Whats the difference in all round performance between the fireblade and hayabusa engine? obviously i know theres an extra 400cc's and 50 odd bhp etc, but has anyone had both or been in both that can give me an idea?
cheers!
Liam

I've not been in either either but I can give an educated guess. The busa will have a lot more torque and so will accelerate harder in each gear. The blade may (I don't know) rev a bit higher so that you can hold on to each gear a bit longer. The busa has 40% more power one way or another and so it is going to be noticably quicker. Oh, and as the top speed might be higer as well, the speed at which acceleration starts to wain will be higher.

No intelligent data to offer, but on the last track day the busa powered Westfield shot past my Blade

depends whose driving. last track day i passed a busa engined westy in my MK Indy R1.

Why do you need to know? Neither's slow! Are you upgrading or looking from a fresh build view? And as already said, it will depend who's driving. Straight line the 'busas should dissapear off into the distance, but rounds the twisties the man/women with the bigger balls will dissapear. Given everything else is the same of course.

It's all hp/weight, torque is meaningless. HP ratings take torque into account.

That said, it's likely the only difference between the two will be "Holy Cow!" versus "Oh crap!" Do you care which you have?

[Edited on 3/10/06 by kb58]

they are all good fun but the blade feels rather flat ,i have been in both,the blade is ok up to 100 mph but then it starts to struggle

quote:

---

Originally posted by skydivepaul
depends whose driving. last track day i passed a busa engined westy in my MK Indy R1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skydivepaul
depends whose driving. last track day i passed a busa engined westy in my MK Indy R1.

---

reason for asking is that im looking at buying a blade engined car, and may buy a busa engine to put in at a later date. Obviously i know that the weights being relatively similar there is going to be a difference, just wanted to know how much of one really. Im a mechanical engineer so can clearly imagine the obvious effects, am just doing some research into the differences before i go ahead with my choices. cheers for any help.

[Edited on 11/3/06 by Toady1]

quote:

---

the weights being relatively similar

---

Can't speak about Busa, but our mildly modified ZX12R which is allegedly better suited to 7's than a similarly modified Busa is comparable.

The engine is smoother to drive as it has little or no power band as the blade does. (We have had a blade engine too - no longer tho'

I'd agree with Ox that the performance difference isn't 'miles' apart as you would expect but there IS a difference. You know you have more torque as the larger engine can continue to pull from higher speeds.

Make no mistake tho' the blade engine is VERY fun

[Edited on 11/3/06 by OX]

Beyonf the engine weight you have to think in the wet sump (cost and weight) for the 'Busa

Joao

my car is probably 40 or more kgs heavy than my brothers r1 and i am 24 kgs heavier than my brother but it still pulls away from him but the overall drivability makes it worth the extra money,to me . if i built another one it wouldnt have a dry sump and i wouldnt need a spare set of wheels so i could get the price down to 8000 ,it would still be heavier but at only £1500 more .the grin factor aloan is worth more than that

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoaoCaldeira
Beyonf the engine weight you have to think in the wet sump (cost and weight) for the 'Busa

Joao

---

There is little (very little) too choose between the front running class A RGB's (Busas, ZX12's) and the front running class C RGB's (919 blades).

so basically are we saying that its worth the extra couple of grand to go for the busa powered cars or not?

does anyone know the performance figures of 0-100 or 1/4 mile for the blade and busa engines in a bec weighing approx 450kgs?

no i think for a long time people have thought that the busa is to expensive for the little extra that you get ,on paper if you look at lap times and weight it might not look like its worth it but its the raw power that is felt that makes me think its worth the extra.you need to get a ride in one to see for your self

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toady1
so basically are we saying that its worth the extra couple of grand to go for the busa powered cars or not?

---

buy the blade one, to see if you like BECs, and than as with all things, you will want more power - that is when you pull out ya wallet!

My old crossflow lump felt lively on the roads but underpowered on track, thats why im putting a zx9 in. If all goes well, i'll then rebuild the full car with a zx12.

yeah thats how im thinking. I think i will initially go for a blade engined car, and go for a bigger engine if it comes to it, but as OX says, i need to go for a ride in some first!lol!

Ive driven a busa on track several times(as well as my own blade / R1 car) and although the busa is cetainly quicker than the blade, as others have said its not miles different. The main place you loose out it high speed acceleration, coming out of slow corners up to say 70-80mph you wouldnt lose much to a busa car, but after that it will stretch its legs and carry on accelerating as hard well past 100mph, whereas the blade acceleration tends to tail off a bit at higher speeds where outright power is more important than power/weight due to all the drag you need to overcome. As an example of on track performance, my mate's Megabusa would just about hit the limiter in 6th up the Kemmel straight at Spa (after Eau Rouge) so touching 125-130mph, compared to ~115-120mph for my blade which wouldnt hit the limiter.

