Jump to content


Photo

Who tuned Peter Gammon's MG engine?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 PeterTRoss

PeterTRoss
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 27 February 2008 - 12:27

Posted Image Peter Gammon (1500cc Lotus-MG) shapes up to pass Clive Clairmonte in the 2 litre Clairmonte Special in 1954

We will be running a story about the Peter Gammon Lotus Mk VI UPE in the next issue of Historic Lotus.

Gammon had been unbeatable in the 1500cc Sports Car class in 1952 and 1953 in his TC MG special
and he put the same engine into his Lotus and was virtually unbeatable again in 1954.

We need to add something about the person who tuned his MG engine. I have the feeling that it was Cambridge-based Don Moore who did a lot of work for Lister, but I am sure one of you will know.

Advertisement

#2 llmaurice

llmaurice
  • Member

  • 431 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 27 February 2008 - 16:24

I've just emailed Peter West (Westune) ret'd. who worked for Don Moore at that time . I'll let you know what he has to say .

#3 PeterTRoss

PeterTRoss
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 27 February 2008 - 19:16

Posted Image Lotus Mk VI UPE9 is loaded back into the transporter(?) in 1954. On right rear wheel Dave Kelsey (Progress Chassis), on left rear wheel Peter Gammon, on front wheel John Standen (who became a director of Lotus), and looking at his car No 43 in the background is Mike Anthony. Photo Ferret Fotographics.

Can anyone name the chap in the middle at the back, or explain why the rear axle is missing?

#4 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,997 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 27 February 2008 - 20:03

Originally posted by PeterTRoss
[B
Can anyone name the chap in the middle at the back, or explain why the rear axle is missing? [/B]


Can't help in any way..but what a great period photo!

#5 Leigh Trevail

Leigh Trevail
  • Member

  • 553 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:41

The axle has been removed to save weight to make it easier to carry!

#6 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 6,072 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 28 February 2008 - 13:41

Bit of interesting XPAG engine data / tuning information here

http://home.modemss....seley/xpag.html

Interesting that the standard MG TC engine only had a max of 54 BHP and even in full race guise a max of 83 BHP pretty poor even for a 1250 cc engine given that it was quite a tall ( seemed to need a bulge in the bonnet of a VI to clear the rocker cover ) and large cast iron power unit.

Even the 1500cc version the XPEG in the TD2 and TF was only worth an extra 11BHP from its bigger bore.

"Most of this difference - which, believe it or not, could be felt - was due to a change from 3 cm SU carburettors to a set of the same make with 4 cm venturii, coupled with a raise in compression of 3/4 of a point or a jump from 7.25 to 1 up to 8 to 1.

Slightly stiffer outer valve springs were also used. The XPEG engine differed from the late XPAG only in bore size, a core change allowing a bore of 7.2 cms used in that block as against the 6.65 cms of the earlier model.

In virtually all other respects the XPAG and XPEG engines were the same, even unto the stroke. Flywheel horse­power of the larger stock engine was listed at 63 at 5000rpm, though careful balancing and selective assembly eased this up to about 65 maximum at 5200rpm.

One of the nicer aspects of the pre-1956 MG engines is that power increases could be made in small, easy stages governed mostly by the energy of the builder and the state of his bank account. There were actually five operations, or stages, of power increase for either engine, the final or full-house treatment delivering about 85bhp at 6300rpm on 90 octane fuel. With alcohol this last operation could produce well over 110bhp at the same rpm figure, using the smaller 1250cc engine as a base of operations."



#7 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 4,065 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 28 February 2008 - 14:27

Originally posted by RTH

Interesting that the standard MG TC engine only had a max of 54 BHP and even in full race guise a max of 83 BHP pretty poor even for a 1250 cc engine given that it was quite a tall and large cast iron power unit.


Ah, but where were you in 1950?
Compare the XPAG with the acknowledged leader of the road engines of the time, the XK120 and it's really not too bad for push-rod engine of a pre-war design.

bhp for XPAG: 54 @ 5200 which is 43.2/litre and 2.5/sq. in. of piston area
bhp for XK120:160@ 5200 which is 46.5/litre and 3.18/sq. in. of piston area

bmep for XPAG: 125 @2600
bmep for XK120: 140 @2500

Developed versions:
bhp for XPAG St 3a: 83 @ 6000 which is 66.4/litre and 3.85/sq. in. of piston area
bhp for XK140:190@ 5500 which is 55.2/litre and 3.78/sq. in. of piston area
bhp for XK140 SE:210@ 5750 which is 61.0/litre and 4.17/sq. in. of piston area

Don't forget that the fuel was only 82MON (except for XPAG St 3a)

Oh, and it's a rocker box, not a cam cover, that is the top of the XPAG!

#8 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 6,072 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 28 February 2008 - 14:40

Well I wasn't born for the first few months !

Yes that's fair comment Allan. The limiting factor then I imagine was low octane fuel only available which meant you had to run low compression ratios of 7 - 8 : 1 nowadays we think 95 octane is low !! and road cars have nearly 10 :1 .

I had an MG TC road car myself 40 years ago, it could never be called quick.

The advantage came in the ultra lightweight body/chassis and comparatively low drag and nimble handling of the MK VI.

#9 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 6,072 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 28 February 2008 - 15:01

This is quite an interesting site for Lotus models at a glance

http://www.lotusespr...otus_Models.htm

#10 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 28 February 2008 - 15:44

The other point in the MG engine's defence is to consider its competition in the 1500 class in Britain at the time, namely pre-war Riley, Meadows, Singer and Ford 10 units.

#11 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 6,072 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 28 February 2008 - 17:29

True enough David. I suppose it highlights just what a step forward the Climax 'fire pump ' engine was, and many car makers took another 20 years on to catch up with that. We still even have an all iron push rod engine in the Ford KA ....50 years on from its arrival in the 105E.

#12 2Bob

2Bob
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 29 February 2008 - 02:50

I had an MG TC road car myself 40 years ago, it could never be called quick.


Maybe not but one with a hot motor on a wet road (downhill too) at night was plenty scary enough for me!