Page 1 of 2

Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:38 pm
by bazyerma
Hi all

Now I have upgraded my breaks, it's time for more power.

Until I decide to go electric I want to go mad Max with a supercharger poking out the bonnet.

Was thinking of modifying the classic mini kits online and using a HS8 carb and a decompression plate. (Or a modern mini supercharger from a breaker's)

Anyone done this to a classic mini and had good service from any supplier?

Regards

Barry

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:59 pm
by cliftyhanger
Honestly I wouldn't bother. Last OHV fitted with a modern supercharger I know of snapped its crank, and that was a better 1300 unit to start with. 1500 struggle with cranks at 90bhp, a supercharger will shove a shedfull of low-down torque into the mix.
http://www.gt6.ca/josh/supercharged.html

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:08 pm
by Carledo
What Clive said! Best to start with a crank NOT made of cheese (a shorter stroke would help too)

I too would love a supercharged motor (turbo is SO last century) but i'd start with a turbo motor so the bottom end is tough enough, something like a Vauxhall Z20LET.

Steve

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:13 am
by cleverusername
If you want more power it would be cheaper and easier to simply do a Sprint conversion. You will need to change your diff anyway, I believe that a TR7 engine can lunch the standard diff on a 1500 and you're gearbox is pretty marginal as well.

Still if you really want to do it and you have got money to burn, I would look up what others have done to make the 1500 reliable. Now some people say that the metal used in the crank was downgraded as a cost cutting measure when they made the 1500 others say that is bollocks. What is differently true is the 1500 is a long stroke engine. Longer stroke means that the pistons accelerate more on the top and bottom of the stroke, meaning greater force and more stress on the engine. Combine that with a 3 bearing crank, the oil overheating if run at high revs for too long and the result can be bits of the engine making a bid for freedom.

What people do to try and overcome this is rebuilding the engine, balancing it and fitting an oil cooler. All of this involves finding a friendly machine shop and is going to cost coin. Plus whether any of it would be enough to make a reliable engine, that could take power increases, I have no idea.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:29 am
by cliftyhanger
cleverusername wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:13 am If you want more power it would be cheaper and easier to simply do a Sprint conversion. You will need to change your diff anyway, I believe that a TR7 engine can lunch the standard diff on a 1500 and you're gearbox is pretty marginal as well.

Still if you really want to do it and you have got money to burn, I would look up what others have done to make the 1500 reliable. Now some people say that the metal used in the crank was downgraded as a cost cutting measure when they made the 1500 others say that is bollocks. What is differently true is the 1500 is a long stroke engine. Longer stroke means that the pistons accelerate more on the top and bottom of the stroke, meaning greater force and more stress on the engine. Combine that with a 3 bearing crank, the oil overheating if run at high revs for too long and the result can be bits of the engine making a bid for freedom.

What people do to try and overcome this is rebuilding the engine, balancing it and fitting an oil cooler. All of this involves finding a friendly machine shop and is going to cost coin. Plus whether any of it would be enough to make a reliable engine, that could take power increases, I have no idea.
My tuned 1500 made 91BHP on the rollers. That was VERY carefully built, fully balanced etc. That crank lasted about 3K, died at Goodwood on teh pit straight at 6000rpm. Replaced crank/shells three times more, one of which was when an oil filter blew off so not the fault of the design, but when I swapped to a TR7 engine, same power on paper, it was quicker and more economical. Now changing to sprint power...
If you want something with real power, either a sprint (best on webers etc) or a=swap to a modern powerplant. I have done that in my spit. About 180bhp, seems bombproof, and cost was "about " £1500 in parts. £350 for and engine plus new bearings/rings/gaskets, £250 gearbox, £750 ecu, £150 fuel system (I used bike throttle bodies, used fuel pump and so on)

Reckon my sprint engine will cost me £850 or so by the time the engine is built. That will be std so about 125bhp. Should be a decent engine though.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:06 am
by cleverusername
cliftyhanger wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:29 am
cleverusername wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:13 am If you want more power it would be cheaper and easier to simply do a Sprint conversion. You will need to change your diff anyway, I believe that a TR7 engine can lunch the standard diff on a 1500 and you're gearbox is pretty marginal as well.