I have to say though that the R1 bridges the gap quite well so for a few hundred extra Id seriously consider that option (as well as the ZX12).
Ive not had chance to compare mine against my mate's recently (as his busa now has a turbo) but I drove his car and another almost identical Westie with an R1 engine in it on the same day at Llandow a year or so ago, and the pull of the R1 isnt far off. I think above 100mph the busa would still have an advantage but below that there is a slight difference, but not very much.

If you work out the power / weights of all three that backs up the feeling because the R1 car is far closer to busa power to weight than it is to blade p/w once you factor in the 30kg weight penalty of the busa / ZX12.

Chris

cheers chris, a very helpful answer!

Does anyone actually have any performance stats. Not really interested in 0 - 60, but what about 0 - 100 and 1/4?

G

Right 12.9s not bad, but with a terminal of 104 its definately running out beans. 13.8 @ 100mph is pretty poor for a rwd kit car.

How would this compare to a redtop?

Thanks for the reply though, I am just weighing up my options and what I really can afford or what I really want to buy.

George

I did a 13.4 @ 105mph in mine when it had a blade installed. Ive done another event since I installed the R1 and it did a smidge under 13s @ about 110mph. A friend's ZX12 Locost at the same event did 12.5 @ 115mph. All could be improved on with better tyres (I had my crap A509 Yokos on which are hard as nails and over 2 years use have refused to wear AT ALL ), and on a proper drag surface like Santa Pod, these times were on a temporary strip set up at a car show on an Army airbase runway. I reckon mine could get down to mid 12's at least.

Chris

[Edited on 19/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]

They sound like better times. Looking at some of the videos I think the launchs in the BEC are quite difficult

I think the biggest difference you would find would be in terms of driveability on the road & ease of standing start launch - the extra cubes & torque are always going to make things a bit easier

quote:

---

It's all hp/weight, torque is meaningless. HP ratings take torque into account.

---

george do you not think a late 12- 13 seconds is quick on the quarter mile

these 7 type cars have the aerodynamics of a brick after 70mph

hence why there terminals are slower

but there 0-60 are ballisitic

these cars arent really for 0-100 stats or 1/4 miles

0-60 and they would lead the pack

on normal roads whether it be BEC or CEC

there is nothing that would keep with you
because I dont know of a road by me where you could hit 90mph before running out of road or hitting a good bend

so these cars are in there element

chris

1/8 of a mile times may make the performance more evident, d'yer reckon?

yep theres always an answer for everything

Yea its a valid point Chris but I have also disregarded 0 - 60 as a performance stat in the past. 0 - 100 has always been the main bench mark for me. I know on track speeds needed are around 40 - 120 going on past expirience obviously depending on the circuit.

I think anything in the 12s is quick, however I have a Saxo that has kit high 13s and thats bloody fwd, so no I don't tend to think thats so good. Mid 12s or faster would be something I am looking for.

And of course like you say handling is a big attraction!

1/8s will be quick its the last 1/8 I am interested in.

well agree to disagree then

no probs

the rear wheel drive is fine

ie handling and sprints

and thats why BECs can achieve 60 in late threes if setup properly

but the aerodynamics are the problem with any 7

even on a track though Most BECS I know of pull of superb times that youd need one expensive car to compete against them

that goes for CECs aswell

chris

I'm certainly not disagreeing Chris you have some valid points. However, traffic light grandprix isn't really what I am after, no matter how much fun it might be. On track when do you really dip below 40mph, certainly never standing.

I also appriciate the aerodynamics are poor.

Either way I think a BEC is what I am steering to. How much should I be looking to pay for a well built MK busa? Also can you point me to a good source. I have looked on piston heads and autotrader, but there must be other places.

George

dont you fancy building one

Ive just finished my r1 and it has cost me 9k

If id have sourced more second hand stuff like wheels and not worried about stuff like OMP steering wheels and quick releases I could of knocked 1.5k off the cost

Busas are expensive engines

OX has one on here and hellfire has a zx12r which doesnt cost as much as the busa

but is almost just as powerful

chris

As much as I would like to build one I don't really have the paitence, the techinical know how, space, time or the budget for the unknown.

