AGM
Welcome to this month's Centrespread and first let me comment on the FWD AGM that was scheduled to occur on Sunday 7th February. Unfortunately due to a number of unconnected, unavoidable and simultaneous occurrences, the meeting had to be called off at very short notice. Those members who had notified their intentions to attend were fortunately notified in time, but for those who turned up on the day and found the journey in vain we (the Committee) can only apologise for the inconvenience.

FWD Event 1999
At the time of writing tentative arrangements are in hand to hold a joint FWD Register/MGM Group event on the weekend of 25th/26th July 1999 at the Midland Railway Centre, which is at Ripley in Derbyshire. To locate it better you will find Ripley approximately 10 miles north of Derby, and from my own personal knowledge of the area there is very good road access to Ripley

At this stage much is to be confirmed but I suggest that the event be noted in the diary. I anticipate that by the June issue of Safety Fast I will not only have confirmation, but also more details of the event. Closer to the time you can also ring or e-mail me for further information.

Shrinkage
Normally something associated with wrongly washed clothes, but something that also applies to the modern M.G. FWD cars too! Not in the physical sense of course, but in terms of numbers of cars. I continue to see a steady decline in both numbers of cars and condition of these cars.

The Metro was the first to show the symptom as this model does unfortunately have the weakest specification allied to a tendency to oxidise! The Montego followed next, not so much from the rusting problems, although it certainly does have some specific weaknesses in that area, but more from the image being somewhat removed from the normal enthusiast arena. I have previously mentioned these views before concerning these two models.

Now I have to say that the Maestro has seemed to join the procession. I have a steady, if not large, stream of communications from owners and the clear trend over the last 3 months has been one of selling their cars. To put this in perspective I usually see about one owner a week telling me that they are selling their Maestro, and for every three selling I hear from someone who is buying. This has now changed to a ratio of twelve to one, quite a clear change!

The Maestro Turbo has in the past bucked the trend and performed much better and largely this continues, but the trend to more sellers against buyers is also showing up here too.

I have some observations and views but it seems that corrosion and residual value are the prime factors. I have met many an owner whose car displays the usual corrosion around the rear wheel arches, doors, roof seams and tailgate, who would dearly love to have these repaired and continue using the car. The problem first is finding a bodyshop who is prepared to take the job on, and then justifying the cost of the repairs against the residual value of the car.

The bodyshop problem continues to be one where proprietors don't take the car seriously and then can't accept that any owner would either. This leads to the assumption that owners would not be prepared to pay the costs for doing the job properly. In fairness many owners have difficulty accepting that to repair the usual corrosion and repaint can quite easily result in a bill that results in a bill which is perhaps over twice the market value of the car. There again if this had applied to all older cars then we would not have such a rich heritage of cars from the dawn of the motor car.

Maybe when most of the cars have been broken up because they became too low a value and not worth repairing, those of us with roadworthy examples will be glad that we persisted in preserving the models.

Unleaded Again
This is a subject that understandably worries many people and even though I drew some clear lines for most models in the last Centrespread (October 1998) , the same questions are still being raised, mainly by those with 'O' series engined cars. One question is exactly what is the term valve seat recession, and how does it occur? Put simply valve seat recession is where the valve seat erodes away and the valve sinks into the cylinder head. This is seen by the valve clearances continually closing up after they have been set, and accompanied by an increasing worsening of way the engine runs, especially at lower engine speeds.

It is caused when small particles of the 'soft' cast iron cylinder head in the valve seat area become embedded in the valve. The design of the valve gear is such that the valve is intended to turn on the seat during operation to reduce wear. Unfortunately this rotary movement then turns the valve into a very effective grinding tool, so rapidly increasing the wear of the seat. In addition now that the valve doesn't seat fully it is not able to transfer heat very well away from the valve head so there is a much greater chance of the valve failing and resulting in the characteristic 'V' shaped missing pieces in the head. (See the photo of two exhaust valves taken from the same engine - which still ran quite well!!)

I don't intend to repeat the information from the October 1998 Centrespread and will simply suggest that you dig out that issue. It seems that there is still much concern that the first time that you fill up with unleaded rather than leaded the engine will cough, splutter and run badly. This is so far from reality I have difficulty measuring the gap! To help illustrate the issue further I have extracted a document from the 'Oxford University Libraries Automation Service', which covers the subject of petrol, and other fuels that can be used in the infernal combustion engine. (Yes it is the internal combustion engine, but this description is often more accurate.)

Some of the salient points in the very detailed studies that have been carried out will be of interest. Firstly...

