smart51
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:29 AM |
|
|
There won't be a bike engine that matchs up to the S2000 engine because your formula is biased towards car engines. There are bike engines that
make your car faster than an S2000 engine though
|
|
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:37 AM |
|
|
That can only be due to power to weight ratio and "maybe" gearing (but that is a whole new can of worms!!!)
To put an "ish" figure on it though, the bike engine car is going to need to be 140kg lighter. (based on 200hp 560kg CEC, 150hp BEC will
need to be 420kg)
I specifically didn't want to get drawn in to this one though!
Lets keep hearing the data as suggested, rather than just power or torque on their own. The divide by cc should bias back to the bike engines.
Anybody know the BMEP for a Busa?
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
Coose
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:39 AM |
|
|
A stock 'Busa is reckoned to be about 98lb.ft. of torque.
I still can't see what your calculation proves though - as someone has said already you're multiplying two factors of torque and an
element of speed, then dividing by capacity, that's all! It doesn't show efficiency.
A standard red-top VX is what, a real-world 140bhp and 130lb.ft of torque? My standard (barring exhaust and air filter) R1 will be 125 rear-wheel bhp
with 75-ish lb.ft of torque. If I chucked enough money at it I could get 170+ bhp and a chunk more torque, still out of 998cc.
An S2000 is about 240bhp and 160lb.ft of torque, but that'll be at the flywheel. So if you factor that into the equation, an R1 is pretty much
equal. Just a damn sight lighter....
So, in conclusion, a big engine works in a heavy car (i.e. large increase in torque against a small relative increase in weight), and a small (i.e.
bike engine) works in a light car. Not that you'd put an R1 into an S2000.....
  
<hides behind the sofa>
Spin 'er off Well...
|
|
|
Johnmor
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
Effectevness
I think if you want to look at the performance and ability of the engine and car combination you have to include the weight.
I like the idea of including the torque figure as this is a far more honest way of looking at engine power.
Believe it or not some of the torquest engines produced were steam,
Max torque a zero revs /min, dont tell me they weren't powerfull.
If you take BHP x Torque and then divide this by the weight of the car , it would give a better picture of performance. And allow the BEC boys in on
the game
(true weight with driver please)
192x191= 36672. / 860kgs (no i'm not fat, its the car honest)
36672/ 860 = 42.64 horsetorques/ kg.
After all its power to weight ratio that gives race cars the edge.
"lies, damed lies and statistics"
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
There won't be a bike engine that matchs up to the S2000 engine because your formula is biased towards car engines. There are bike engines that
make your car faster than an S2000 engine though
How is it biased? the cc divisor would tend to favour BECs.
Cursory glance around the web finds this sidecar racer
http://www.teamfoundsracing.com/thesidecar.htm
(180 x 95) / 1000 = 17.1
The 180 is at the wheel, so add maybe 18 bhp for 10% transmission losses and you get 18.81 which just about beats the S2000
Speed around a track depends more on driver than engine within limits.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Coose
A stock 'Busa is reckoned to be about 98lb.ft. of torque.
I still can't see what your calculation proves though - as someone has said already you're multiplying two factors of torque and an
element of speed, then dividing by capacity, that's all! It doesn't show efficiency.
A standard red-top VX is what, a real-world 140bhp and 130lb.ft of torque? My standard (barring exhaust and air filter) R1 will be 125 rear-wheel bhp
with 75-ish lb.ft of torque. If I chucked enough money at it I could get 170+ bhp and a chunk more torque, still out of 998cc.
An S2000 is about 240bhp and 160lb.ft of torque, but that'll be at the flywheel. So if you factor that into the equation, an R1 is pretty much
equal. Just a damn sight lighter....
So, in conclusion, a big engine works in a heavy car (i.e. large increase in torque against a small relative increase in weight), and a small (i.e.
bike engine) works in a light car. Not that you'd put an R1 into an S2000.....