I have seen many bike engined mks on piston heads for 6k upwards, so building my own and having to wait seems pointless. I know some people enjoy this and I can fully understand why, but for me its not what I am after.

Good places to buy?

piston heads ebay or on here

go to shows aswell theres always a few for sale

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeL
Right 12.9s not bad, but with a terminal of 104 its definately running out beans.................

---

The Busa is soo quick Just a shame I am such a bad driver

I have seen the price of an 06 R1 on here at around 2k, which puts it as more expensive than the ZX12?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeL
Right 12.9s not bad, but with a terminal of 104 its definately running out beans.................

---

Definitely NOT running out of beans at 104mph. The problem is in the launch technique and being able to minimise wheelspin. I reckon that 12.9secs can be greatly improved on with more practice.

The ZX12R engine has slightly more BHP than the Busa but also has slightly less torque. Overall, they are both very similar, except in one area......... price

Phil

---

it must be a special hot hatch though

a vts would struggle to do under 15's

most scoobs evos pulsars with general tuning only run late 13's

what saxo do you know of unless heavily tuned etc that would keep up with the above

quote:

---

Originally posted by zxrlocost
it must be a special hot hatch though

a vts would struggle to do under 15's

most scoobs evos pulsars with general tuning only run late 13's

what saxo do you know of unless heavily tuned etc that would keep up with the above

---

We've got Toyota Glanza's that run in low 13's here, and a few that go down to mid-12's. Very nice little 1300cc engine with a stock 135bhp figure. It will go to about 180-190 on stock internals, but changing to an all-forged internals will give you an engine that is bullet proof up to about 350bhp, or maybe more .... dunno we haven't been there yet

quote:

---

Originally posted by clutch_kick
We've got Toyota Glanza's that run in low 13's here, and a few that go down to mid-12's. Very nice little 1300cc engine with a stock 135bhp figure. It will go to about 180-190 on stock internals, but changing to an all-forged internals will give you an engine that is bullet proof up to about 350bhp, or maybe more .... dunno we haven't been there yet

---

I know of an MK chasssis ( I think) here in Malta with on of those engines ... the 4e-fte. It should be on the 200bhp mark.

but i haven't seen it on the road yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andy North
The Busa is soo quick Just a shame I am such a bad driver

I have seen the price of an 06 R1 on here at around 2k, which puts it as more expensive than the ZX12?

---

my 06 r1 was £1900 but had less than 100 miles on it a low ish mile 2005 engine should be £1600-1700.
it weights 58kg without loom (so just about the lightest bec engined used atm) and has 175bhp. with a decent exhaust, longer inlet trumpets and a remap through a pc3 then 185 should be possible, and replacing the headgasket with the thinner racing one (available at the bigger dealers for £60) supposedly adds another 5bhp although i havent seen back to back test to confirm this

Ive only bothered trying / logging it once, but my best 0-100 time with the R1 engine is 9.8s again on the hard road tyres and a launch I wasnt particularly pleased with, so low 9s would be achievable at least.

BECs can be tricky to launch but once you get the technique right it does seem quite easy to hook them up.

Have a look at a few of the videos of the Fluke Motorsport R1 Westfield on their website, particularly the Brighton Speed Trials 1/4 mile run (which was high 12's I think) and the top/bottom vids of on the road driving.

Chris

Sub 10s are quick mate for sure. The 1/4 miles were possibly not giving a true reflection of performance?

Having a look at that site now its half time.

Chris speaks sence!

Dont forget though that the quarter mile times include reaction time plus the time it takes you to dump the clutch and actually start moving, whch is probably about 0.75 seconds overall, whereas the 0-100 only starts timing when the car starts moving so on the quarter mile you might hit 100mph at about 10.5-11s after the timing started.

I wouldnt be suprised if mine took an additional 2-3 seconds to get from 100-110 what with the wind resistance so it isnt that far out.

I didnt just do it with a stopwatch BTW, done off my Digidash which can be set to record acceleration runs automatically. Speed is read off the prop and has been checked against GPS to be accurate within a couple of mph at high speed.

Chris

Fair enough, wasnt aware of that, I still wouldnt be suprised if it took an R1 BEC to get from 100-110 in 3s though, which is all it would need to have achieved a sub 10s 0-100.

If you plot a quick graph of the "known" claimed figures (0-60 in 4s, 0-100 in 10s, plus my 0-110 in 12.9s then it follows a trend quite well, so I dont think its that unrealistic, and the graph follows a similar trend using 3.8s, 9s and 12.5s @115mph which is what a friend's ZX12 timed.


