple of Ford dual plane intake manifolds and they
were in the 75% flow range (unported) with substantial variation from
cylinder-to-cylinder. It would be interesting to test an Edelbrock
Performer dual plane on a Rover cyinder head to see what sort of pressure
drop it represents. The exhaust-to-intake flow ratio of my ported Buick
300 heads is excellent. Dave thought a bit larger itake valve, at the
expense of exhaust valve size, might make more power if it were practical.
During our tests, a 4" diameter tube was used to simulate the effects of
the cylinder wall. To see if shrouding might be a problem, the tube was
moved around (closer to the valve) but little effect was noted.

Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel

Okay, breaking up the message into three parts seem to have worked. Is there a way to preserve formatting. The BB appears to remove spaces.

Thanks,
Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel

Dan
Interesting info.
I port matched the manifold to the heads as best I could but the heads need work to make it perfect.
I am very happy with the performance of the manifold and it seems to work a lot better than the edelbrock performer on the 4.6.
I need to get it on the rolling road to see exactly what is happening with the power and torque curves.
If anything my wideband guage is showing slightly lean in the mid range compared to the performer (must be a reason ?)Leanest at 14.3 ish
Throttle response has improved especially above 2000rpm.
My first track day is next week at Cadwell park (new to me) so it will be interesting to see how it performs on the limit.
Went for a 120mile round trip on Sunday and I came back grinning from ear to ear.
I am running 235/50/15 Toyo R888 rears which just about eliminated wheel spin and would think 0 to 60mph must be sub 4 secs. Car weighs just 1000kg.

Mark
Mark


Dan wrote: "Is there a way to preserve formatting. The BB appears to remove spaces."

Dan, IMHO the very easiest and BEST way to fix the formatting issues would be to e-mail this excellently researched and written article to The British V8 Newsletter.

I'd be happy to publish it there, where it would be easier for far more people to find it in the future. (The archive on this message board isn't the easiest to use, frankly. Sadly, your previous amazing article on Weber/Edelbrock carburetors is pretty much lost... at least for now.) I'd put your data into neat tables with color-alternating rows, etc. Also, I'd integrate your outstanding photos neatly into the text.

Message boards are ideal for quick questions and quick responses, but even the best message boards aren't ideal for publishing detailed technical information.

Contact info is here: http://www.britishv8.org/British-V8-Contact-Info.htm
Curtis


p.s. this article may have a few small technical inaccuracies... but I think it helps to show what I tried to say about easy-to-read tables of data and about photos integrated right in with the text.

http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Rover-14CUX-EFI.htm
Curtis

A litle formatting & some pics, boom, an awesome article for the online British V8 Newsletter!
Carl Floyd

Another test. Tried to reply several times but nothing seems to be happenning.

Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel

> I've toyed with the idea of individual EFI throttle bodies. I like the
> look of all those intake horns. Just something different.

I'm in the middle of building just such a system:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album20?page=4
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album20?page=5
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album20?page=6
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album20?page=3

DCJ Daniel

I'm not sure what sort of hood clearance you have but there are a couple
of ways to go on a down draft independent runner system like this. The
lowest version puts the injectors in the manifold runners and uses short
stacks and low profile throttle plates like those shown here:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album20/EFI_throttle_body_pair_55mm
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album20/DSC01502

The taller version uses a TWM type throttle bodies with injector pockets
built into the throttle body:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album20/DSCF2754
DCJ Daniel

With independent runner EFI, you may want to consider a controller that
blends speed density and Alpha-N. There are three popular EFI control
schemes:

1. mass air flow
2. speed density
3. alpha-n

They differ primarily in the way they sense engine load. Speed density
systems use manifold vacuum via a MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensor
to sense load. Fuel is metered using the MAP input, engine RPM, and
volumetric efficiency tables. Mass air systems use a MAF (Mass Air Flow)
sensor to directly measure the amount of incoming air. Those sensors
typically use wires that air exposed to the air flow, though there other
approaches (flapper door, venturi, etc.). As the air flows over the wire,
it changes the voltage drop across the wire. Tables in the computer convert
the voltage drop to air mass. Alpha-N systems are the simplest, using only
RPM and throttle position to determine load. Note that a MAP sensor can be
used with Alpha-N, but it's used as a barometric pressure sensor to detect
altitude changes. You can also blend the authority of Alpha-N and speed
density by directing the authority between the throttle position sensor and
the MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensor.