"The amount of valve seat recession is very dependent on the load on the engine. There have been several major studies on valve seat recession, and they conclude that most damage occurs under high-speed (engine speed), high-power conditions. Engine load is not a primary factor in valve seat wear for moderate operating conditions, and low to medium speed engines under moderate loads do not suffer rapid recession, as has been demonstrated on fuels such as CNG and LPG. Under severe conditions damage occurs rapidly, however there are significant cylinder to cylinder variations on the same engine. A 1970 engine operated at 70mph conditions exhibited an average of 1.5mm of seat recession in 12,000km. The difference between cylinders has been attributed to different rates of valve rotation, and experiments have confirmed that more rotation does increase the recession rate."

The reference to CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) and LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) can be ignored for our purposes unless you happen to want to change to such a fuel.

The clear message is that even the engines with the softest seats will not exhibit any significant wear in low to moderate engine speed and load conditions. Yet increase load and engine speed and wear is quickly apparent, yet even here this wear is progressive and not in the form of a sudden and catastrophic failure some seem to believe. I translate the thresholds between medium and high engine speeds to be about 4,000 rpm, and heavy load to be anything above half throttle. Note that the reference to a 1970 engine is clearly aimed at the A and B series type engines with no valve seat inserts or alternative hardening processes to the valve seat areas. Also the reference to 70mph is one where the engine was maintained at that load level for the full distance. Then there is the factor of gearing of the 4 speed gearboxes of the time meaning that 70mph would usually relate to engine speeds of 4000 rpm or greater.

If we look at the 'O' series, from whatever FWD model and whatever year we find the use of hardened valve seat inserts is universal. We therefore have a much, much higher level of protection that the '1970' engine would have. So if that engine only suffers from high engine speed together with high engine loads it should be clear to most that there will be a marked raising of those thresholds for the better equipped 'O' series. Add the standard use of 5 speed gearboxes that lower 70mph cruising to just over 3000 rpm, plus the maximum speed of the car is so much higher that the throttle is only slightly open to maintain such a cruising speed, and I have to say 'what is the problem?'

I do hope that the addition of this information helps allay the fears of those owners who are still worried about the future use of their 'O' series engined M.G., they are clearly in a much more comfortable position than many owners of older M.G.s.

Fuel Additives
There is also an interesting resume on additives that I will also refer to. It starts by asking the very simple and clear question - 'do fuel additives work?' Following this is the simple statement; 'most aftermarket fuel additives are not cost effective'. A fact that I think most of us are well aware of, and something that we accept, if the product being used does actually achieve what it claims.

Then there is an interesting reference to other devices; "There are various other pills, tablets, magnets filters, etc that all claim to improve either fuel economy or performance. Some of these have perfectly sound scientific mechanisms, unfortunately they are not cost effective. Some do not even have sound scientific mechanisms. Because the same model production vehicles can vary significantly, it's expensive to unambiguously demonstrate these additives are not cost effective. If you wish to try them, remember the biggest gain is likely to be caused by the lower mass of your wallet."

Well that clearly is far from any endorsement of any of these products. I would also point out that the inability to demonstrate that they are not cost effective is also true the other way round, so that all of the manufacturers/sellers claims can't be proven either.

The comment on additives is not closed yet as there is further comment; "There is one aftermarket additive that may be cost effective, the lubricity additive used with unleaded petrol to combat exhaust valve seat recession on engines that do not have seat inserts. This additive may be routinely added during the first few years of unleaded by the petrol producers." It then finishes the comments on these additives by saying; "The long term solution is to install inserts, or to have the seats hardened, at the next top overhaul."

Here in the UK I presume that we will see this fuel sold as LRP (Lead Replacement Petrol) with some stand alone additives available as an alternative. The Governments own information states that these will be available, but does also say that these will not be as effective as leaded petrol. (DETR leaflets, number T/INF/476 and T/INF/477)

This additional information simply reinforces what has already been said several times and also confirms the principle of just changing over to the unleaded and carrying on as normal. I add that with engines that do have adjustable ignition timing should retard the standard setting by 3 degrees, and for those whose engine management doesn't give you such options then use 98RON unleaded if you detect more pinking than you experienced before.

I would finish this subject with the information that quantifiable testing is ongoing just a few miles up the road from me at MIRA, (Motor Industry Research Association) into the effectiveness of a number of additives that are/will be available. These results will receive wide publicity in the near future.

