Hi Guys,

So, I have never delt with bike engines having only ever owned a Land Rover!! So are they better than car engines in kit cars?

Anyone want to give me a quick disadvantage advantage list for them vs car engines?

Thanks in advance!

Welcome to the locosters

Just go bike engine!

Hellfire will tell you!

neither one is better than the other, they just are different, it depends on what you want to use the car for, ease of build, cost of build, type of use. etc etc

must admit bec's sound smart and are faster, but in fairness on old xflow 1.3 is fast in a 7

BEC - Poo off shovel...

CEC - Boat anchor...



Not much help really, but if you have a go in a BEC you'll understand why so many people rave about them!

Chris.

Bike engine Car Pros -
Brilliant on track, car handles/accelerates/stops better due to lower weight (60kgs for engine and gearbox combined)
Sequential gearbox
Great price / performance ratio, you'll need a 200bhp car engine to live with a sub £1k 150bhp stock bike engine.
The high revving nature and the noise

Cons -
Not as nice to drive long distances in due to high cruising revs.
Clutches / Gearboxes not as strong as car engine'd variants.
Noise on trackdays can be an issue, slightly noisier than the average car engine.

Thats about it that I can think of.

[Edited on 5/6/06 by ChrisGamlin]

I can hardly bring myself to watch the ensuing arguments ......

graememk is probably about right on this

Cheers

Mark

PS I have seen several 'boat anchor' cars outdrag several bike engine cars.....

I think £ for £ a BEC is quicker, but overall I dont think you can just say that BECs are qucker full stop.

JUST BUILD 2 CARS
1 bec
1 cec

then your sorted

Go for a V6 - buckets of torque and a luverrly sound track

quote:

---

Originally posted by mookaloid
I can hardly bring myself to watch the ensuing arguments ......

graememk is probably about right on this

Cheers

Mark

PS I have seen several 'boat anchor' cars outdrag several bike engine cars.....

---

MR-PR

In landie speak difference is putting either an old montego diesel in a series motor against putting a 300tdi in Lots of revs versus lots of grunt!

I am a landy driver and I have opted for a pinto as I will be mostly on road rather than on track. I think I prefer my serious adrenaline from dropping my series 3 off a 1in 1 or steeper slope then trying to get back up again!
caber

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_pr
Hi Guys,

So, I have never delt with bike engines having only ever owned a Land Rover!! So are they better than car engines in kit cars?

Anyone want to give me a quick disadvantage advantage list for them vs car engines?

Thanks in advance!

---

pass me a beer barman..



i think that the 0-60-0 record is for the BEC..

and if you want a race car feeling altough you maybe slower you need BEC revs,clutch,gearbox its more raceing style..

No ugly H gearchange...

but a no no for 5 to 2nd touring changes...

i started with the bec its what called me in to this and it could be a reason to make a CEC

Tks

[Edited on 5/6/06 by tks]

Simple answer as already mentioned is to get a ride in both and then decide.

BUT........

Think about how you are going to use the car, if it's for primarily track I'd say go BEC, if it's predominantly road I'd say CEC.

I would suggest that a CEC will cost more to get the same performance as a BEC.

Rich.

im firmly in the bec camp now cos i prefer track driving, road use is just secondary fun. My driving is too reckless really to take the bec out regularly.... the pros and cons have been well summed up, you just need to decide what you want it for, and how badly you intend to drive

Boat Anchors

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisGamlin

---

What about that nice 2 litre Honda engine?


Maybe best of both worlds?

Paul G

It all depends but,

If its a kit bike your building, use a bike engine, Kit car =car engine.


If you want torque and rapid accelaration in any gear, and a sound track to kill for =V6 or V8.

Light , cheap, simple and pretty quick, =4 cylinder car engine.

Out and out racer for track and short , fast sprints, high maintenance and high revs,= bike engine.

Or get a engine from a CBX and have the best of both worlds

Honda S2000 with a turbo

Is the way foward. But if you dont have the money BEC... like me

Nobody has mentioned the lack of a reverse gear. Also the cost, going BEC can be very expensive, particularly if you want a reverse gear.

As other have said, I'm bias too, after all I'm building CEC

If you're planning - or thinking about (& if you're not you should be !) - any sort of motorsport in the car, such as Sprints or Hillclimbs. It's worth remembering that the classes suitable for roadgoing 7's are split at 1700'cc and normally specifiy 'car derived engines'

Don't forget durability - thrash a bike engine car and it won't last long. Anyhow all the really fast track cars have car engines.

Come to think of it they don't last long either - must be a message there somewhere.

once youve took a ride in a BEC youll understand why there so popular,
and even more so also people who have got CEC's take a ride in a BEC and there engine is out that weekend ready for the transplant

ofcourse theres that 10% who are to proud to admit defeat and stick with there car engine

reverse what do i want to go backwards for ??

not exactly gonna be doing me sunday shopping in it am I.


there is some very fast CEC's

but dont just think by sticking a V8 in it is the answer

youll most likely go straight on when you thrash round a sharp bend

why do I get the feeling all the bike 'experts' have never had anything to do with a bike engine before

PS bike engines are perfectly reliable

Next I build will be +442,will have a quad cam 32 valve Ford, and be multiples more fun than a bec.