Acceleration graph

[Edited on 20/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]

Ive just done a comparison graph putting in 90mph at the 10s mark and the car would have to start accelerating harder again from 90-110mph in order to record a 12.9s 1/4, which it obviously wouldnt do, so the car must be doing around 10s 0-100 IMHO.


Acceleration 2

[Edited on 20/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]

richard miles quotes his r1 striker at 0-60 3.4 0-100 8.4 but im not sure how or if that was measured but that is with a genuine 172bhp/390kg and he has been accurate with all his other claims.

cossey, AFAIK Rich never timed his car, I suspect it was figures taken from cartest 2000 or some similar application that calculates acceleration based on various parameters you put into it.

Chris, here's the comparison graph for the figures you gave, I assume for your car? Again a fairly good trend.


Acceleration 3

Not sure, if 60 is hit in 4 seconds, then 80 would likely be in the 6's somewhere Id think?

I agree on the wind resistance thing (drag increases by the square of speed IIRC, ie 4x speed = 16x wind resistance) which is why I think its not unreasonable for a comparatively low powered car with high drag to take 3s to get from 100-110.

Yep, having seen the graphs I've changed my mind on the 9s figure, I dont think mine would get much below 10s unless my terminal speed was higher.

If you take the terminal speed as a reasonably good indicator of actual grunt once up and running, then 110mph is probably roughly what Id get regardless of the time. When doing the 1/4 in 12.9s at this speed, it does equate to 100mph in around 10s, but to have a chance of a 9s 0-100, it would need to be hitting 115mph in 12.5 or less, so a ZX12 is whats required


[Edited on 20/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
cossey, AFAIK Rich never timed his car, I suspect it was figures taken from cartest 2000 or some similar application that calculates acceleration based on various parameters you put into it.

Chris, here's the comparison graph for the figures you gave, I assume for your car? Again a fairly good trend.


Acceleration 3

---

You need to raise the drag co eff in car test to get a more accurate 1/4 and terminal. By the sounds of that your top speed is going to be around 160.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeL
You need to raise the drag co eff in car test to get a more accurate 1/4 and terminal. By the sounds of that your top speed is going to be around 160.

---

Still sounds quick, but if its accurate then happy days!

i think its more a best possible so it requires good track conditions plus near perfect changes etc. to get there will require some practice. the only difference between the 2 is the power curve and the drag coefficient (0.35 for the fury 0.6 for the locost)

Christ 0.6 is horrendous for co eff. The thing about the fury is the look, I just don't like them, even if they do cut through the air better.

0.6 is low for a seven thats why they arent that good over 100mph

the fury might be getting a new body style soon which is more like a baby gt with hardtop etc http://www.thekitcarworkshop.co.uk/page31.html

of the current styles the faired in version looks better imho, it looks better in racing form than road though.

My Westfield Busa managed 9.8s 1/4 mile in the states, terminal was about 127 from memory. My best in the blade was 13.4, and with nitrous 12.2s.

Was generating 320 bhp at rear wheels on a hot day (still have rr plot somewhere). Very high spec engine, with a Velocity Racing Road stage 2 turbo kit and water inj. (have pics if interrested). Was also fitted with nitrous but never had the need (or balls!) to use it.

This was crazy fast, but dangerous on the road (which is where a lot of my driving is)! With traction/boost control off, would leave long strips of rubber on the road at 50mph.

Also had previously fitted a fireblade, and standard busa engine in the same car. Busa is more powerful and has more torque, but much heaver if you also include all of the extra kit. The blade is more fun due to its "spirited" nature, and only rearly slows down when 2 up.

Now changing to a GSXR 1000 engine for licence, wife and kidies reasons......

[Edited on 25/4/06 by rlong]

Jesus Ric thats quick, cant wait to see Bazzer's on the 1/4 mile now!

Would love to see those pics rlong!

Post them here or bust it over on email if that's okay?

/ Email below /

Chris.

If Ric hasnt got anywhere to host them , the aforementioned Megabusa owned by Barry Bridgman is of a similar spec I believe, certainly should be kicking out well over 300bhp when fully wound up.

quote:

---

if your selling the turbo ill have it, Im about to build one myself(engine) with holeshot, how quick is 320bhp in a 7 compared to standard busa??

---

Very interesting reply Ric.

Someone who hasn't experienced a car with that sort of performance really can't comprehend what you mean when you say that it is less fun when it has N20 and a turbo! Useable perfomance really is the key as you say.