<hides behind the sofa>
My VX IS compeletly standard internally. On std cams, everything except rod bolts untouched it made 204hp and 168lb ft of torque on the rolling road.
recently we have run another one up (different rollers this time) with identical injection system and it made with 2 hp and 3 lb ft of that again.
If you are talking tuning then 280-290hp and 190 lbft of torque from the vauxhall are a pretty standard (if rather expensive!!!) normally aspirated
setup.
I can't show efficiency because I don't know BMEP's for all the engines on this site.
I do recall a well known engine builder though, who quoted Busa BMEP vs Rover k series BMEP and as Volvorsport noted, the results were suprprising,
the Rover was better in terms of BMEP once the std restrictive inlet system was removed.
It is the inlet that holds the vauxhall back as well, but it is this same inlet that spreads the torque throughout the rev range, giving much better
road driveability.
Rip it all off and fit throttle bodies and peak torque and power both jump up hugely, at the expense of lowdown torque.
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
There won't be a bike engine that matchs up to the S2000 engine because your formula is biased towards car engines. There are bike engines that
make your car faster than an S2000 engine though
How is it biased? the cc divisor would tend to favour BECs.
Cursory glance around the web finds this sidecar racer
http://www.teamfoundsracing.com/thesidecar.htm
(180 x 95) / 1000 = 17.1
The 180 is at the wheel, so add maybe 18 bhp for 10% transmission losses and you get 18.81 which just about beats the S2000
Speed around a track depends more on driver than engine within limits.
That last statement is the most true of the lot!!!!
unfortunately that's where I fall down!!!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:53 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Johnmor
I think if you want to look at the performance and ability of the engine and car combination you have to include the weight.
I like the idea of including the torque figure as this is a far more honest way of looking at engine power.
Believe it or not some of the torquest engines produced were steam,
Max torque a zero revs /min, dont tell me they weren't powerfull.
If you take BHP x Torque and then divide this by the weight of the car , it would give a better picture of performance. And allow the BEC boys in on
the game
(true weight with driver please)
192x191= 36672. / 860kgs (no i'm not fat, its the car honest)
36672/ 860 = 42.64 horsetorques/ kg.
After all its power to weight ratio that gives race cars the edge.
"lies, damed lies and statistics"
OK, that's no bad idea actually. I tried to include cc to stop the big v8's numbers wiping out the BEC's, but they seem unhappy so
lets try it in Horsetorques per kg!!
204hp x 169 lbft / (560kg + me (68kg)) =
54.9
Horsetorques per kg
[Edited on 3/10/06 by NS Dev]
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 11:55 AM |
|
|
My tin top (Honda Civic Vti)
169*128/1797 = 12.0
Bit like a bike engine, a guttless slug unless you scream the knackers of it. Fun to drive though.
My other tin top (MR2 Turbo)
225*224/1998 = 25.2
That's more like it...
|
|
|
Johnmor
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 12:02 PM |
|
|
New National Standard in Performance
Horsetorques
I like it!!
|
|
|
Agriv8
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 12:14 PM |
|
|
Ahh finally things swing in my favour and I can exit from behind the sofa
So on book data
(203x149)/750kg = 40.32 Hoursetorques
Ps I am gong to fit some tune resistors ( you know the ones of e-bay like ) to my efi and get 50 bhp. not really
Vems Fuel and Spark, flowed heads and act performance intake system should see the VE increaed - looking for 230 bhp
(230x149)/750kg = 45.69 Hoursetorques
Better than my 7.201
Agriv8
[Edited on 3/10/06 by Agriv8]
Taller than your average Guy !
Management is like a tree of monkeys. - Those at the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. BUT Those at the bottom look up and see a
tree full of a*seholes .............
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 01:13 PM |
|
|
ok so if we apply
578 x 520/700 = 423 -woooo
keepin it sensible
182x190/700 = 49.4
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 01:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Coose
A stock 'Busa is reckoned to be about 98lb.ft. of torque.
