M.G metro

[blu30]

Does an MG Metro 1275cc engine fit straight into a 1989 mini 1000? Been offered a good 1275 for my mini at a real good price. The 1000 is OK but it always seems like your thrashing it to keep up with other traffic and I was thinking of going 1275 for A road cruising and better performace etc. What safts etc do I use, the standard mini ones I suppose.

[ljonez]

pretty much drops in, have to fit the mini engine mounts etc and lose the oil cooler if it has one.

the MG lump is the most powerful N/A A series engine produced in standard form. should be around 72bhp where as the coopers where about 61

edit- coopers where 61bhp not 65

[blu30]

double what i got now then

[braceuself]

i got an mg lump in mine.put a good exhaust on it and it flies along.my only recommendation is to put an ultimate engine steady on it,

[ljonez]

as reference MG metro engine numbers start 12HD24 (leaded) or 12HF01 ( unleaded) the unleaded ones have smaller valves and dont produce as much power still more than a cooper tho

[taffy1967]

The Rover Coopers were down in power due (with the carb models) to a few things like the power sapping cat and that choking air filter box that was essential to keep the drive-by noise levels down, otherwise it would never have got approved in 1990.

The 3.1 final drive probably didn't help the performance, but was good for the economy. But of course there were lots of kits to get more power, like the 'S' packs that John Cooper Garages sold.

Apart from the final drive, it's the same engine as what got fitted to the Coopers. But the Coopers got an additional electric auxiliary cooling fan mounted in the N/S inner wing to help keep things cool whilst stuck in long traffic jams on very hot days.

So effective cooling is something you may want to consider, because the A+ 1275cc engines ran a lot hotter than the 1275cc engines of old. Perhaps more so when unleaded friendly?

[ljonez]

May 10, 2010 13:46:43 GMT 1 taffy1967 said:

The Rover Coopers were down in power due (with the carb models) to a few things like the power sapping cat and that choking air filter box that was essential to keep the drive-by noise levels down, otherwise it would never have got approved in 1990.

The 3.1 final drive probably didn't help the performance, but was good for the economy. But of course there were lots of kits to get more power, like the 'S' packs that John Cooper Garages sold.

Apart from the final drive, it's the same engine as what got fitted to the Coopers. But the Coopers got an additional electric auxiliary cooling fan mounted in the N/S inner wing to help keep things cool whilst stuck in long traffic jams on very hot days.

So effective cooling is something you may want to consider, because the A+ 1275cc engines ran a lot hotter than the 1275cc engines of old. Perhaps more so when unleaded friendly?

the MG lumps had different cam, taller pistons (to create a 10.5:1 compression ratio) and in the case of the leaded version bigger inlet valves 35.7mm rather than 33.3mm

when they went unleaded they used the same head as the coopers and normal 1275 would later use.
then when the cooper was launched it used a detuned version of the MG engine, same head, a tamer cam and standard pistions.

as for the heat difference its because unleaded needs to burn hotter to create its optimum power output hence why the A+ is fitted with an 88degree stat rather than the 78 or 82degree the A series used

[taffy1967]

It's not a million miles away from the standard MG Metro engine though: -









i97.photobucket.com/albums/l236/taffy1967/Mainstream%20Mini%20Cooper%20Stuff/MainstreamAndEarly13iRoverCooperBuy.jpg
(Direct link because the image won't display for some reason)

Plus the Mini was probably much lighter than the Metro and so a 1275cc engined Mini would be quicker off the mark but with a lower top speed due to the Minis aerodynamics (or lack of).

;D