Turbo tweaks
One of the questions that keeps cropping up is how to adjust the boost pressure of their turbo. This is something that should not be treated lightly as you will be able to turn your engine into a grenade, if you get things really 'screwed up'. Ideally you need to have use of a boost gauge so you can check the pressure that you are achieving now, and then keep an accurate eye on how much you alter it.

The same basic Garret T3 family unit is used on both the Metro Turbo, and the Maestro/Montego Turbo's and the guidance is the same. Refer to the photo of the turbo on this page. This happens to be a Maestro/Montego unit. The turbo bolts to the base of the exhaust manifold and exhaust gas travels direct from the manifold into the exhaust turbine housing. To the left of this can be seen the inlet turbine housing with the wastegate actuator. (The cylindrical object visible under the inlet housing, with, for those of you in black and white, a hose with a blue line and lettering!)

From the actuator is a straight rod travelling diagonally up to the exhaust housing area. This connects the actuator to the wastegate valve, and it is the spring tension from the actuator that holds the wastegate valve shut. When boost pressure rises this pressure is transmitted through the hose to the actuator, and at a predetermined pressure, overcomes the inbuilt spring pressure which releases the wastegate valve.

These units are adjustable to take into account variations of tension with the spring and fluctuations due to ageing. The adjustment is done by way of altering the length of the interconnecting rod, shortening to increase spring tension (increase boost) and lengthen to reduce spring tension (reduce boost).

The Metro Turbo has it's wastegate set at a listed 4psi whilst the Maestro/Montego operates at a listed 10psi. The Metro also has a built in dump valve and control circuit that allows the boost to rise to about 7psi under strictly controlled conditions. Before adjusting anything it is advisable to actually measure the pressure that is being delivered now. To do this 'T' piece into the pipe that comes out of the Plenum chamber and feeds to the wastegate actuator. Connect a new pipe from the 'T' piece and thread it into the car where you attach a pressure gauge with a scale of 0 to 15psi (0 to 1 bar). Then drive the car with an assistant noting the readings.

For the Metro Turbo use 3rd gear and full throttle, holding the engine at that load with a light foot brake application. Don't hold on for more than 3 to 4 seconds otherwise you will cook the brakes and don't repeat this without first continuing to drive for at least a minute to allow heat to dissipate. The first rpm level to check at is 3500rpm and you should see a steady 4psi(0.28 bar) (or very close to that). Repeat the test three times and average the readings. Then do the same run with the engine revs at 5000rpm. At this rpm the boost control should allow the boost to have risen to 7psi (0.49 bar), or very close to that. Again average out three runs.

For the Maestro/Montego Turbo you only need to run at 3500 rpm and follow the basic guidance applicable for the Metro. The average of three runs is needed and here you should see 10psi (0.7bar), or of course close to that.

I have deliberately varied the rpm levels to what may be shown in some manuals since this enables the tests to be done on an open road at speeds that do not exceed 70mph!

If the readings are lower than the factory specifications and the gauge you are using is accurate, then you will want to increase the setting to the correct level. Additionally there is usually something within most of us that demands 'more power' whatever level you have. For the Maestro/Montego there is some simple scope for this to be achieved, but for the Metro the gearbox weaknesses dictate no action beyond standard, unless you like to do gearbox changes or can put up with the whine of straight cut gears!

Practically you first need to wait for the engine to cool down, then you have a chance of putting your hands down the back of the engine and removing it with the same amount of skin you had to start with - well almost all! You will be surprised at how long it does take for the cast iron manifold to cool, so I will suggest that you take your readings and follow this with at least 2 hours of cooling with the engine off, before you even think about touching it.

The first job is to use a 10mm spanner to loosen the locknut halfway along the connecting rod. Wind that back about 3 complete turns. Now carefully remove the 'C' clip that holds the rod to the wastegate, noting that this often springs off at great speed and has an inbuilt homing device that locates the bottom of the nearest drain. A small screwdriver and slowly easing the clip clear will move it to a point where your fingers can pull it off. Now the rod can be moved away from the wastegate, but be aware that it is under spring tension and will spring towards the actuator.

Take the opportunity to check the free movement of the wastegate valve. It should be completely free to move through a 90-degree arc. If it is at all stiff try and free it off with the usual lubricants. If this is successful then add a little copper grease and continue, otherwise you will have to rectify this fault which will require turbo removal.

Now take hold of the actuator rod. You will see that it is in fact a threaded bar from the actuator screwing into a hollow rod for the wastegate end. To raise the boost pressure you now turn the rod onto the bar, which effectively shortens its overall length. As a rough guide 1psi increase equates to approximately one and a half turns of the rod. This rate is not consistent between different actuators and age also adds to the confusion. See why a boost gauge is needed?

