SU HS8 Needle questions

a couple of questions and some info on needles for HS8 carbs.

here is what was fitted from S1 thru S2

here is the individual profiles of those needles

BAW 990 950 918 887 860 827 799 774 755 735 715 700 690 680 670 650 4.2 s1
BBK 990 950 920 890 860 827 799 780 767 753 740 727 713 700 687 675 early s2
BCC 990 950 924 897 855 820 800 790 775 770 759 734 710 690 670 650 late s2

The engine I have has been rebuilt with 9:1 pistons, 0.30" overbore and has ~185psi cold compression on each cyl, it is a late S2, and has BCC needles

I have carbs from a S1 which has BAW needles.

My questions are; Why would Jaguar fit leaner needles to later motors, unless it was to reduce emissions…(with the needles being the main factor?..would this be the reason why these motors have a lower power output?)

My motor has no pollution equipment fitted, and the carbs have a manual choke with the AED removed.

I would have thought fitting the BAW needles could only make more power? …especially given it has higher compression, and greater CI

**
The only thing the needle does is to regulate how much fuel gets into the engine at various vacuums, Tony - which depends on rpms, throttle position and engine load. The 'profile of the needle is the calibration device - carefully computed to ensure proper air/fuel mixture.

Engine power comes from burning petrol - but to burn petrol you need air. The ideal mix is 14,7 parts air to 1 part fuel, by weight - more fuel without necessary air does not increase power; unburn fuel is simply expelled with no power contribution.
Too lean simply does not fully utilize the available air - power loss.

Basically, xk engine were set up to run slightly fat, the xk tolerates fat mixture with ease - but does not lie running lean.
A ‘fat’ set-up also compensates for carb imperfections, ensuring that the mixture does not go ‘lean’ under any circumstances. Being mechanical/analogue carbs are simply not able to ensure a consistent response to carb airflow.

The only drawback with running fat is pollution and excessive fuel consumption; in Europe with no emission regulation they did not care about the first. And Jaguar disregarded the latter, Jaguar drivers, at the time, presumably wanted performance over economy. The advent of emission regulations in the US, a very important Jaguar market, forced Jaguar to ‘do something’.

However, leaning out the mixture was one option, and necessary, to make other emission control hardware perform properly - but leaning out mixture was not the main reason for power loss. Other factors, the emission control hardware and resetting required for the lower octane rating played a part. The xk was designed for 98 octane available for longer time in Europe, hence the usual higher compression ratio. So needle profiles was one factor, but carb choice another - Strombergs, with their better emission features were not fitted to Europeans…

All the above is rather crude assessments excluding finer points on very complex interactions. In your case, disregarding emissions, you may prefer ‘fat’ - a secondary element is that fuel act as a coolant. However, ‘fatter’ beyond ‘ideal’ will not give more power - but will ensure against flatspots. The best choice of needle profile is more a matter of trial and error - Jaguar chose their set-up based on perceived use of a Jaguar - taking market specifics into account. Your driving style and modification may benefit from a different than standard needle profile…

But do not expect miracles from needle choice - some experimenting with ignition timing won’t come amiss…:slight_smile:

Frank
xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)
**

thanks for the lengthy reply.

it has my interest, for several reasons

firstly, why?..I am certain the needles would have been optimized by Jaguar engineers using dyno?

in 1968, I cant imagine pollution played ANY factor in design criteria, so power would have been optimized?

the later needles would have been changed for a reason, either the early ones were deemed not ideal,
OR they were again optimized for some other criteria, presumably emissions.

also looking at the individual profiles I noted, some ‘stations’ are richer/leaner on the listed needles.

my engine has BCC, I have a set with BAW, and another S2 set (have not checked needles type yet),
so I will be able to conduct the simple experiment of swapping bells & piston+needle straight across, take me 20min, and test

This engine is in a 420G, and therefore a tri-carb belongs there.
Once I have time, I intend to fit 3 x HS8 manual choke carbs to a 420G manifold, to replace the 2 X HS8 manual choke items

This permanently eliminates the originally fitted ASC (small starting carb) which I do not like

awg tony
May 17 Frank_Andersen:

But do not expect miracles from needle choice - some experimenting with
ignition timing won’t come amiss…

thanks for the lengthy reply.

it has my interest, for several reasons

firstly, why?..I am certain the needles would have been optimized by Jaguar
engineers using dyno?

**
Dyno may read power, Tony - but max power was not necessarily the prime aim for Jaguar in all markets. The dyno will also reveal flatspots due to incorrect mixture - but not really cover all driving dynamics…

Frank
xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)
**

My Series 1 has standard BAW needles - seems to be the original equipment for non US cars of 1971.

I am currently considering BAM needles as recommended in the Des Hamill bible. My motivation is to avoid lean WOT run as I have installed hidden velocity stacks in the airbox.
Is there some experience with BAM in the forum?

Many thanks in advance!

I changed the needles to BAM and carefully set the carbs to 3,5 % idle CO.
Result: nice performance, 17,5 mpg resp. 13,5 l/100 km on a highway trip with 130 km/h speed. Is this ok for a 1971 Seies 1 with BW12?

Consumption is very ok to me, and CO seems good I think :slightly_smiling_face:

Second that, David - it’s as good as it gets; though he could try with some reduction in CO. Just for the fun of it…:slight_smile:

Frank
xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)
**