Milwaukee Midget

[Milwaukee Midget]

Chris, most folks don't know that the fore and aft perpetual saffoam kept these products from setting any records! 

My historical analysis of the Turbo Encabulator indicates that before the magneto reluctance technology was perfected, it was difficult to ramp up prefamulated amulite production to a scale that met economic viability standards at Chrysler.

I know, hard to believe that Chrysler in the 1980's had any standards at all, but it was the lack of standards in Highland Park that brought this engineering idea to the fore.

The Italians perfected it with the Fiat Panda, and to a lesser extent, the Yugo, so it doesn't surprise me that Chrysler will now attempt to run with it again.

Doesn't surprise me at all, actually. 

Not today, anyway . . .  

[Stan Back]

Huh?

[Milwaukee Midget]

Huh?

Not today, anyway . . .  

Jim - you DO have a calendar, don't you? 

[WOODY@DDLLC]

1st look at your calendar!

[Stan Back]

I thought you'd been out drinking with Prof. Irwin Corey.

[manta22]

Stan;

I remember him, Prof. Irwin Corey- "the world's foremost authority"   

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

[Milwaukee Midget]

I see he's still alive - at 100!

I'll take anything he says regarding longevity at face value. 

[jacksoni]

MM and FB, though you have moved on to the K motor, you might be interested in this speedtalk thread:  http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43079#p547223

[fordboy628]

MM and FB, though you have moved on to the K motor, you might be interested in this speedtalk thread:  http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43079#p547223

Jack,

Sorry for the rant, it's not directed at you.


Interesting thread.     Just one word of caution however.     Some of the critics on SpeedTalk, and other forums, have NEVER built an 'A' series engine themselves.      Or any 'A' series engine for any competition, regardless of results.     "Speculating", online, about your pet ideas for an engine type, is not the same as actually building something that then goes out and performs . . . . . . while publishing all of it online, honestly, for the benefit of anyone who chooses to use the information.    As a matter of note, some of these "pet ideas" from this thread, will not work on BMC's, because the room required to do so does not exist.    A "packaging limitation" unresearched by the person posting the "pet idea".

However, I do understand the comments about "new" technology Vs "old" methods/technology.      I can only add this thought:

Whether you use "new" or "old" ideas and/or technology to build your "jewel", I submit for your judgment that what is important, is how well these selected bits work in concert with each other . . . . . . because . . . . . . . It's complicated.    Every bit needs to perform "harmoniously" with every other bit, in what is a complex mechanical system.

Unless you get to design an engine from a clean sheet of paper, your racing engine is probably going to be a hybrid of some current technology with some insightful "new" refinements.     This is typically how it works, it is a practical solution, because you are constrained by the original design, the original "packaging limitations".     Engine performance evolution has always gone forward a bit at a time by concentrating effort on making some "new" idea workable, thereby reaping the benefit(s).     Clean sheet of paper designs typically include the "best" ideas of all current technologies, thoughtfully integrated into a well designed "package".     Think 1968 Cosworth DFV, current Chevy RO7 or Ford FR9, F1 hybrids, etc, . . . . . . you get the idea.

Often the best engines turn out to be those "properly built" with close attention to all the important "little details".

JMO
Fordboy

[jacksoni]

MM and FB, though you have moved on to the K motor, you might be interested in this speedtalk thread:  http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43079#p547223

Jack,

Sorry for the rant, it's not directed at you.


Interesting thread.     Just one word of caution however.     Some of the critics on SpeedTalk, and other forums, have NEVER built an 'A' series engine themselves.      Or any 'A' series engine for any competition, regardless of results.     "Speculating", online, about your pet ideas for an engine type, is not the same as actually building something that then goes out and performs . . . . . . while publishing all of it online, honestly, for the benefit of anyone who chooses to use the information.    As a matter of note, some of these "pet ideas" from this thread, will not work on BMC's, because the room required to do so does not exist.    A "packaging limitation" unresearched by the person posting the "pet idea".

However, I do understand the comments about "new" technology Vs "old" methods/technology.      I can only add this thought:

Whether you use "new" or "old" ideas and/or technology to build your "jewel", I submit for your judgment that what is important, is how well these selected bits work in concert with each other . . . . . . because . . . . . . . It's complicated.    Every bit needs to perform "harmoniously" with every other bit, in what is a complex mechanical system.

