Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
|
MG MGA - SU Carbs - new needles etc.
Have just had the carbs done over by an expert! I was not happy with only 20mpg. and could not lean them off at all. We found the needles were #6 which I am told are suitable for a supercharged engine! I now have new needles matched to the "MGB" 1950cc motor and test run with the fuel analyser on board. Also we soldered over the vent holes in the dashpot caps as they are the internal vented type and don't need the extra vent to atmosphere. I am told that internal venting is achieved through the ribbed section at top of the dashpot casing, as shown in the photo below. I have filled up with fuel and will report on consumption after a few miles. The new setup, with those fabulous vent stacks (thanks again to all concerned) and new K&N filters, has given the old girl a new lease on life! We also discovered the throttle was not opening fully so an adjustment has resulted in it going like 's--t' off a shovel. Boy racer reinvented, Barry. |
Barry Gannon |
Barry What needle did you settle on? What is that tube and rubber pipe below the heater return pipe? Steve |
Steve Gyles |
No. 6 needle is not for a supercharged engine, but is the standard needle for a 1600 or 1622 engine. I expect that it would run lean for a 1950, so it is probably just a well you had the carbs totally gone over, because the problem was probably elsewhere. |
dominic clancy |
Barry I mis-identified the inlet manifold when I viewed the picture on my small screen tablet earlier! - probably because it was not painted maroon. But I am intrigued by the rubber pipe you have tapped into the end of it. I don't record you having a brake servo or vacuum windscreen wipers?! I am sure I would have noticed when I last leaned over your engine. Also, not guilty gov, I never fiddled with your carbs other than putting stockings over the air filters as a temporary measure, waiting the imminent arrival of the K&Ns! Steve |
Steve Gyles |
Steve I think the needle is designated "FX" but not sure - I will ask. The rubber hose going into the end of the inlet manifold provides a vacuum and, at the other end, is connected to the MGB filter can to provide crankcase venting. The MGB intake manifold has that connection on top. I have cemented a suitable hose spiggot and it seems to work. Dominic you are right about the #6 needle. Rather than running lean it was gobbling up the fuel, running very rich! I think there were other issues including the vent in the caps - they had been drilled out to 1/8" and should have been plain (no vent). The K&N's were about 5mm. thinner than required - I used a sticky rubber sealing strip on the outer cover to make up the difference, rather like the original felt rings. It all seems to work! Time will tell the full story. Barry |
Barry Gannon |
Barry, Your setup sure has me confused. Air passing into the inlet manifold will go straight into the engine combustion chamber. This will not give crankcase venting. The air going in through the manifold without passing through the SU's will completely upset attempts at proper mixture tuning. I think that your are getting confused with the MGB recirculating system using a PCV valve. Mick |
M F Anderson |
Mick the front side-cover vent (MGB style) is connected, by a hose, to the MGB recirculating system (PCV valve?) then into the inlet manifold. As I understand it that is what happens on the MGB. Your comments please. Barry. |
Barry Gannon |
Barry, That sounds better. In your earlier post you said that the hose from the inlet manifold went to a MGB filter and the PCV valve was not mentioned. Early MGB's had the connection from the oil filler cap to the PCV valve and then to the inlet manifold. From 1970 the path was from the side cover to the PCV valve and the to the inlet manifold. It appears that this is what you have and would be correct. Just one thing should be checked. The side cover should have a 5/16" restrictor where the vapour enters the hose. You should check that it is present as it tends to go missing over the years. Mick |
M F Anderson |
Barry, Sorry, a typing finger error (I am a one finger typist). That restrictor plug is 5/64" diameter. Mick |
M F Anderson |
1. The FX and the similar AAU are the weakest of the MGB needles followed by the No 5 which is richer at the bottom end, then the No 6 which is richer throughout the range and finally the AAA/AAM which are richer at the top end than the No 6. 2. The breather arrangement is poor - it will weaken the front carb and upset the balance - BMC put the vacuum port in the balance tube. 3. A 1950 MGB engine should be on an AAM or AAA needle if you have K&N filters fitted. 4. If the mixture is set up right at idle up to mid load then it will be running lean at high load with possible detonation and engine damage. 5. I'd get the breather system sorted out - it will be perfectly happy with the original vent to air via a draught tube as per the original MGA set up. Then get the timing and mixture set up on a rolling road. |
Chris at Octarine Services |
For those not familiar with the B engine PCV see attached photo (3 brg 1800 ) Mike |
Mike Ellsmore |
Barry, The comments from Chris are worthy of note. You should consider changing to the simple MGA setup. The MGB system is not an engineering improvement but due to Government regulations. The only advantage of the MGB system is that it does not drip oil on your driveway. If you do not wish to use the low maintenance MGA system then you should be prepared to correctly fit and service the MGB system. The connection to the manifold should be at the centre of the balance tube so as to affect each SU mixture equally. You should disassemble the PCV valve and clean it every couple of years. The hole in the restrictor plug at the side vent should also be cleaned and blow compressed air through the hoses. Image attached. Mick |
M F Anderson |
Chris I am aware of your comment -- "it will be perfectly happy with the original vent to air via a draught tube as per the original MGA set up" -- but I am also trying to do my bit to reduce emissions. Mick I agree but found it impossible to make -- "connection to the manifold should be at the centre of the balance tube so as to affect each SU mixture equally". I do the cleaning bit regularly. Fact is the car is going better than ever so I will just run it and see what the outcome is re fuel consumption. Thanks for the comments, Barry. |
