As with all performance cars/bikes you soon get used to the power. Over the next few months I'm planning on dropping the weight of the Indy as much as possible (15" wheels to 13", sierra back axle + drums to freelander + light weight willwoods, lithium battery, some carbon fibre panels, and I've also lost ~20kg of fat since last summer with another 10kg to go).

My Indy currently has a 954 Fireblade, with a bit of a tune up it'll be making ~145 BHP and weighs about 460kg, or 575kg (~250BHP/ton) with me in it last summer. This year I'm aiming for 495kg with me in the Indy (~290BHP/ton). However weight cutting will only take me so far so I'm planning on increasing the power.

I was debating getting Holeshot to Turbo my existing 954 to make around 250 BHP, so around 500BHP/ton allowing for the weight increase of the turbo and its supporting gubbings. However the engines in the current range of superbikes caught my eye as these are making an easy 200 BHP with a sports silencer and a rolling road session, or about 400BHP/ton.

I greatly prefer the power delivery of a NA engine and it would be less stressed than turboing a ~14 year old engine but it would be less power and I'd have to rewire the entire car to suit.

Those who have gone turbo what was the (re)install like? Reliability and driveability like?

For those who have fitted a recent superbike engine how easy was it to fit the engine and get everything running sweetly?

I suppose I'd be looking at comparative costs of both approaches + if turbo-ing the existing motor does it tie you to using the same engine in future to retain the turbo (how tailored is the turbo setup to the engine).

Stick a modern blade in it. It'll be more than fast enough!

Any chance of a further step of tuning keeping NA the engine?

Me too interested to the topic having a Fireblade 919 and according to the Italian law not allowed to "legally" swap the engine to a different one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nick205
I suppose I'd be looking at comparative costs of both approaches + if turbo-ing the existing motor does it tie you to using the same engine in future to retain the turbo (how tailored is the turbo setup to the engine).

---

How about buying a donor that has all of the work done?

You could use the nos to smooth the lag created from the turbo!

Aprilia RSV Turbo Nitrous Drag bike road legal

Sell all of the snazzy bits you don t need and make 1K back.

Worth noting you will need to cut off the lower engine mounts off the chassis and make up new ones to match a newer engine.

Your original engine turbocharged will be circa double the torque of a new superbike engine?so I would say it would be faster,and feel much faster in the way the power is delivered.

Those prices on Holeshot are scary

I'm currently turbocharging and converting to inj my R1 engine,so glad I can do it all myself

[Edited on 18/4/17 by CosKev3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bi22le
How about buying a donor that has all of the work done?

You could use the nos to smooth the lag created from the turbo!

Aprilia RSV Turbo Nitrous Drag bike road legal

Sell all of the snazzy bits you don t need and make 1K back.

---

For me the problem with any significant tuning such as turbo charging on a bike engine (which is already quite highly stressed) you HAVE to lose reliability & when the engine goes bang (which it will, the only question is when) it will probably not only wreck itself to the point where almost none of it is salvageable, but it will probably also knacker the turbocharger from having bits either going thro' it or in the oil.

I'm with Daniel Mason, stick a modern NA bike engine in it & keep it fairly standard. My engine of choice is the ZZR1400 & you can get a complete package from someone like Malc at Yorkshire engines for around £3k for a good, fairly new low mileage engine, still leaves you another grand for exhaust/air intake, new cradle, sprocket etc. It will give almost as much power to weight without any temperamental bits to have hissy fits & go wrong.

It might not last forever, but it will be a LOT more reliable & have far better longevity than a turbo'ed 954 & comes with a ton of torque as standard too, yes it will mean a few w/e's work, but I think overall you'll finish up with a much more tractable package

quote:

---

Originally posted by tankplanker

quote:

---

Originally posted by nick205
I suppose I'd be looking at comparative costs of both approaches + if turbo-ing the existing motor does it tie you to using the same engine in future to retain the turbo (how tailored is the turbo setup to the engine).