Unless you get to design an engine from a clean sheet of paper, your racing engine is probably going to be a hybrid of some current technology with some insightful "new" refinements.     This is typically how it works, it is a practical solution, because you are constrained by the original design, the original "packaging limitations".     Engine performance evolution has always gone forward a bit at a time by concentrating effort on making some "new" idea workable, thereby reaping the benefit(s).     Clean sheet of paper designs typically include the "best" ideas of all current technologies, thoughtfully integrated into a well designed "package".     Think 1968 Cosworth DFV, current Chevy RO7 or Ford FR9, F1 hybrids, etc, . . . . . . you get the idea.

Often the best engines turn out to be those "properly built" with close attention to all the important "little details".

JMO
Fordboy

I understand exactly your point. On the internet, a little bit of experience goes a long way. I remember one thread where someone posted a dyno sheet from an inertial dyno which showed acceleration rates at each rpm step. It clearly indicated that the engine acceleration peak was at peak torque. This led to a rather rancorous argument that went on for 70+ pages about where an engine with car attached accelerated at peak and how horsepower fit in and which was better torque or horsepower and how fast a car went down a track. Physics be damned. "Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." It seemed few could look at the dyno sheet and see the answer to the original question.      I will continue with my mish mash of misfit parts and try to make some power.......

[fordboy628]

I understand exactly your point. On the internet, a little bit of experience goes a long way. I remember one thread where someone posted a dyno sheet from an inertial dyno which showed acceleration rates at each rpm step. It clearly indicated that the engine acceleration peak was at peak torque.
Duh!!

 This led to a rather rancorous argument that went on for 70+ pages about where an engine with car attached accelerated at peak and how horsepower fit in and which was better torque or horsepower and how fast a car went down a track.

Why is it that idiots do not understand that bhp & tq are linked?

 Physics be damned. "Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." It seemed few could look at the dyno sheet and see the answer to the original question.      I will continue with my mish mash of misfit parts and try to make some power.......

See my comments inserted into your text.

Some "mish-mash" conglomerations of parts have set records, in many racing series/events.     An engine is only part of the equation, in any type of racing.

Trust me on this.
 
Fordboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

I just signed on with the Speedtalk forum - waiting to hear back from the moderator to post.

Mark, my condolences to you, Karen and the family.  A remarkable, unsung hero of WWII, your mother-in-law.

To the Pom Rod - I needed to get the front suspension finished.  Next weekend, the MG3 Club, The Milwaukee and Great Lakes MG Motor Group, are stopping by for what is essentially the presentation I did for the New England MG T register a few years back, except this time, it will be show-and-tell with the Midget.  I'll be doing the presentation in the garage, so I need to get the junk out of the way.  Junk tends to move easier with wheels on it, therefore . . .





The nose is high - no engine in it, but I'm also using a set of springs from a '76 rubber bumper Midget, which weighs almost 500 lbs more than a stock Bugeye.  I've got my spring pan spacers from the Midget, so if it's too much, I can lower it a bit, but I like the idea of the heavy duty springs on the front with the V8.

The wiring is coming along . . .





Under hood has relays and fuses for ignition, starter, high beam, low beam, fuel pump and radiator fan.  The inside of the firewall are turn signal relays from Painless Wiring - which lives up to their name in everything except price.


Digging through the scrap heap, I came across two pretty cool electronics chassis, both of which I've repurposed, one as a cover for the underhood electronics . . .



The other, a console, which I need to cut for a radio and cover with the Fender Tolex, but fits as though the rest of the interior was designed around it.  I'm thinking a Stratocaster cable jackplate with a TRS Switchcraft connector to input the MP3 player.





I'm a month behind and falling, but it's closer now than when I brought it home.

[fordboy628]

Mark, my condolences to you, Karen and the family.  A remarkable, unsung hero of WWII, your mother-in-law.

Thanks for the condolences Chris.

Kindest regards,
Mark

[fordboy628]

Pom rod is looking good.     Can you push it forward with just 2 fingers?   

See you on Saturday.   Looking forward to the presentation.     Perhaps all the expended brain heat will raise the temperature inside the garage . . . . . .

 
Fordboy

[fordboy628]

History of Mg at Bonneville Presentation day . . . . . .

Mr. Presenter,

See you in a couple of hours.

There, you've had your warning!!
 
Fordboy