I tend to have more fun on my CB500 than litre sportsbikes solely because you feel you are working so much harder with the capable but underpowered CB. I suppose this is the same comparison as your Blade engined machine and the turbo Busa!?

A friend has just bought a heavily modded Stylus @ around 300bhp having owned an Integra R beforehand. I get the idea he had more fun in the Teg as it was much more useable on the road; the Stylus is just ballistic...

So there really is too much performance for the road? Or is this still based on personal preference or mental stability??

I am hoping that when I finish my R1 engined VortX that my 'plans' to add a 50 shot of N20 will become pointless... Maybe a track only modification?

Anyway, excuse my ramblings...

Chris.

Im still gonna do it!!!!!! maybe run very low boost for the road, if you have some pics my email is newrenltd@aol.com

I think I may have spoke to the same Barry youre talking about, Im hoping to get a ride at stonleigh in a turbo bec, any offers???

[Edited on 26/4/06 by dilley]

in a way it makes me feel better to know that it wasnt all that fun (but stupid fast) doing all that to the engine. i want (ed) to do that too having 400 bhp, but now i think 200 is my target and no more.

To confirm what you are saying with my own experiences. i have owned a renault 5 turbo for the last 10 years (18 old paying £1800 tpft!). a friend who had much more money had one too and got his upto 250 bhp where mine was only a moddest 150bhp. i drove his many times and alltho it was great when on boost in a straight line it was not fun to drive any other time, it was uncontrollable, handled poorly, un responsive and required 110% effort and u spend most of your time checking the oil pressure and water temp.

i think this is the main reason i got a kitcar, i knew i couldnt beat lots of people with bigger wallets than me in cars with 10000 bhp+. When they stuff it when using the steering wheel. just to make me feel as good as a 250bhp 5 in a straight line did all i need to do it blip the throttle on a tight slow corner to let the back snap out in a 7.

basically what i am blabbing on about is u can have much more fun in corners that u can in a straight line (fastest 1/4 i did in my 5 was 14.2). so power isnt the most important bit to a fast FUN car.

Please don't get me wrong, it was all very nice and great fun. Don't regret doing it if only just to experience a car with 800bhp/ton (would have been 1,000 with the nitrous)!! This is especially true if you can get onto a track often (which I can't).

If you can aford to do it then go for it, but just don't expect that double power = double the fun. That equation only works up to a point, then you have to start questioning why?

Also, no one will ever go in your car twice. Trust me. They go in once thinking, hell yes this will be fun, they get out shaking and white. After a test flight, one friend had to sit on his front door step for 5 mins before he could speak (or not hit me, not sure which). This is the nature of the violence of its delivery.

It still is very driveable on the road. Maybe even more so. The turbo has no lag, and adds torque lower down in the rev range so actually makes it more "car like" in driving. Its just like driving a F1 car on the road, to really enjoy it you need to push it, but in pushing it you end up going very very fast, so therefore you don't (or can't) push it.

Surely a S/C'd busa is much easier to drive and nearly as quick. I know the power isn't as strong, nor the torque. However, the linier power delivery would make the engine feel bigger rather than completely different. What I am trying to say is, surely with 300 plus bhp from a turbo you are getting violent power surges and also the peak power will be made quite low I would imagine detracting from the reviness of the original engine?

What do the costs compare like for the s/c conversions?

George

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeL
Surely a S/C'd busa is much easier to drive and nearly as quick. I know the power isn't as strong, nor the torque. However, the linier power delivery would make the engine feel bigger rather than completely different. What I am trying to say is, surely with 300 plus bhp from a turbo you are getting violent power surges and also the peak power will be made quite low I would imagine detracting from the reviness of the original engine?

What do the costs compare like for the s/c conversions?

George

---

Ive been in Bazzers on the road in low boost settings (~250bhp at the wheels) and it does just feel like a very large capacity N/A engine, there's no lag, no big peaks in power, just a wall of torque and power thats relentless from about 3k to the red line. It might lose a bit of this when the boost is wound up further, but it spools up so quickly and so low that power delivery is never going to be an issue, its not like a 500bhp Cossie engine where nothing happens until 4k then a sdden dollop of torque before running out of puff by 7k.

[Edited on 26/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]

Just that holeshot told me peak power was made at something crazy like 6 or 7k then held to the redline. Surely that would feel a little strange? Almost like a deceleration?

Peak torque i think he means

I hope so. Do we have a RR print outs or curves for a turbo busa?