Still if you really want to do it and you have got money to burn, I would look up what others have done to make the 1500 reliable. Now some people say that the metal used in the crank was downgraded as a cost cutting measure when they made the 1500 others say that is bollocks. What is differently true is the 1500 is a long stroke engine. Longer stroke means that the pistons accelerate more on the top and bottom of the stroke, meaning greater force and more stress on the engine. Combine that with a 3 bearing crank, the oil overheating if run at high revs for too long and the result can be bits of the engine making a bid for freedom.

What people do to try and overcome this is rebuilding the engine, balancing it and fitting an oil cooler. All of this involves finding a friendly machine shop and is going to cost coin. Plus whether any of it would be enough to make a reliable engine, that could take power increases, I have no idea.
My tuned 1500 made 91BHP on the rollers. That was VERY carefully built, fully balanced etc. That crank lasted about 3K, died at Goodwood on teh pit straight at 6000rpm. Replaced crank/shells three times more, one of which was when an oil filter blew off so not the fault of the design, but when I swapped to a TR7 engine, same power on paper, it was quicker and more economical. Now changing to sprint power...
If you want something with real power, either a sprint (best on webers etc) or a=swap to a modern powerplant. I have done that in my spit. About 180bhp, seems bombproof, and cost was "about " £1500 in parts. £350 for and engine plus new bearings/rings/gaskets, £250 gearbox, £750 ecu, £150 fuel system (I used bike throttle bodies, used fuel pump and so on)

Reckon my sprint engine will cost me £850 or so by the time the engine is built. That will be std so about 125bhp. Should be a decent engine though.
Yeah that kind of confirms what I suspected. Based on your posts here I know that you know your stuff, so if you struggled to get a 1500 to last, it can't be easy.

To be fair I actually like the 1500, I learnt to drive with cars with turbo diesels, I tend to drive using low revs and the engines torque. There was little point revving something like XUD hard, it just made smoke (handy to get rid of tailgaters to be fair). The 1500 drives a lot like a diesel, keep the revs low, fit overdrive and it is an easy engine to use on the road.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:37 am
by SprintV8
I like the idea of keeping the original engine.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:08 pm
by Carledo
The big problem with the 1500 crank, is it is under lubricated in standard form. Around 1970, when the MkIV Spit was on the stocks the factory decided to up the crank journal diameters to stiffen the thing up a bit. This added something silly like 25% to the wiped area of the bearings, but they failed to increase the oil supply accordingly. The bearings on the (then new) 1500 version were also made the same size (commonisation I guess) so suffered the same maladies, made worse by the stroker crank.

This is why the so called "small crank" 1300 from the MkIII Spit is so prized by those who favour keeping the stock motor and playing with it (the European method) rather than dumping in a bigger powerplant (the American solution, "there ain't no substitute for cubes")

The ONLY cure i've heard of that works, at least to reasonable extent, is what is called "cross drilling" the crank, this lets more oil get to the bearings and should be allied with a blueprinted oil pump, a lightly uprated oil pressure relief valve and an oil cooler. Then a balancing, blueprinting and hardening.

I did a bit of track work with my GT6 in the TSSC challenge series in the 80s. All the guys in that who campaigned 1500 Spits were doing it, it gave them an outside chance of having an engine last a whole season (12 races max) Only a couple of them gave more than 100bhp in track trim.

But you will spend a SHEDLOAD of money making a sows ear into even a Chinese copy of a silk purse. It reminds me of an old joke, An old lady asks a New York Cop, "how do I get to Carnegie Hall?" the cop says "Lady, I wouldn't start from here!" Not being a New Yorker, I don't actually understand the joke part, but it illustrates my point.

Steve

Back when I was a nipper, a friend ran an old 1172cc sidevalve 100E Ford van with a Rootes blower bolted on the side. He made no other mods at all. The thing was pretty quick when it was running, but it spent a lot of time in the shop with oily bits dangling from the sump. He wasn't that bothered by this, at the time, a good used sidevalve motor was less than a fiver in most scrappies and he could swap one out in a morning. When (not if) it blew up, he just dragged it in and dropped another lump in it!