Each of these approaches have pros and cons...
DCJ Daniel

Mass air systems don't handle large overlap cams well. Reversion pulses
produce an unsteady flow over the mass air meter which can lead to surging
at idle and lower RPM. A friend runs an EEC-IV mass-air based system in
his drag race Mustang and the engine has a strong surge below 3000 RPM due
to the large overlap of his cam. Wide lobe centers helps some (most 5.0L
"EFI" cams are ground on 112 degree lobe centers for this reason) and some-
times you can tune out the surge by repositioning the mass air meter relative
to the intake valve but the amount of overlap a mass air system can tolerate
is finite. Since the airflow is directly measured, mass air systems can
tolerate larger variations (in cam specs, cylinder head flow, etc.) than
speed density. However, there are still tables in the ECU that may need to
be reprogrammed. Most MAF-based systems still have speed-density modes for
when you're off the rangeof the MAF or need to go off stoich for accel/decel,
etc. The sensors will need to be recalibrated for different injector sizes.
This can be done in the sensor itself or the calibration curve in the ECU.
Mass air is particularly good for idle and emissions which is why many
OEM systems are mass air.

Speed density systems can be cheaper and more reliable than mass air systems
because they don't require mass air flow sensors. They can also make a bit
more power than mass air systems since a mass air flow sensor is a restriction
in the intake flow path. Speed density is somewhat less sensitive to cam
overlap than mass air but still has limitations as overlap can cause unsteady
vacuum readings. The size and location of the plenum can influence this. The
GM guys have used speed density with fairly hot cams, though. A vacuum
chamber to smooth out the signal helps. Speed density systems are less
tolerant to changes than mass-air systems in the engine before requiring
re-programming of the volumetric efficiency tables. The commonly available
EEC tuning tools (twEECer, PMS, etc.) don't typically support speed density
systems since the majority of Ford performance applications are mass airflow.
However, Ford's Cosworth F1 V8's ran speed density EEC-IV's for many years but
I wonder if they were running in an alpha-n mode. The situation is reversed
on the GM side and many GM guys will change from mass air to speed density.

Alpha-N is best for big lumpy cams. Most of the aftermarket EFI systems
like ACCEL/DFI, Electromotive, Haltech, BigStuff3, etc. are either speed
density or Alpha-N. Electromotive for one will allow a blend between the
two.

The type of manifolding can influence your selection of control scheme.
Speed-density does not work well on highly modified engines that lose
manifold vacuum upon any throttle opening. With independent runner
throttle bodies, throttle position is a better indication of load than a
MAP sensor once off idle. This is because a small opening in the throttle
body will cause manifold vacuum to go to atmospheric. Beyond say 10-15%
throttle opening, there is little response to a MAP. Alpha-N is the way to
go with naturally-aspirated independent runner but it doesn't do much for
part load/part throttle fuel economy. That's where it's benficial to blend
in the MAP. A friend has been running IR EFI for many years. It's been his
experience that MAP dependant ECU's don't handle IR systems (with or without
big cams) well. The MAP changes so rapidly, even with a mild cam, that at
just off throttle the MAP goes almost to atmosphere which makes the ECU think
the throttle is wide open even though the throttle position doesn't verify
that. Add in the hard to get rid of pulsations even with manifolded vacuum.
In his experience what works best is a system that can look at both throttle
position and MAP and allow you to give one or the other more authority in
different power ranges. I know some guys give throttle position all of the
authority. That works but doesn't do anything for part load/throttle economy.
Electromotive has a "Blend" mode in their software which is a function that
allows you to blend the authority between the throttle position and MAP.
John Meaney (the guy behind most of the aftermarket EFI systems like FAST
and Big Stuff3) says his latest and greatest Big Stuff3 unit allows the user
to tailor the cell width for both rpm and load (MAP or TPS%) and that by
increasing the resolution I can get the sensitivity I'm after. Still not
sure if I buy that yet.

Supercharged applications tend to have cams with less overlap so speed density
or mass air may be better. Supercharged applications using Alpha-N require a
MAP upstream of the throttle to act as a barometric compensator.

Independent runner manifolding will tame down a big cam. Since the runners
are isolated from each other, reversion from adjacent cylinders does not
foul the intake stroke, allowing a longer cam duration with a streetable
idle. Kirby Schraeder runs a PPC-sourced IR EFI system on his 377 cubic inch
Cleveland stroker (iron 4V heads with Weber lower and 48mm TWM throttle
bodies). He runs a fairly large overlap 288FDP Crower solid flat tappet oval
track cam on the street. Specs on his cam are 254/258 degrees at 0.050"
(288/294 degrees advertised), 0.569"/0.580" lift (0.022"/0.024" clearance hot)
with 105 lobe centers. That's a lot of duration and tight lobe centers for a
street car. According to Kirby, with a 700DP Holley on a Ford aluminum dual
plane intake manifold, it had a wild idle and wouldn't start pulling well
until 3000 RPM (Crower rates the cam range as 3500 to 7000 RPM). When he
installed the independent runner EFI, the first thing he said was "Where'd
my idle go?". He noted it now pulls 5th gear from 1500 RPM. Kirby also
noted it's tough staying off the 7200 RPM rev-limiter in lower gears.