Barry Gannon |
Question for Chris at Octaine. I have an 1800V engine with ALL MGA externals. I was told at the time I installed it in 2000 that the existing standard MGA 1500 needle (number 6?) would be fine. The car goes extremely well, but like Barry, not the greatest of returns on MPG. mine is 24.18 over the last 10 years. Should I be looking at a weaker needle? If so, what would be your best bet? I notice that the MGB manual for the HIF4 that was fitted on my series of engine says AAU, ABD, AUU, ACD. But that would have presumably been with all the emissions stuff fitted and of course a different carb to the MGA H4. Steve |
Steve Gyles |
The H4, HS4 and HIF4 are all basically 1 1/2 inch carbs with 90 thou jets and require very similar needles. The one thing that does affect the needle more than anything else is the filter arrangement - standard paper filters produce more of a pressure drop across them than K&N filters and no filter at all produces no drop! Engine size has little effect because the SU carb is a constant vacuum device - the piston rises to admit more air and fuel dependant on load so it is not affected by air density or engine rpm in the same way as a fixed jet carb like the Weber. There is one minor difference in the needles - early ones are fixed in the piston - later ones are sprung loaded towards the engine and are longer - this helps atomisation of the fuel. Comparing the early needles - GS & 6 fitted to MGA engines and MB, 5 & FX fitted to MGB engines. The no 6 is the richest of those but there is not a huge difference between them all - see graph below. |
Chris at Octarine Services |
Comparing the FX with later biased needles shows again they are all very similar with the later ACD being weaker at the top end and the common AAU being slightly richer at the top end. I suspect that emissions drove the needles weaker - up till 1974 all the UK MOT required was no smoke!
|
Chris at Octarine Services |
Finally when you start fitting free flowing filters the needle requirement changes to - compare the AAU to AAA, AAM & AAB needles all very similar to each other in the low to mid range but richer than the AAU then above that they get progressively richer. The needle required for any one engine installation depends on the whole mix - the only way to determine which is the best fit is by rolling road and a skilled operator - often taking a slightly lean needle and using fine abrasive paper to progressively richen the needle until the optimum air fuel ratio is obtained throughout the rev and load range. |
Chris at Octarine Services |
So to answer your original question - the No 6 is probably fine - but could also probably be improved on by fine tuning - this is not plug & play! I would not be incline to go leaner - you might save a few pennies on fuel but these engines run best with a CO reading around 5% and running less than that tends to increase wear and result in running on. |
Chris at Octarine Services |
<<but I am also trying to do my bit to reduce emissions>> Why then would you fit a 1950 'fire breathing?' engine. With our yearly mileage the breathing system won't make a lot of difference to your environmental footprint? |
Willem van der Veer |
Willem, The motor came with a restoration parcel I found so I make good use of it. In regard to pollution I am also of the opinion that every little bit helps - maybe it is a state of mind that people worldwide need to adopt. Sure, my one car will not make a huge contribution but cumulatively we will all make a difference. Barry |
Barry Gannon |
I am not convinced that burning the crankcase fumes actually does reduce emissions - my experience is that hydrocarbons in the exhaust INCREASE when oil fumes are burnt and certainly running the engine weaker than necessary increases the hydrocarbons too. |
Chris at Octarine Services |
I thought I would mention that I have just tried out the FX needles today in my 18V. First impression is good. I just replaced the needles and made no other adjustments so that I could make direct comparisons. The car seemed to perform just the same throughout the range in the short test I completed. If anything it gave better control and response at low rpm (town stop and go driving). It's a cold day here today (+4) and I also noticed that I needed some choke for about the first 600m ish. This compared to about 200m with the 6 needles. Time will tell if the mpg improves. Steve |
Steve Gyles |
I have been comparing my initial 'seat of the pants' assessment from my short test yesterday with Chris's graph of the FX needle profile. It would appear to tie in nicely. My interpretation of his graph is that the FX needle gives a pronounced weakening of the fuel at low rpm/low vacuum. This was born out by the need for a little more choke compared to the No.6 while the engine warmed up from stone cold. I always thought my carbs overfuelled the engine at these low rpm/vacuum settings and I think the FX needle has sorted this issue, giving me improved engine control during town driving. I know that the 'seat of the pants' is no replacement for a rolling road calibration, but it's an indicator. I was certainly on the mark with my impressions of the stub stack improvement a year back. Steve |
Steve Gyles |
Reactivating this old thread to report: Most recent fuel consumption check - now 26mpg. that is about 7.6 litres/100km. And that was achieved after general run-around-town driving and then a sustained 75km. run at 4,500 rpm. (about 100kph.) along a freeway. A long run, in all about a tank full of 91Ron. standard unleaded. That is a lot better than before the needle change. It has a lot of "noise", throttle off down hill, and lots of pop-pop-popping, but is very throttle responsive and runs much stronger than previously. Barry. |
BM Gannon |
Barry, 26mpg is more like 9 L/100km |
M Wellard |
Barry...You quote 4,500rpm. about 100kph. seems very high rpm for the speed....My 1500 Coupe is doing about 3,400 at 100kph.....Rex |
Rex Thompson |
This thread was discussed between 31/10/2013 and 25/01/2014
MG MGA index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGA BBS is active now.