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:12 pm
by SprintV8
Some interesting reading.

http://triumphspitfire.rickbaines.com/w ... 00-engine/

In 1968 Triumph became part of BLMC who were intent on cost saving such that in 1970 a major revision was made to the engine with the release of the Spitfire MkIV. It is this revision that would become the Achilles Heel of the later engines. The change centred primarily around the crankshaft. In order to rationalise machining operations the journal diameters were increased to the same size as those on the 6-cylinder engine (as fitted to the Vitesse, GT6 and TR5/6). Journal diameters increased from 2.0005” – 2.0010” to 2.3115” – 2.2120” (main bearing journals) and from 1.625” – 1.6255” to 1.875” – 1.8755” (crankpin journals). In doing so this made the crankshaft heavier with larger diameter but narrower bearings. Thus the later 1296cc crankshafts have more bearing drag than the early ‘small bearing’ cranks and, with the increased weight, take more power to accelerate.

Unfortunately BLMC compounded this by downgrading the steel used for the crank from EN40B to the far inferior EN16U. Given that the engine is a 3-main bearing design, the use of a heavier crank in an inferior material means that crankshaft flex starts to become a problem, hence the late 1296cc and all 1493cc engines are referred to as ‘floppy crank motors’. At some stage in the design of the engine (from 1296cc engine number FH25001E and all 1493cc engines) the bores were also recessed which was said to improve the sealing of the cylinder head gasket (even though earlier units had not had a problem). This would limit the safe over boring of the engine to a mere 20thou and, in fact can cause problems with detonation in tuned motors. If overboring greater than 20thou I deck the block flat and use the earlier 1296cc head gasket. Doing this will also mean that the pistons will need to be decked so as to give 20 – 25 thou clearance beneath the head gasket.

In 1972 the engine was again increased in size by stroking it to 87.5mm giving 1493cc. By this stage the engine really was at the limit of what could be done to it and the fact that it had a ‘floppy’ crank coupled with such a long stroke meant that failures would be commonplace unless certain aspects of the design are addressed. Fundamentally, for the reasons discussed earlier, crankshaft flex on the 1493cc motor is a major concern since it can rapidly lead to the oil overheating causing oil film breakdown with concomitant damage. Given that the motor is a 3-main bearing design, aside from the stroked crankshaft being poorly supported, it is the centre main bearing that feeds numbers 2 and 3 big ends. Any form of oil film breakdown will rapidly lead to wear of these bearings and, if not caught soon enough, a connecting rod (usually number 3) making a bid for freedom at high speed through the side of the crankcase. This is one of the reasons why the 1493cc unit cannot be revved like its smaller brethren.

However these failings can be addressed so as to produce a reliable unit with longevity between rebuilds. Primarily it is the oil system that should be sorted out, since this is at the heart of the problems. Fundamentally it is high oil temperature leading to oil film breakdown that kills Triumph 1500 engines. For this reason it is essential that an oil cooler be fitted; a 13 row by 235mm cooler is perfectly adequate (although for ‘hard’ use a 16 row is better).

In terms of the oil being used you must use a good 20/50 and change it yearly or every 6000 miles (whichever comes first), my personal choice is for Valvoline VR1 20/50 Racing. If the engine is in any state of tune (Stage one upwards) then use a 20/60 such as Penrite HPR 30.

Having sorted the oil and oil cooling, then modifications can be made to the oil system to increase its efficiency. Firstly it is essential to use the later type oil pump. This has an angled pick up that sits lower in the sump and better resists oil surge (if surge becomes a problem such as on Track Days then a single longitudinal baffle can be brazed into the sump, or better still a ‘Windage Tray’). Additionally care should be taken to reduce the endfloat on the pump to the minimum quoted figures:

Inner Rotor endfloat – 0.0004”
Outer Rotor endfloat – 0.0004”
Rotor Lobe clearance – 0.010”
Outer Rotor-to-Body clearance 0.008”

Given that the centre main bearing feeds numbers 2 and 3 big ends, then an increase in flow to here is beneficial. The gallery can be opened out to 5/16” (7.9mm), to do this requires the removal of the distributor driveshaft bush and care should be taken upon reassembly to attain the correct distributor endfloat.

