LRO: Re: Engine Balancing

From: Phil Norris (phil.norris@virgin.net)
Date: Wed Apr 04 2001 - 11:46:16 EDT

  • Next message: Sergi, Michael: "RE: LRO: RE: Parts availability vs. bulletproofing"

    One of the guys over here has a S1 with a 2.25 in it, balanced properly also
    with a different cam and a mild head/port/manifold job, as quick as a V8 I
    gather......
    Rumour has it that certain military long range patrol L-Rs had blue-printed
    balanced matched ports etc and with all the fuel and three troopers on board
    were still the fastest L-Rs in the British Army.
    Must do some good, even on Mr Wilkes farm wagon engine....
    Brgds
    PhilN
    110 V8 SW (first visit to RRLRC last night....)
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hope Peter <hope_peter@bah.com>
    To: lro@Works.Team.Net <lro@Works.Team.Net>
    Date: 04 April 2001 03:13
    Subject: LRO: Engine Balancing

    >> >Though I will gladly admit the series II (not IIA) engine is
    considerably
    >> >smoother and better-balanced than its IIa counterpart. Miss Jess idles
    so
    >> >quietly you can barely hear her run.
    >
    >Hmm, can't hear my engine at an idle either, or at 4000rpms for that
    matter,
    >500w amp takes care of that.
    >
    >But seriously. Is it a good idea to get the crank and con rods balanced
    for
    >a 1970 2.25petrol lump when doing a rebuild?
    >Yeah, I am back into the keep it Rover mode. Decided that in the end it
    >would just plain be simpler to rebuild the 2.25 then replace it with a 4.3.
    >Am thinking about doing the rebuild next month, school will be over. And I
    >figure I should go ahead and do it while I have back up trans, and a job to
    >pay for it, hahaa.
    >Pete 'really I am not usually this indecisive'
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Apr 04 2001 - 13:54:52 EDT