Cheers,
Syd.

I'm in the car engined camp, BUT bike engines are designed to be thrashed, they are pretty reliable too. There's a guy in the Yorkshire branch of the Locost car club with a standard Fireblade, been thrashed to death on a daily basis in all weathers and to Le Mans. He drives like a nutter and few people will get in a car with him . He's on the same engine 3 years later. Good value?

Marcus

quote:

---

Originally posted by v8kid
Don't forget durability - thrash a bike engine car and it won't last long.

---

right...

I seem to have sparked a brilliant debate. And on my 1st post!!!!

Oops! Still undecided, only thing against bikes is currently cost and possible no reverse.

Does anyone know how it effects insurance? Is it easier because of lower engine size?

Thanks

Insurance wise, there's very little in it, you do get cheaper road tax though!

Cost wise, I've spent more on my crossflows than I'd have spent on a bike engine. (I even had a nice fireblade engine in my shed for 2 years with the intention of fitting it to my chassis).

My god I'm slowly moving over to the dark side

Reverse (lack of) would be a problem for me, but simple electric systems are available, at reasonable cost.
(I'm talking myself into it!)

Marcus

ok, heres my side, i have a cec (nissan 1.8turbo) only because thats what my part build came with, i was going to put a R1 in my locost.

i've been out in andys blade (ash3) and my uncles zetec westerfield. blade goes like stink zetec goes like stink but maybe not quite as quick.

i like having a reverse, as you never know i might go shopping in it and i think there easier to drive, if your not a biker you might get anoyed with the constant gear changing and high reving of the bec.

again as i said before it depends on what you want to use it for

bec goes like stink, maybe a bit more work to drive
cec still very very fast but maybe a little more easier to drive

I spent time in bec's and cec's before I decided what i was gonna do.

Always been a biker and familiar with bike engines, also the noise and urgency of a bec appealed, however the lack of torque i didn't like. Hence I built a bec using a big EFI twin.

If/when i build another it will be cec, they are just easier to drive, and easier to drive fast.
You spend 1000's of hours 'creating' these cars and the snappy clutch, lack of reverse (rarely a problem, but you will get behind a car that has broken down) and in the case of mine, the ludicrously poor economy stopped me from using it as it should have been.

Reliability- I would say bike engines are more reliable. They are way ahead of car engines technology wise. (some cars excepted, S2000)
Bhp/litre the bikes win hands down.
The noise is fantastic, even if your not going quick you sound like you are.

As said above, if you want to drive the car as a car then fit a car engine, if you want a race car in you garage then bec.

all IMHO

precisely I wanted a race car

but I must have my point about these not enough torque comments

My car is well quick in 5th or 6th from around 40mph

then it gets to 10k and its even quicker

quote:

---

Originally posted by zxrlocost
precisely I wanted a race car

but I must have my point about these not enough torque comments

My car is well quick in 5th or 6th from around 40mph

then it gets to 10k and its even quicker

---

If it don't break occasionally you 'aint going quickly enough.

I other words the higher it revs the more likely it is to break and the more load you put on it the quicker it will reach that point.

Just my opinion with no axe to grind

Bhp is Bhp, torque is already factored in. If two engines make 150Bhp, one at 5000rpm and the other at 12000, it's still exactly the same when it comes to acceleration, due to (as you noted) the gear reduction of the faster spinning engine. It's all the same: Bhp = rate of doing work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spunky

Granted...and after the dif and smaller wheels are factored in (torque multipliers) a bec will pull strong. I'm a torque fan, thats what gets you off the line.
Bhp = how fast you can go.
Torque = how fast you get there

---

dont have abec if you want carpet ,stereo heater, wet weathr gear, the idea of a bec is to keep weight to a min,

becs are not that quick on the road, they need to be on a track,

just buy a blackbird, there cheap and will chase a busa all day.

I've had both.

CEC if you want to do plenty of summer or winter road touring.

BEC if you want plenty of track day thrashing and manic noise.

My first was a westfield with 1700cc x flow, great plenty of grip and pace great for long journeys even with only a cortina four speed box.
I sold that cos i never used it......track days hadnt been invented then and i couldnt afford to compete in it

latest car R1 indy, which i bought for competition and track days plus occaisional road use. i would say very tiring for long journeys due to the high revs for motorway cruising 70mph = 7000rpm. but for sheer acceleration and noise bloody great.