While the crankshaft is not particularly well supported, the use of main cap straps or even steel main caps is not required on a road going motor. What should be done however, is to bottom tap the main bolt holes and fit longer high tensile bolts (3.25” UHL), my preference being for socket headed bolts (with case hardened washers) which can be wire locked in place (in addition to using loctite). At the same time as addressing the mains, the big ends should be fitted with high tensile bolts (the originals should never be re-used). Given the amount of ‘monkey metal’ fasteners being supplied these days, I suggest you use ARP bolts (which are stronger than the con rods) – a bit of a ‘no brainer’ really. Alternatively Ford Sierra Cosworth big end bolts can be used since they are a straight swap. Similarly I use ARP head studs and flywheel bolts.

The crankshaft / flywheel / front pulley / clutch MUST be accurately balanced to help cut down on vibrations inducing crank flex and a lightened flywheel is also of help here. Additionally I lighten the rods by polishing them down the beam (as well as removing the ‘cup’ at the little end). I then balance them end-to-end and overall to within 0.1g. If you are worried about con rod strength and unwilling to shell out ££££ on H-Section forged rods then use the early TR5 rods since they are basically the same albeit stronger and lack the hole in the shank above the big end.

With respect to bearings, ideally a lead-indium type should be used since these will better resist the loads encountered than will reticular tin ones. Unfortunately Vandervell VP2 are no longer available for this engine. This leads us to some choices:

For ‘hard’ use it is possible to fit MGB big end bearings (original part no. AEB4512) at 0.010” undersize (for a standard crank). The crankshaft should be ground to 1.8665” – 1.867 (ie 8.5 thou). The outsize edge of the locating tang on the bearings needs to be filed down slightly to locate them correctly in the con rods. Additionally, since these bearings are wider than the originals, the fillet radius of the journals must be checked after grinding and modified as necessary.

Having done this, while Tri-Metal VP2 bearings are unavailable, the alternatives are:

AE GS2541LC, which is a Tri-Metal, sintered lead-copper bearing. This is essentially the same bearing as the Glacier Vandervell VPR91173LC but which uses a lead/tin/copper overlay as opposed to the lead indium in the old VP2 compound.
This is a high quality bearing piece able to withstand moderate to high loads

A better alternative is the Clevite 77 compound (part no. CB792P), which is made in the USA. This is another Tri-Metal design using a lead/tin/copper overlay, the difference being that it uses a cast copper/lead material (similar to the old VP2) and, hence, is about 20% – 30% tougher in its ability to withstand loads than is the GS2541LC.

A final alternative is to use ACL Duraglide 780 Tri-Metal heavy duty bearings. These are essentially similar to the Clevite design.

If you don’t wish to go to the effort of fitting MGB bearings, and for a car that will see only normal / occasional track day use the expense is probably not worthwhile, then Tri-Metal bearings to fit the big ends are available from King (part no. CR4403AM).

With regards to the main bearings having a VP2 like compound isn’t as critical however I still believe the best bearings available should be fitted. To this end I would suggest using King part no. MB341AM.

Another worthwhile modification is to source an earlier style ‘small bearing’ camshaft and insert cam bearings into the block since in the 1493cc motor the cam runs direct in the block with no bearings.

With regard to the oil feed to the rocker shaft assembly, then there are a number of companies that will sell you an external rocker feed kit. Unfortunately all these kits are fundamentally flawed as they come and lack adequate instructions as to their fitting.

EVERY kit I have seen uses a –3 hose with a banjo fitting to go into the oil gallery plug at the back of the head and a 1/8 NPTF fitting to screw into the main oil gallery beneath the distributor. A moment’s thought, given what I have said about oil feed to the centre main bearing, will show up just why this is a bad idea. By connecting the rocker feed in this way you will inevitably rob oil from the centre main, hence you will actually make your motor more likely to go pop! Additionally, with no restrictor, you will over-feed oil to the rockers causing problems with inlet valve stem oiling at low rpm (meaning your motor will both burn oil and be closer to causing detonation from the reduction in octane of the fuel/air charge!). Finally, merely fitting an external oil feed while the internal oilway to the cylinder head is active will cause cavitation in the oil galleries and all sorts of flow problems. By far the best way to fit an external rocker feed is to firstly block off the vertical oilways in the block and head (use a tap and an 8mm grub screw in both block and head) and to take the feed from the main gallery at the rear of the block (opposite number 3 main) via the 5/16” UNF oilway plug tapping. To do this you will need a –2 to –3 male-male adapter to screw into the side of the block.

