rec.autos.simulators

by **Leaky_Valv** » Sat, 25 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Apart from the overhead cam arrangement and the script on the cam-cover, there
is very little that is the same between this engine and the racing versions of
the famed CC 4-cylinder. In fact, I don't think that anything of importance is
actually interchangeable, David.

> > You are certainly right about the Coventry Climax engine. It had ruled the
> > 1.5 litre class in the years before (Cooper, Lotus and BRM used it amongst
> > others) and was basically bored and stroked for the 3 litre formula - off
> > the top of my head I think it could only be stretched to 2.5 litres. No
> one
> > at the time thought the 3 litre formula would be a success and as a result
> > there were no engines available at the start of the year and so some teams
> > were still running 1.5 litres.

> > The engine itself has a fascinating history - Coventry Climax made engines
> > for fire engine water pumps and someone found out (how, I can't imagine)
> > that the engine would make an excellent race engine. A version of the
> engine
> > later made its way into a mainstream road car (the Hillman Imp - a rear
> > engined competitor for the Mini) but suffered from poor reliability.

> My workplace actually has a Coventry Climax engine in its original fire pump
> form (ex Canadian Armed Forces unit). Its a tidy little package and makes a
> fantastic sound when you rev it. Its very easy tosee why it was developed
> into a race winner since it is lightweight and small in external dimension.
> The fire pump engine is a SOHC version using some kind of single updraft
> carb on a log manifold. It revs very quickly for an engine of the 1950s.

> David

-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

by **Leaky_Valv** » Sat, 25 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Yep....the fire-pump engine was a beauty and the reason it was chosen for such
duty was the fact that it could run at maximum revs all day and all night
without any problems........just so long as the oil was kept topped up. Its
larger-than-normal tolerances meant that it burnt a bit of oil....but it was
designed to do so, thus allowing it to run at a constant high speed.

The problem that Rootes had when adopting that technology to a mass-production
engine (or an engine for the masses is probably more appropriate!) was that the
average driver wasn't used to checking his oil every second day and, if oil was
used, he complained that something was wrong!

A lovely little engine, however. I had an Imp for several years and the
engine/transmission peed all over any other small car of that time insofar as
modern technology was concerned.

(That engine was also used, in larger capacity, in the Lotus Elite).

> Ah well I rather suspected as much . Still it is interesting to actually see
> the sort of engineering that the C-C company was capable of. The fire pump
> four really is a nice bit of engineering which shows up very well versus
> other 1950's era powerplants that I have seen. If it is not the GP engine
> itself it is at least the Grandfather or Great-Uncle-by- marriage of the GP
> engine. :) I still love the raw sound it makes.

> Best regards
> David

> > Apart from the overhead cam arrangement and the script on the cam-cover,
> there
> > is very little that is the same between this engine and the racing
> versions of
> > the famed CC 4-cylinder. In fact, I don't think that anything of
> importance is
> > actually interchangeable, David.

> > > My workplace actually has a Coventry Climax engine in its original fire
> pump
> > > form (ex Canadian Armed Forces unit). Its a tidy little package and
> makes a
> > > fantastic sound when you rev it. Its very easy tosee why it was
> developed
> > > into a race winner since it is lightweight and small in external
> dimension.
> > > The fire pump engine is a SOHC version using some kind of single updraft
> > > carb on a log manifold. It revs very quickly for an engine of the 1950s.

> > > David

> > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News
> ==----------
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
> > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers
> ==-----

-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

by **Tony Whitle** » Sat, 25 Dec 1999 04:00:00

On my poor memory? You don't actually expect anyone to check facts on the
Usenet, do you ;-)

by **Tony Whitle** » Sat, 25 Dec 1999 04:00:00

I've been up in my attic, sifting through my primary sources - 30 years of
"Motor Sport" magazines. I was a little off target (I was thinking more of
the start of the 1.5-litre formula which some people tried to ignore and
organised races for cars of the old formula) but I quote:

"A lot of gloomy people were going round saying that 1966 GP racing was
going to be a farce, with people using tired old bodged up cars made from
obsolete parts, such as the 2.7-litre Coventry-Climax 4-cylinder engine.
This attitude was also prevalent among British organisers, who turned their
backs on Formula 1 in their plans for 1966..." January, 1966. The writer
(D.S.J. of course) does go on to say that this thinking was wrong.

The report on the first "proper" 3-litre GP (Monaco, May) shows an entry
list with McLaren, Brabham, Cooper, Ferrari and BRM entering ten 3-litre
cars in a field of 24. Only Surtees, McLaren, Brabham and the three
Cooper-Maseratis started the race with 3-litre engines. Only two 3-litre
cars were running (unclassified, 25 laps behind) at the end of the race. I
don't think that can be called an auspicious start so I don't think my
original statement was so astounding.

Anyhow, this is wasting time I could be spending trying to get round the
'Ring under 10 minutes for a second time (he boasted pathetically)

Merry Xmas,
Tony Whitley

> > Exactly WHAT do you base this rather astounding statement on, Tony??!!
> On my poor memory? You don't actually expect anyone to check facts on the
> Usenet, do you ;-)

by **Leaky_Valv** » Sun, 26 Dec 1999 04:00:00

LOL!!
Okay.......I'll grant you that point!

> > Exactly WHAT do you base this rather astounding statement on, Tony??!!
> On my poor memory? You don't actually expect anyone to check facts on the
> Usenet, do you ;-)

-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

rec.autos.simulators

GPL, what is Honda & Cooper?

GPL, what is Honda & Cooper?

GPL, what is Honda & Cooper?

GPL, what is Honda & Cooper?

GPL, what is Honda & Cooper?

GPL, what is Honda & Cooper?