Engine upgrade

[Peter Douglas W]

I am just wondering if I should do an Engine upgrade. I have a late 2000 MK2 which is lacking in power and pulls away very badly, partially because I have a 1/4 CWT of boiler plate mounted under the car. Triumphs solution for driving off road. What small improvements can be made with out a major change. I think 115 HP would be the maximum for my style of driving nowdays. Any ideas. e.g Bigger carbs or head grind or different cam or?

[badger]

Watching this thread with interest.I’m guessing the quickest and possibly cheapest way would be to swap the lump for a 2.5, and swap over the diff as well. I’d like to keep my engine in place, so maybe getting the engine reconditioned, a hotter camshaft? I’ve already got a super sport CW exhaust. Can fitting larger Strombergs help? CW exhaust manifold? It would interesting to know how much extra horses each upgrade gives you.

[badger]

Looking at a previous thread, it seems your best bet is to get the head polished and ported, valves and a better camshaft. Then maybe larger carbs.

[johnnydog]

I wouldn't have thought that 1/4 cwt (28lbs) would make that much different to the cars performance - its only about 12.5 kgs if my maths are correct?
An average adult is approx 80 - 90 kgs, so I'm wondering if your problem lies elsewhere. Have you gone through all the usual checks, compression, static engine settings, carburation and ignition checks Peter?

[Peter Douglas W]

The engine has had the head done up and hardened seats put in. The consumption and Exhaust values are good. the acceleration and top speed that are very poor even using the J type O/D.
Actually I don`t really know the total wieght of this Boiler plate rubbish but it is dammed heavy when you want to remove it. Yes, I could remove it but it is very original. I tried upgrading the fuel with no sensible success.

[johnnydog]

You haven't said what age of Mk2 2000 you have other than a late (r) model.
From late 72 / 73 changes to the engine in 2000 models meant a reduction in performance. They were fitted with dome top pistons and the Stromberg carburettors were changed to (I think) to CDS3 types for emission purposes (one reason I believe) without the adjustable jet from underneath ('tamperproof' apparantly!). They are identifiable as they have a white plastic temperature compensator device on the side of one carburettor. I have driven a couple of cars with these engines and these later Stromberg carbs, and they are very lethargic, with no real get up and go and not a patch on the earlier engines and those fitted with CDS carbs.
Unless yours of course is a later facelift model on SU's?

[Peter Douglas W]

It is (I believe) a 1975 TC 2000 with SUs ML21224DLO In the late 60s, early 70s I had a MK1 2000 estate and that was much quicker. This one is terrible when pulling away from the lights in 1st gear. Once at the high end of the revs in 2nd gear it starts to be a bit lively.

[johnnydog]

Was the performance better before the recent cylinder head work, the same, or worse?

[Peter Douglas W]

No real difference.

[johnnydog]

There's no real comparison in my opinion between the Mk1 2000 especially with the very late MC engines, and the late Mk2 2000's. In all the 2000 models, the late Mk1's and the very early Mk2s were the best performers (in my opinion, for what it's worth!)
Has your Mk2 2000 got HS4 carbs, or is it one of the later ones with HS6's? (Easy to distinguish - HS4's have the air filter box on the carbs themselves with a offset two stud mounting per carb, whilst HS6's have a 4 stud mounting per carb with the 'elephants trunk ' and remote air filter box?)