Another problem often reported with the Triumph 4-pot is the tendency for the thrust washers to drop out on high mileage engines. This will rapidly result in wear to the sides of number 3 main bearing cap and a block and crank that are scrap. While you could silver pin the thrusts in place, this is really only of use on a race engine that undergoes routine teardowns and rebuilds since wear of the thrusts will mean the heads of the silver pins becoming proud and damaging the crank. For a road / occasional Track Day motor I wouldn’t bother, just check the thrusts every 40,000 miles or so.

Think it be better to source another engine.
Or leave well along and get another car for the urge for Speed.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:19 pm
by GrahamFountain
Given the above issues in tuning the 1500 engine, and if the Sprint option is too drastic, what about a 1300 engine with a small journal FD crank, and a 312240-218142 head - bigger valves & 9.5 compression?

I'm not sure what the issues would be with using the 1500's HS4 carbs on that – our Herald's got that crank/head combo, but on HS2s. But with the bigger valve head and the right ignition advance profile, and perhaps with a bit of a cam, it could go well on them.

And, the 1500 being stroked from the 1300, while not actually standard, with the HS4s it would look as though it was to a cursory inspection. Moving away from standard, what about an ex-tractor manifold, a Weber carb, and a bigger lift cam?

I do realize the 1300 has to be revved to get at the power it can give. One of the QI elves I worked with for a while reckoned he'd got the small journal 1300 to rev to 8k on the right cam, carbs, and manifold, etc.; though that may be getting silly. But it will have peak torque higher up the rev range than the 1500, where it should be with a sporty engine - go read the arguing over the 1500 vs 1300 Spits and Midgets. And, if you get close to the same peak torque at higher rpm, you almost necessarily get more peak power – power equals torque times revs (you can easily see that from a simple dimensional analysis of the parameters).

Graham

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:51 pm
by cliftyhanger
GrahamFountain wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:19 pm Given the above issues in tuning the 1500 engine, and if the Sprint option is too drastic, what about a 1300 engine with a small journal FD crank, and a 312240-218142 head - bigger valves & 9.5 compression?

I'm not sure what the issues would be with using the 1500's HS4 carbs on that – our Herald's got that crank/head combo, but on HS2s. But with the bigger valve head and the right ignition advance profile, and perhaps with a bit of a cam, it could go well on them.

And, the 1500 being stroked from the 1300, while not actually standard, with the HS4s it would look as though it was to a cursory inspection. Moving away from standard, what about an ex-tractor manifold, a Weber carb, and a bigger lift cam?

I do realize the 1300 has to be revved to get at the power it can give. One of the QI elves I worked with for a while reckoned he'd got the small journal 1300 to rev to 8k on the right cam, carbs, and manifold, etc.; though that may be getting silly. But it will have peak torque higher up the rev range than the 1500, where it should be with a sporty engine - go read the arguing over the 1500 vs 1300 Spits and Midgets. And, if you get close to the same peak torque at higher rpm, you almost necessarily get more peak power – power equals torque times revs (you can easily see that from a simple dimensional analysis of the parameters).

Graham
In my mk3 spit I have a proper mk3 engine, not built by me. But it is 10:1CR, big valve head, flowed and a TH7 cam, along with roller rockers. Induction is a pair of dellortos, ignition is megajolt.
Power output is well over 100bhp, it will leave a GT6 well behind on the straight, moreso with any bends in the road (it also has CV rotoflex at the rear) It is also as torquey as my old 1500, and will do over 40mpg at 80mph. So best of all worlds....

If you wonder about carbs, John Thomason did some work on his "std" 1500 he raced. tried a single HS4 and pair of HS4's. Vert little difference in power or economy (twins slightly more powerful and slightly less economical) Generally a pair of HS2's will be good for 100bhp.