Independent runner also allows tuning of the inlet tract length generally
not possible with single 4 barrel plenum type intakes. Longer runners tend
to increase low and mid-range torque at the expense of HP in higher RPM
ranges. With a converted carb intake, you're stuck with the runner lengths
cast into the intake.

Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel

> Dan, IMHO the very easiest and BEST way to fix the formatting issues would
> be to e-mail this excellently researched and written article to The British
> V8 Newsletter.

I should probably do an article on the ported heads first. Then follow up
with the intake manifold tests. Might take a while for me to get around
to it. I recently purchased a home with a big detached shop and still
haven't unpacked yet.

> Sadly, your previous amazing article on Weber/Edelbrock carburetors is pretty
> much lost... at least for now.)

I should still have a copy of it on my hard drive somewhere.

> I'd put your data into neat tables with color-alternating rows, etc. Also,
> I'd integrate your outstanding photos neatly into the text.

When you say "I'd" are you suggesting that I should do it in that manner or
that I should provide you with the source content and you'd format it?

Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel


Dan wrote: "When you say I'd, are you suggesting that I should do it in that manner or that I should provide you with the source content and you'd format it?"

As editor/webmaster, I handle all the layout issues so columnists can focus on their "content".

-C


---

Contact info is here: http://www.britishv8.org/British-V8-Contact-Info.htm
Curtis

Dan,

If you were to use the Buick 300 heads with their 54cc chambers on say a 3.9 or 4.2 engine you would have to use flat top pistons to regain some compression. Would it still not be a bit low even on a road car, I calculate about 8.15 to 1 on the 4.2 and assumably less on a 3.9.

Can the heads be machined to bring the ratio up to 9.5-10 to 1 without problems apart from mating the inlet manifold and if you could take say 40Thou of the heads how much would have to be machined off the inlet faces to allow proper alignment.

Kevin Jackson.
Kevin Jackson

DCJ Daniel,

Very interesting read.

The security block on my system would not let me access your website to take a look at the photos.

If not too much of an imposition, can I ask that you give me your e-mail address so I can contact you off-line? Thank you.

Also, an additional question. Please ellaborate on the comment: "Longer runners tend
to increase low and mid-range torque at the expense of HP in higher RPM ranges." Please explain.

Thanks Daniel!

JB
JB


> If you were to use the Buick 300 heads with their 54cc chambers on say a 3.9
> or 4.2 engine you would have to use flat top pistons to regain some
> compression. Would it still not be a bit low even on a road car, I calculate
> about 8.15 to 1 on the 4.2 and assumably less on a 3.9.

I've not run the numbers on a 3.9L or 4.2L but with a Buick 300 crank in a
215 block you get around 4.3L (266 cubes) and with Buick 300 heads you end
up a little over 9:1 with Buick 300 heads. IIRC, if you mill the heads to
47cc's, you can get around 9.75:1. Zero-decking the block will raise it
further and a thicker composite head gaskets will reduce it. Being aluminum,
you can also weld the chambers to reduce the chamber volume.

> Can the heads be machined to bring the ratio up to 9.5-10 to 1 without
> problems apart from mating the inlet manifold and if you could take say
> 40Thou of the heads how much would have to be machined off the inlet
> faces to allow proper alignment.

Typically around 25 thousands. 0.707 (the sin of 45 degrees) times
the amount you take off the heads, assuming they aligned to begin with.
However, it can also depend upon the thickness of the gaskets used and
even the intake (a smaller port intake may require less to get the roofs
aligned).

> The security block on my system would not let me access your website to take
> a look at the photos.

Just a heads up, I'm borrowing space on a friend's server and he's updating
the site so the URL's are changing. The old stuff may still be there but
will go away shortly. The new pictures are located at:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars/album10/

> If not too much of an imposition, can I ask that you give me your e-mail
> address so I can contact you off-line? Thank you.

Where do I send it? I'd rather not post it as I get enough spam as it
is.

> Please ellaborate on the comment: "Longer runners tend to increase low and
> mid-range torque at the expense of HP in higher RPM ranges."

You treat the intake as a Helmholtz resonator (think of a pipe organ).
The natural frequency goes up for a shorter or a smaller diameter pipe.
In this context the RPM drives input frequency so a shorter stack tunes
in at a higher RPM. The exhaust side is similar. Longer primary tubes
favor lower RPM and shorter favor higher RPM. Ideally, you want the
stack diameter to e slightly larger than the intake valve. Runner length
on the intake side is the distance from the intake valve face to the
bellmouth opening on a stack or the runner opening to the plenum.

Dan Jones
DCJ Daniel

Dan,

john.wells@us.army.mil

Thank you
JB

Dan,

Many thanks for the information, any recommendation for a flat top piston to fit the 94.04mm bore + poss a 20thou overbore.

Kevin.
Kevin Jackson

This thread was discussed between 16/08/2007 and 30/08/2007

MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical index

This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical BBS now