---

Without speaking to Holeshot but looking at their spec sheets I can see that they reuse the same Turbo and ECU for a bunch of different engines. I'd need a new manifold and the uprated engine bits for any future engine, which would still be a big chunk of change.

Turbo would cost about £5.5k fully fitted to the engine from Holeshot with all supporting upgrades (new pistons, fuel pumps, ECU, etc.), but would be plug and play when the engine came back, a weekend's work.

A recent Fireblade engine would run me about £2.5k, I did fancy the Aprillia RSV4 as it sounds a lot nicer being a V4 but that would be nearly twice the price!

Obviously plugging in a new engine would mean sorting out the wiring, engine mounting, cooling, etc. then getting the engine mapped on a rolling road combined with an upgrade to both my quick shifter and power commander to latest versions. So a large number of weekends and another £1k/£1.5k of extra bits, taking the cost to about £4k.

@MadMaxx - I think the 919 will take the larger 949 pistons with some work? Port the head, get a decent exhaust and intake setup and with a good session on a rolling road and you can get another 20/30 BHP altogether. Cost would be similar to replacing the engine with an early CBR1000, hence why I haven't bothered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by russbost
For me the problem with any significant tuning such as turbo charging on a bike engine (which is already quite highly stressed) you HAVE to lose reliability & when the engine goes bang (which it will, the only question is when) it will probably not only wreck itself to the point where almost none of it is salvageable, but it will probably also knacker the turbocharger from having bits either going thro' it or in the oil.

I'm with Daniel Mason, stick a modern NA bike engine in it & keep it fairly standard. My engine of choice is the ZZR1400 & you can get a complete package from someone like Malc at Yorkshire engines for around £3k for a good, fairly new low mileage engine, still leaves you another grand for exhaust/air intake, new cradle, sprocket etc. It will give almost as much power to weight without any temperamental bits to have hissy fits & go wrong.

It might not last forever, but it will be a LOT more reliable & have far better longevity than a turbo'ed 954 & comes with a ton of torque as standard too, yes it will mean a few w/e's work, but I think overall you'll finish up with a much more tractable package

---

I'd be interested to know if the ZZR1400 or indeed the 'Busa are significantly heavier than 1 litre bike engines. It's certainly not a heavy engine, I can easily lift the engine & cradle into place with the help of a friend & I am a total wimp!

I can't find any specs for engine weight in either case, but by the time you've bolted a turbo & all the bits on you'd be adding a fair bit of weight to the 954

I don't know if you realise what a massive difference in torque there is, both the ZZR & the Haywagon have around 113lb/ft, compared to the 954 having around 75 or 77, in both cases I believe that's before the multiplier that goes in prior to the gearbox proper. One of the biggest gains you would make with turbocharging is in torque as much as power & in getting a more usable power band, both of which come as standard with the bigger bike engines

If you like the busier nature of the 1.0 litre lumps then the 999.8cc CBR gives about 24bhp & 10 lb/ft of torque increase over the old 954

I was comparing a NA CBR vs. a NA 1400. I think the 1400 is about 90kg and the 954 is about 60kg, so roughly 30kg difference? It wouldn't eat up the all the extra torque of the 1400 but it wouldn't be as big a jump as it appears on paper. Turboing my existing lump should come way under 30kg even with an intercooler?

The new litre engines are so much closer, so I can get a big enough jump in power and torque without compromising too much on weight.

Either I'm a lot stronger than I think I am (no chance) or that 90kg sounds very pessimistic! I'm totally guessing, but would have thought 75kg was nearer the mark.

With respect to the additional power & torque, I barely notice the difference in performance when adding a 80kg or so passenger to mine - biggest difference it makes is it's much harder to generate wheelspin from a standing start on hot sticky tarmac!

Turbo on my 918 blade engine was an amazing upgrade.

Engine lasted well, gearbox was chewed due to driver smashing the gears, acceleration at least as good as a BUSA without the fear of spinning no.3 and landing a hefty repair bill, at most £400 for another lump.