And do not underestimate mapped ignition. It can make a huge difference to mid range torque and economy.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:28 pm
by cleverusername
SprintV8 wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:12 pm Some interesting reading.

http://triumphspitfire.rickbaines.com/w ... 00-engine/

In 1968 Triumph became part of BLMC who were intent on cost saving such that in 1970 a major revision was made to the engine with the release of the Spitfire MkIV. It is this revision that would become the Achilles Heel of the later engines. The change centred primarily around the crankshaft. In order to rationalise machining operations the journal diameters were increased to the same size as those on the 6-cylinder engine (as fitted to the Vitesse, GT6 and TR5/6). Journal diameters increased from 2.0005” – 2.0010” to 2.3115” – 2.2120” (main bearing journals) and from 1.625” – 1.6255” to 1.875” – 1.8755” (crankpin journals). In doing so this made the crankshaft heavier with larger diameter but narrower bearings. Thus the later 1296cc crankshafts have more bearing drag than the early ‘small bearing’ cranks and, with the increased weight, take more power to accelerate.

Unfortunately BLMC compounded this by downgrading the steel used for the crank from EN40B to the far inferior EN16U. Given that the engine is a 3-main bearing design, the use of a heavier crank in an inferior material means that crankshaft flex starts to become a problem, hence the late 1296cc and all 1493cc engines are referred to as ‘floppy crank motors’. At some stage in the design of the engine (from 1296cc engine number FH25001E and all 1493cc engines) the bores were also recessed which was said to improve the sealing of the cylinder head gasket (even though earlier units had not had a problem). This would limit the safe over boring of the engine to a mere 20thou and, in fact can cause problems with detonation in tuned motors. If overboring greater than 20thou I deck the block flat and use the earlier 1296cc head gasket. Doing this will also mean that the pistons will need to be decked so as to give 20 – 25 thou clearance beneath the head gasket.

In 1972 the engine was again increased in size by stroking it to 87.5mm giving 1493cc. By this stage the engine really was at the limit of what could be done to it and the fact that it had a ‘floppy’ crank coupled with such a long stroke meant that failures would be commonplace unless certain aspects of the design are addressed. Fundamentally, for the reasons discussed earlier, crankshaft flex on the 1493cc motor is a major concern since it can rapidly lead to the oil overheating causing oil film breakdown with concomitant damage. Given that the motor is a 3-main bearing design, aside from the stroked crankshaft being poorly supported, it is the centre main bearing that feeds numbers 2 and 3 big ends. Any form of oil film breakdown will rapidly lead to wear of these bearings and, if not caught soon enough, a connecting rod (usually number 3) making a bid for freedom at high speed through the side of the crankcase. This is one of the reasons why the 1493cc unit cannot be revved like its smaller brethren.

However these failings can be addressed so as to produce a reliable unit with longevity between rebuilds. Primarily it is the oil system that should be sorted out, since this is at the heart of the problems. Fundamentally it is high oil temperature leading to oil film breakdown that kills Triumph 1500 engines. For this reason it is essential that an oil cooler be fitted; a 13 row by 235mm cooler is perfectly adequate (although for ‘hard’ use a 16 row is better).

In terms of the oil being used you must use a good 20/50 and change it yearly or every 6000 miles (whichever comes first), my personal choice is for Valvoline VR1 20/50 Racing. If the engine is in any state of tune (Stage one upwards) then use a 20/60 such as Penrite HPR 30.

Having sorted the oil and oil cooling, then modifications can be made to the oil system to increase its efficiency. Firstly it is essential to use the later type oil pump. This has an angled pick up that sits lower in the sump and better resists oil surge (if surge becomes a problem such as on Track Days then a single longitudinal baffle can be brazed into the sump, or better still a ‘Windage Tray’). Additionally care should be taken to reduce the endfloat on the pump to the minimum quoted figures:

Inner Rotor endfloat – 0.0004”
Outer Rotor endfloat – 0.0004”
Rotor Lobe clearance – 0.010”
Outer Rotor-to-Body clearance 0.008”

Given that the centre main bearing feeds numbers 2 and 3 big ends, then an increase in flow to here is beneficial. The gallery can be opened out to 5/16” (7.9mm), to do this requires the removal of the distributor driveshaft bush and care should be taken upon reassembly to attain the correct distributor endfloat.

While the crankshaft is not particularly well supported, the use of main cap straps or even steel main caps is not required on a road going motor. What should be done however, is to bottom tap the main bolt holes and fit longer high tensile bolts (3.25” UHL), my preference being for socket headed bolts (with case hardened washers) which can be wire locked in place (in addition to using loctite). At the same time as addressing the mains, the big ends should be fitted with high tensile bolts (the originals should never be re-used). Given the amount of ‘monkey metal’ fasteners being supplied these days, I suggest you use ARP bolts (which are stronger than the con rods) – a bit of a ‘no brainer’ really. Alternatively Ford Sierra Cosworth big end bolts can be used since they are a straight swap. Similarly I use ARP head studs and flywheel bolts.