A standard red-top VX is what, a real-world 140bhp and 130lb.ft of torque?
standard vx is 150-155bhp and 150ft/lb that's standard inlet and exhaust.
be curious to know what the powertec big bore/stroker busa motor's make torque wise, i know they make quoted 200-240bhp natasp
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 01:39 PM |
|
|
Did you know that 98.274 percent of statistics are meaningless?
Seriously though, one of the first things learned in a basic statistics class is that "statistics prove nothing", they simply show
probabilities. Statistics can be manipulated in any number of ways to prove or disprove whatever you wish. They are meaningless.
Nevertheless, here are some more figures for your statistical comparison. In our case, manufacturer’s figures have been quoted for statistical
comparison accuracy.
178bhp x 99ft-lb / 556kg = 31.69
However, if you then multiply the result by the HFF (Hellfire Fun Factor – determined using real statistics!!) (for a BEC use 2. For a CEC use 1) we
get 63.38 Horsetorques
Phil
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 01:44 PM |
|
|
LOL
Will admit the sequential box and revs do add a hell of a lot to the grin factor!!!!
Wouldn't mind a run out in a BEC 7 if anybody is offering in the leics area?
Have been in a BEC but with a 1500 Busa its cheating really, be nice to go in a sensible engined one and see how that compared.
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
been in my mates busa fury nat and that was good fun. few vids on putfile.com/nedc
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 02:01 PM |
|
|
Cheers Ned, will take a peek!
Hasten to add, i am about to commence building a BEC of my own, just to prove I am unbiased!!!!
I am cheating though slightly, alleviating the lack of torque by using a TL1000 vee twin, or more correctly, a PAIR of TL1000 vee twins. having seen
their torque characteristics on the dyno, these have the flattest torque curve you have ever seen, and a pair of them just seem to drive like a huge,
very revvy, diesel engine!!
Interestingly, a pair of these engines make a good comparison for a 2.0 car engine. They should total around 280hp and 190 lb ft of torque, they do
deliver over 75% of their peak torque over a huge rev range though, which is the main reason for using them.
Perfect for starts on grasstrack as long as the gearboxes stay together!!!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 03:54 PM |
|
|
My mini manages to get a mere
155 x 98/1338 = 11.35. Not bad for such an old engine. Although it does have an 8,800 rev limit.
And the indy gets
164 x 88/1137 = 10.79
Somewhat suprised to see the A series beat a bike engine!
[Edited on 3/10/06 by DIY Si]
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 04:06 PM |
|
|
that's a pretty serious mini engine!!!!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 04:10 PM |
|
|
Yup! All built by my own fair(ish) hand too! It does help that it's a very nearly race engine. Very large valve head, over-bored and
destroked to get 1338cc. A VP3C cam, which is sold as a FAST ROAD!!!!! cam. I was going to get the scatter race version, but daren't go near
it! Oh, and the finale is the 48 IDA sticking through the bonnet! Very, very loud and very fast. It also has straight cut drop gears and the box out
of a Metro Turbo Challenge car!
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 04:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
Very large valve head, over-bored and destroked to get 1338cc. A VP3C cam, which is sold as a FAST ROAD!!!!! cam. I was going to get the scatter race
version, but daren't go near it! Oh, and the finale is the 48 IDA sticking through the bonnet!
Sounds like a lovely machine, any pics?
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 04:53 PM |
|
|
I would do, but she's strating to look a little tatty/rusty and is currently under a stack of stuff in the garage.  Used to be my daily
driver, but I ended up going to work at over a ton, and decided it may be best to put her away for a while. I'll get some pics of the eninge bay
though. Back in a few.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
Looks like this from the outside. The bonet vent is just a first version, and is a little agricultural
 
Rescued attachment mini1.jpg
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
minus bonnet
 
Rescued attachment mini4.jpg
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 3/10/06 at 05:18 PM |
|
|
another
 
Rescued attachment mini2.jpg
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