I mentioned that the locknut should be wound back three complete turns. This was deliberate so that it limits the number of turns that the rod can be turned, and this should be regarded as the maximum to be done in one attempt. Take the car to the road again and check the boost as before.

Now having tempted you with the prospect of a simple power boost we arrive at the not insignificant operation of refitting the rod over the wastegate arm. Remember how strong the spring was when you removed the arm? Well now that you have shortened it, it is an even stronger spring and you need quite a strong hand (or even pliers) to extend the rod and slide it's end over the wastegate arm. You will also find that the wastegate swings about and needs to be tied back with a piece of wire or string. Again a little copper grease around the pivot between the rod end and arm helps keep things slick.

It is very easy to submit to the temptation of winding it up 'just another turn', but restrain yourself. The Metro specifically can easily be turned up more than the standard 4 psi, but take heed that it was set there to restrict the amount of mid range torque that the engine would produce, so to save you blowing up gearboxes. The boost control allowing real pressure to rise to 7 psi above 4000rpm at which point the torque effect would have less effect on the gearbox. Raising the base line pressure on the Metro will simply raise the minimum pressure from the 4psi. The boost control is not affected.

The Maestro/Montego is far more responsive and forgiving, mainly since it isn't restrained by gearbox limitations. This is why the boost is substantially higher to start with, and why it can take another 3 to 4 psi rise without raising any significant pitfalls. However don't rush into any major boost increase, take it in stages and try the car with correctly set standard boost first, it may surprise you. My own Turbo, before the current engine, ran for 50,000 miles with a boost level of between 13 and 14.5psi. The variation due to differences in exhaust system and the back pressure each created. The sports systems giving significantly reduced back pressure that allowed the boost pressure to rise accordingly.

The main question on many lips now is how much power does a boost increase give, and the answer to that is not as simple as you hope. With my Turbo I found that the power level rose from 132bhp at the wheels on standard boost to 155bhp with the 13psi and standard exhaust. With the exhaust replaced by a 2.25" bore twin box sports system this rose further to 165bhp, and coincided with the higher 14.5psi boost. What is evident is that a law of diminishing return was beginning to show with 23 bhp for the first 3psi rise and 10bhp more for 1.5psi extra. I know from other engines that this reducing return starts to bite quite quickly from here, requiring other more involved changes. This being the reason I went no further with my original engine.

One other aspect, which is of note, is that my engine actually ran best with the original standard needle, much to my surprise. 50,000 mile also indicates that the mixture was good enough not to affect reliability. Even so I ensured that this was checked under load at the higher boost levels on a rolling road. I have seen turbo engines that have melted internal parts by having the wrong mixture in boost conditions so DO have the mixture checked on a rolling road.

Milestone Montego
Recently I had a letter from John Wilson of Darlington who noticed a very small snippet in the Daily Mirror of 2nd January 1999. Titled 'Montego Marvel' it went on to record how taxi driver Brian Phillips form Totnes, Devon was trading in his M.G. Montego after 10 years and 341,000 miles without a major fault. As John says it would be interesting to track down both car and owner for some more details, perhaps Brian reads this column and would like to contact me?

Incidentally John's own M.G. Metro has now passed 129,000 miles, which he thought was doing well until reading about Brian's Montego. Thanks for the letter John. BTW, continue to use the Metro with unleaded, but plan a head change for one with valve seat inserts, or have the same work done to yours. Then you will be able to double your current mileage!

Original M.G. 1100 Last year you may recall a request from Hiroshi Tachika from Japan concerning a detail point with regard to the paint join on Duotone painted cars. Mike Pont was kind enough to provide the answer along with the story of an original 60,000 mile 1963 M.G. 1100 he had recently acquired. The car was first owned by a couple who grew old gracefully with the car, before both passed away. The car was last used in 1979 when the lady was too frail to drive, but now is a regular sight around the Ashdown Forrest area of Sussex.

'Original M.G. 1100'

The original bill of sale has much of interest not least of which is the total cost showing just £760.11s.3d, which included Duotone finish, satin number plates, wing mirrors, antifreeze and road tax. All recorded on the bill of sale by someone who was probably more at home with a spanner than a typewriter! The picture shows how well the car has survived and is quite simply a time capsule from 1963.

Finally
If anyone has any photos, stories or other FWD connected information then I would be very please to receive this at the M.G. House, 8 Rydal, Wilnecote, Tamworth, Staffs. B77 5TB.

Roger Parker