The crankshaft / flywheel / front pulley / clutch MUST be accurately balanced to help cut down on vibrations inducing crank flex and a lightened flywheel is also of help here. Additionally I lighten the rods by polishing them down the beam (as well as removing the ‘cup’ at the little end). I then balance them end-to-end and overall to within 0.1g. If you are worried about con rod strength and unwilling to shell out ££££ on H-Section forged rods then use the early TR5 rods since they are basically the same albeit stronger and lack the hole in the shank above the big end.

With respect to bearings, ideally a lead-indium type should be used since these will better resist the loads encountered than will reticular tin ones. Unfortunately Vandervell VP2 are no longer available for this engine. This leads us to some choices:

For ‘hard’ use it is possible to fit MGB big end bearings (original part no. AEB4512) at 0.010” undersize (for a standard crank). The crankshaft should be ground to 1.8665” – 1.867 (ie 8.5 thou). The outsize edge of the locating tang on the bearings needs to be filed down slightly to locate them correctly in the con rods. Additionally, since these bearings are wider than the originals, the fillet radius of the journals must be checked after grinding and modified as necessary.

Having done this, while Tri-Metal VP2 bearings are unavailable, the alternatives are:

AE GS2541LC, which is a Tri-Metal, sintered lead-copper bearing. This is essentially the same bearing as the Glacier Vandervell VPR91173LC but which uses a lead/tin/copper overlay as opposed to the lead indium in the old VP2 compound.
This is a high quality bearing piece able to withstand moderate to high loads

A better alternative is the Clevite 77 compound (part no. CB792P), which is made in the USA. This is another Tri-Metal design using a lead/tin/copper overlay, the difference being that it uses a cast copper/lead material (similar to the old VP2) and, hence, is about 20% – 30% tougher in its ability to withstand loads than is the GS2541LC.

A final alternative is to use ACL Duraglide 780 Tri-Metal heavy duty bearings. These are essentially similar to the Clevite design.

If you don’t wish to go to the effort of fitting MGB bearings, and for a car that will see only normal / occasional track day use the expense is probably not worthwhile, then Tri-Metal bearings to fit the big ends are available from King (part no. CR4403AM).

With regards to the main bearings having a VP2 like compound isn’t as critical however I still believe the best bearings available should be fitted. To this end I would suggest using King part no. MB341AM.

Another worthwhile modification is to source an earlier style ‘small bearing’ camshaft and insert cam bearings into the block since in the 1493cc motor the cam runs direct in the block with no bearings.

With regard to the oil feed to the rocker shaft assembly, then there are a number of companies that will sell you an external rocker feed kit. Unfortunately all these kits are fundamentally flawed as they come and lack adequate instructions as to their fitting.

EVERY kit I have seen uses a –3 hose with a banjo fitting to go into the oil gallery plug at the back of the head and a 1/8 NPTF fitting to screw into the main oil gallery beneath the distributor. A moment’s thought, given what I have said about oil feed to the centre main bearing, will show up just why this is a bad idea. By connecting the rocker feed in this way you will inevitably rob oil from the centre main, hence you will actually make your motor more likely to go pop! Additionally, with no restrictor, you will over-feed oil to the rockers causing problems with inlet valve stem oiling at low rpm (meaning your motor will both burn oil and be closer to causing detonation from the reduction in octane of the fuel/air charge!). Finally, merely fitting an external oil feed while the internal oilway to the cylinder head is active will cause cavitation in the oil galleries and all sorts of flow problems. By far the best way to fit an external rocker feed is to firstly block off the vertical oilways in the block and head (use a tap and an 8mm grub screw in both block and head) and to take the feed from the main gallery at the rear of the block (opposite number 3 main) via the 5/16” UNF oilway plug tapping. To do this you will need a –2 to –3 male-male adapter to screw into the side of the block.