Is that without fluids? As 10l of oil and water could be a good portion of that weight difference?

with oil without water

If the zzr is similar weight to a zx12r engine they weigh a lot!

R1 engine bolted to cradle is a one man job,lift it onto the top chassis rail,take a breath,lower into the engine bay

And you won't lose reliability if the turbo conversion is done correctly, including boost control and getting the fueling spot on!

http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=187997

It will go whoosh and be bonkers, what's not to like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark chandler
It will go whoosh and be bonkers, what's not to like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tankplanker
As with all performance cars/bikes you soon get used to the power. Over the next few months I'm planning on dropping the weight of the Indy as much as possible (15" wheels to 13", sierra back axle + drums to freelander + light weight willwoods, lithium battery, some carbon fibre panels, and I've also lost ~20kg of fat since last summer with another 10kg to go).

---

"And you won't lose reliability if the turbo conversion is done correctly, including boost control and getting the fueling spot on!"

I have to disagree that it won't affect reliability, first there are an awful lot of "ifs" in that sentence as "done correctly" covers a multitude of things. It doesn't take much to go wrong with a high power turbo installation to make the whole thing go tits up & there's a lot more to go wrong with it than a standard mass produced engine that's been around for years

If you are going to use that extra power on a regular basis then you cannot help but put extra stress thro' block, pistons, rods, ends, mains, bolts etc (some of which will no longer be standard obviously) to say nothing of clutch & gearbox - on the opposite side of the coin with a larger capacity STANDARD engine just take a look at ads for older bikes, they regularly do 70/80,000 miles or more without problems, if you can get a high power turbo installation to do more than about 20,000 without self destructing then I would be surprised

At the end of the day it's horses for courses, you spends your money & you takes your choice, some will prefer the high revving screaming of the smaller engine & its more specific power delivery, others will prefer the more rock solid reliability & be happy with the wider power band & more torque, I doubt there is a massive amount to choose between them in terms of actual cost of installation, long term the bigger capacity standard engine has to come out cheaper surely?

The current engine has covered about 22000 but due to its age could do with a bunch of things replacing as various seals and similar have just gotten old. I think with a proper stripped down overhaul from somebody like Holeshot it would be very close to as new condition, obviously that would be a big chunk of change though.

I would love to hit 80,000 miles in a recent time window in my Indy, but I only manage about 3000 miles a year, admitted most of that are hard miles. By the time I got to even 15k in a new engine there would likely be a much better engine out that would be almost as cheap to swap to as to spend money refreshing my existing engine.

Adding weight when it makes the car faster I'm fine with, adding weight when it doesn't make the car faster I want to avoid. Most of what I am replacing on the Indy with lighter parts has been on the car a long time and could do with a refresh/detailed inspection anyway.

The only bit of weight gain I don't like from going Turbo is the intercooler, and mostly because it presents a challenge to fit one without impeding the radiator, but also because that is a big percentage of the extra weight that is also best mounted as far forward as possible.

I'm very tempted by the turbo option but I know that if I upgrade to a newer 'blade engine I will have more of everything now and still have the option later by adding a turbo to the new engine and have even more power than 954 + Turbo anyway. I need to get saving for that new engine! Just hope somebody else does it first and can post an idiots guide to the wiring loom.

My Indy which i had (recently sold) for 8 yrs... when bought it had 893cc fireblade in it, which i changed for a Kawasaki zzr1400, one the first ones to be installed in a kit car.
Even though the blade was nippy when wound up, compered to the zzr it was like night and day.
at 190bhp and a lot more torque, the weight difference becomes insignificant.
The engine was utterly reliable, strong gearbox and clutch and took everything i threw at it.
I wish i had'nt sold it...
if i was going for an upgrade i know what i would do

Another vote here for ZR1400 - I had a blackbird engine in my F27 which I kept blowing up, and ended up replacing with a ZZR1400 which was a complete beast.
I now have a hayabusa in another car, and the ZZR as definitely a better engine.