General UT mk1 bits with mk2 bits?

[the mk1 kid]

All rev's and no torque!

Tom

 

[Efini]

it'll poke on tho you know it :slayer: still, mines a pipedream until i can find the gear linkages, seem to have sourced the rest, just need prices from you guys please dont hurt me, im skint but still want uno power

 

[Efini]

ive found a whole mk1 ut but i need somewhere to store the car while i strip it for bits then cut it up (sorry). and its soooooo cheap!

tom call me within the hour if you have any bright ideas as to where i could store it for a max of 2 weeks while i pilage it

 

[SteveNZ]

Mk2 ports are round and the mk1's are oval..?

Mk1's are safe for short periods of time to 7.7K so i've heard. You would obviously need to make sure it had the fuel to support that, i'm referring to the balance of parts.

Tom

Mk1 ports are round but have a "slot" for the injector. The area where the air flows through is still basically round as the injector gets in the way of the slot.

I dont believe replacing the injector with alloy will make much difference, thats essentially what is happening when using a mk2 manifold on a mk1 head. I did this and it made good power.

7.7K RPM? Id like to know where this "accurate" numbers come from. 7.7K assumes accuracy to 100rpm. Anyway, ive seen engines rev to 7.5 constantly and they are fine. A guy I know use to take his to 9K all the time and its still living. I dont recommend doing that. There is no need to rev a turbo so high.

 

[the mk1 kid]

As the air is under pressure its going to make use of all the cross sectional area of the port, the head is oval where it meets the inlet isn't it? If it is, then sticking a round inlet on it wont do you any favours, you might as well get the demel out and spend 10 min matching it.

''so i've heard'' doesn't deserve ''accurate'' - i didn't suggest for one minute it was gospel.

Perhaps i could have said 7.5k, (thus implying accuracy to 500rpm) but i didn't, i quoted what i had heard. IMO you cant change what you hear, then quote it, there's no point in doing that at all.

What rpm would you say the mk1 is safe to run at for unsustained periods of time?

****************

Justin - you cant store it at my house i'm afraid, my folkes wouldn't even entertain the idea! Sorry

Tom

 

[SteveNZ]

As the air is under pressure its going to make use of all the cross sectional area of the port, the head is oval where it meets the inlet isn't it? If it is, then sticking a round inlet on it wont do you any favours, you might as well get the demel out and spend 10 min matching it.

''so i've heard'' doesn't deserve ''accurate'' - i didn't suggest for one minute it was gospel.

Perhaps i could have said 7.5k, (thus implying accuracy to 500rpm) but i didn't, i quoted what i had heard. IMO you cant change what you hear, then quote it, there's no point in doing that at all.

What rpm would you say the mk1 is safe to run at for unsustained periods of time?

****************

Justin - you cant store it at my house i'm afraid, my folkes wouldn't even entertain the idea! Sorry

Tom

N/A or turbo the port shape is just as important. The mk1 does not have an oval port shape when the manifold is fitted. The port shape is more round as the injector tip takes up the slot area that makes it oval. what you get is a round port exiting the manifold, which flows into an oval port in the head. My point is if you fit a mk2 manifold on a mk1 head, its not going to be any worse than the mk1 head amd manifold. I would argue that the mk2 manifold and head has a better overall port shape between the head and manifold. Maybe why they used it. You can match them up if you like, I looked at this with great detail when I did the conversion on my mk2. I decided its not worth the trouble. If you were to match them up I would weld the oval slots in the head to a round port and match it to the mk2 manifold. not the other way around (make the mk2 manifold oval) it will just create a high pressure, low velocity zone as the air needs to expand to go through the oval part of the port.

About the RPM, 7.7K just sounds like pub talk, there is no evidence to suggest its valid. It does not seem any more plauseable than any other number ive heard. I dont believe you need to put a figure on it.

I dont believe you will have a failure under an unsustained 8K limit. Just keep in mind the higher the RPM the higher the wear rate and risk of failure.

To get the engine making good power over 6500rpm takes a lot of work anyway. you'll find most high boosted 200HP Uno's will probably make peak power around 6-6.5 anwyay. Mine made peak power at 7K with low boost. turn the boost up, peak power dropped to about 6K even though it made another 20kw or so.

 

[the mk1 kid]

Hi,

Thing is with mk1 and mk2 i guess for that matter is, there is very little data about failures caused by high revs and therefore suggested figures are in most causes going to be peoples opinions. I respect the opinion of the person who said keep below 7.7k to be on the safe side. I also respect your figure of 8k, both make sense from a logical point of view. The mk1 was given a rev limiter from the factory and both figures are approx 10% higher that the limiter on the mk2. We know with every thing in life assuming Fiat designed a 10% safety is not unreasonable.

Re port matching; its free, takes 10min and if you're rebuilding an engine, and is Justin's case the entire car, not doing it would be plain lazy IMO.

Tom

 

[Efini]

i still need the bits tho :bang:

sprayed the other colour on my mini last night. looks feckin ace!!!

tom, check the project section on sw-pc

 

[Efini]

right, all i need is a mk2 block, gearbox, loom, ecu and afm.

i found the gearlinkages, gearstick housing, and hopefully mk2 driveshafts in a car being broken, i just need to get them off the car but the engine and gearbox is being kept by the owner