Another problem often reported with the Triumph 4-pot is the tendency for the thrust washers to drop out on high mileage engines. This will rapidly result in wear to the sides of number 3 main bearing cap and a block and crank that are scrap. While you could silver pin the thrusts in place, this is really only of use on a race engine that undergoes routine teardowns and rebuilds since wear of the thrusts will mean the heads of the silver pins becoming proud and damaging the crank. For a road / occasional Track Day motor I wouldn’t bother, just check the thrusts every 40,000 miles or so.

Think it be better to source another engine.
Or leave well along and get another car for the urge for Speed.
I have seen that article before but there is some controversy about how accurate it is, especially the bit about Triumph downgrading the quality of the steel used to make the crank.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:45 pm
by cleverusername
cliftyhanger wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:51 pm
GrahamFountain wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:19 pm Given the above issues in tuning the 1500 engine, and if the Sprint option is too drastic, what about a 1300 engine with a small journal FD crank, and a 312240-218142 head - bigger valves & 9.5 compression?

I'm not sure what the issues would be with using the 1500's HS4 carbs on that – our Herald's got that crank/head combo, but on HS2s. But with the bigger valve head and the right ignition advance profile, and perhaps with a bit of a cam, it could go well on them.

And, the 1500 being stroked from the 1300, while not actually standard, with the HS4s it would look as though it was to a cursory inspection. Moving away from standard, what about an ex-tractor manifold, a Weber carb, and a bigger lift cam?

I do realize the 1300 has to be revved to get at the power it can give. One of the QI elves I worked with for a while reckoned he'd got the small journal 1300 to rev to 8k on the right cam, carbs, and manifold, etc.; though that may be getting silly. But it will have peak torque higher up the rev range than the 1500, where it should be with a sporty engine - go read the arguing over the 1500 vs 1300 Spits and Midgets. And, if you get close to the same peak torque at higher rpm, you almost necessarily get more peak power – power equals torque times revs (you can easily see that from a simple dimensional analysis of the parameters).

Graham
In my mk3 spit I have a proper mk3 engine, not built by me. But it is 10:1CR, big valve head, flowed and a TH7 cam, along with roller rockers. Induction is a pair of dellortos, ignition is megajolt.
Power output is well over 100bhp, it will leave a GT6 well behind on the straight, moreso with any bends in the road (it also has CV rotoflex at the rear) It is also as torquey as my old 1500, and will do over 40mpg at 80mph. So best of all worlds....

If you wonder about carbs, John Thomason did some work on his "std" 1500 he raced. tried a single HS4 and pair of HS4's. Vert little difference in power or economy (twins slightly more powerful and slightly less economical) Generally a pair of HS2's will be good for 100bhp.

And do not underestimate mapped ignition. It can make a huge difference to mid range torque and economy.
Were those figures checked on a rolling road or are they just estimates? I don't mean to be doubtful but I think it is a fair question to ask for others considering such mods, before they spend their money.

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:04 pm
by cliftyhanger
The spec is identical (down to teh chap who jetted the carbs) to another engine that went on the rollers and achieved nigh on 120bhp. So it will be within 10%, in not closer.
The way it drives is important though, and it pulls like a 1500 in the low/mid range, then comes alive . I think there is some weird timing going on under 3000rpm, but as I didn't build or tune it, I don't have the figures.

Trouble is it is a way off my ford powered spitfire, the only advantages are it is tidier, and a little more economical (but not much)

Re: Supercharged 1500TC

Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:45 pm
by cleverusername
cliftyhanger wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:04 pm The spec is identical (down to teh chap who jetted the carbs) to another engine that went on the rollers and achieved nigh on 120bhp. So it will be within 10%, in not closer.
The way it drives is important though, and it pulls like a 1500 in the low/mid range, then comes alive . I think there is some weird timing going on under 3000rpm, but as I didn't build or tune it, I don't have the figures.

Trouble is it is a way off my ford powered spitfire, the only advantages are it is tidier, and a little more economical (but not much)
They managed to match the BHP of Sprint, while not loosing mid range torque? I can well believe you can get high BHP from a small NA push rod engine on carbs but usually it involves making them worse to drive on the roads because you lose all the low down power.

Put it this way, those who mod 1300 A-series engines, similar to the Triumph lump, Reckon an engine putting out 120-130bhp would be hopeless as a road engine.