The HIF is an excellent carb, and a significant technical advance on the
older style SU. For all around use (road) I'd be more than happy using
a HIF. In fact I have used a HIF6 on a 1380cc spridget and was extremely
happy with it. On that car I have used both Weber and HIF6 and with
good manifolds, the performance difference was slightly in favour of
the Weber at peak HP, but little or no difference elsewhere.
Note that this is a different story than twin SUs of the older kind.
Hey, remember - I have road-going cars with all three types - twin SUs,
single HIF6 and Weber. I don't have any axe to grind, I am not a zealot.
I just report my experience. In addition I have a racecar with a Weber.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Morrison <gofastmg@juno.com>
To: stritle@epix.net <stritle@epix.net>
Cc: mgs@autox.team.net <mgs@autox.team.net>
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: SU's vs Webers when converting a rubbernose
>Sound's EXACTLY like my HIF's.
>The only advantage I can see for the Weber's is that you don't have to
>add oil periodically.
> This is worth $300???? :>)
>
>Rick Morrison
>72 MGBGT
>74 Midget
>
>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:37:30 -0500 Steven Tritle <stritle@epix.net>
>writes:
>>Sounds more like SU's than Webers.
>>
>>Steve
>>52 TD
>>Mike Gigante wrote:
>>
>>> Webers just sound so much better :-)
>>>
>>> In addition, unlike SUs, they are "set and forget" - they don't
>>drift out
>>> of tune, and they are less prone to wear problems. If they are set
>>up
>>> correctly, they are wonderful.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Neil Cotty <neilc@tradesrv.com.au>
>>> To: MG Mailing List (E-mail) <mgs@autox.team.net>
>>> Date: Monday, November 23, 1998 10:01 PM
>>> Subject: SU's vs Webers when converting a rubbernose
>>>
>>> >Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >I've read quite a bit lately on SU's, Webers etc and I'm not sure
>>why there
>>> >are so many people out there with rubbernose cars converting to a
>>Weber
>>> when
>>> >they could convert to SU's. As far as I'm aware a single Weber
>>*may* have
>>> an
>>> >advantage at very high RPM's (3-5 bhp according to the Special
>>Tuning
>>> manual
>>> >with other mods) but SU's have the advantage lower down, producing
>>more
>>> >torque - at least thats what I hear from many racers and the books
>>I've
>>> >read - but essentially overall performance is similar - power band
>>is
>>> >different. If you own a single carbed B why not replace them with
>>dual SU's
>>> >instead of a single Weber? They leave more space in the engine bay
>>thanks
>>> to
>>> >the smaller intake, and are more 'original' than webers. They also
>>look
>>> >quite pleasant! I'm not bagging Webers (I'd love a pair of
>>sidedraft DCOE's
>>> >and a xflow head!) I'm just genuinely wondering why Webers are
>>chosen
>>> before
>>> >SU's. Is it a supply issue or one of 'perception', as Webers are
>>really
>>> seen
>>> >as performance carburettors..
>>> >
>>> >I'd like to hear some comments on this rubbernose issue. The Weber
>>route is
>>> >chosen far more often than the SU when changing from single carbs
>>to
>>> >increase performance (*without* other engine mods!! not talking
>>about head
>>> >work, headers etc) - I'd think you'd get similar performance by
>>going to
>>> >dual HS4 SU's on a std car. I've never experienced a late model
>>rubbernose
>>> >so I can't appreciate how 'impaired' they actually are. My GT is no
>>> >bahnstormer even as std with 94hp, in good nick with dual carbs, a
>>lot more
>>> >has to be done to improve it's performance! Heck even my A eats it
>>for
>>> >breakfast! <G> Yes, it really does.
>>> >
>>> >Cheers,
>>> >Neil.
>>> >--
>>> >Neil Cotty - Sydney, Australia
>>> >1970 MG B GT / 1959 MG A 1600 Mk1
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|