As far as motorsport is concerned study the regs and choose your events wisely. the guy before is correct in saying there is a 1700cc split but dont let that put you off. Its all still down to driving ability, there is a guy drives in my class which is up to 1700 road going kit cars in a Sylva Striker with a 1600cc 205 GTI engine on carbs.
He wipes the floor with us and beat my time at elvington by 6 seconds, he also beat a westfield megablade and a busa!!!

sheer power doesnt guarantee results

kb you seem to bring the torque thing up a bit, without trying to go too far off topic, I agree with you to the extent that bhp is the determining factor in performance, but that doesn't mean you can disregard torque figures. Torque is turning force, or applied to cars the ability to shift weight. Heavier cars will need more torque - eg. an r1 engine has say 180bhp, but stick that in a loaded transit van with a similar output and you're not going to make much progress - regardless of how you gear it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark18
kb you seem to bring the torque thing up a bit, without trying to go too far off topic, I agree with you to the extent that bhp is the determining factor in performance, but that doesn't mean you can disregard torque figures. Torque is turning force, or applied to cars the ability to shift weight. Heavier cars will need more torque - eg. an r1 engine has say 180bhp, but stick that in a loaded transit van with a similar output and you're not going to make much progress - regardless of how you gear it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skydivepaul


As far as motorsport is concerned study the regs and choose your events wisely. the guy before is correct in saying there is a 1700cc split but dont let that put you off. Its all still down to driving ability, there is a guy drives in my class which is up to 1700 road going kit cars in a Sylva Striker with a 1600cc 205 GTI engine on carbs.
He wipes the floor with us and beat my time at elvington by 6 seconds, he also beat a westfield megablade and a busa!!!

sheer power doesnt guarantee results

---

I have owned both a CEC Sylva Striker and now a BEC Phoenix and I simply wasn’t expecting such an increase in performance. Admittedly my Striker ‘only’ had a 135 BHP Crossflow engine but I was worried about lack of torque and only a relatively small increase in power over the Crossflow. I was foolish.

How quick you are is purely down to power to weight ratio and Power is Torque multiplied by Velocity (velocity being engine speed in this case). Clearly a BEC is much lighter but also the lack of torque is more than made up for by the available RPMs. Yes, this does mean that at lower RPM an engine with more torque (such as most car engines) will be quicker at that RPM BUT the bike engines rev up so damn quick that in a blink of an eyelid you are up around 10,000RPM and the close ratio, six speed, sequential gearboxes of a bike engine make it easy to stay up there.

This naturally means that getting the best from your BEC is a more frantic (and louder) experience and obviously less suited to cruising but that’s what makes them so special. It feels like a true race car, outrageously good fun, exhilarating and they go like absolute stink.

It is also worth noting that the latest generation of 1000cc engines are putting out over 175BHP as standard (remove the cat and airbox, fit a fruity exhaust and use a better map via a power commander and people are reporting up to 200BHP). Apparently the ZX10R weighs less than the ZX9R too. The gap in performance between CECs and BECs is only going to get bigger in my opinion.

I do know what a REALLY fast CEC feels like too as my previous housemate (and still good friend) owns a 300BHP Cossie Turbo Fury. My car feels as quick (but would struggle over about 110MPH). But that isn’t comparing like with like, his engine is several grands worth of kit (mine cost £550). Put him up against a Busa turbo costing similar money and he would have no chance.

I’m going to run away now before I get any abuse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark18
kb you seem to bring the torque thing up a bit, without trying to go too far off topic, I agree with you to the extent that bhp is the determining factor in performance, but that doesn't mean you can disregard torque figures. Torque is turning force, or applied to cars the ability to shift weight. Heavier cars will need more torque - eg. an r1 engine has say 180bhp, but stick that in a loaded transit van with a similar output and you're not going to make much progress - regardless of how you gear it.

---

I bring it up when people try separating torque from Bhp - they're bound together in the one single Bhp equation. 180Bhp in a transit van is 180Bhp, end of story, regardless where it comes from. If you want to add in additional parameters such as having a flywheel or how much power it has to make at X rpm, you're now changing the question.

If the question is, "how much Bhp do I need to move my transit van?" that gives one answer. If the question instead is, "what's a tractable engine for my transit van?" that gives a different answer. So it depends what the question is.

---

You're spending a lot of time on here just lately John. After quite a long absence too. Are you getting the urge for another kit car?....................

Phil

Are motorway cruising & reversing seriously a priority for some 7 owners? Sorry, that was a genuine question, not a piss-take!

quote:

---

Originally posted by birt

It is also worth noting that the latest generation of 1000cc engines are putting out over 175BHP as standard (remove the cat and airbox, fit a fruity exhaust and use a better map via a power commander and people are reporting up to 200BHP). Apparently the ZX10R weighs less than the ZX9R too. The gap in performance between CECs and BECs is only going to get bigger in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire
You're spending a lot of time on here just lately John. After quite a long absence too. Are you getting the urge for another kit car?....................

Phil

---

Just a little word of caution, most race/ competition series organisers are fully aware that a 900-1300cc bike engine is a little different too a 1300cc car engine and will put you in either a class with other bikes engines at best, allow you too compete for no points or at the worst wont accept your entry, there was a time when BECS ran in kit car class below the 1700cc split, they where banned as the £6-7k all singing and dancing x-flows couldnt keep up.


Auto66 yorkshire speed and hillclimb championship you can run anything you like up to 1700cc, bike or car engine.


Still dont win though

Wildchild,

Are you suggesting that removing the air box, fitting a free flowing exhaust and re-mapping the fuel will do no more than bring the power back up to what it was before you removed the airbox. If you are then you are very wrong. I definitely suggest you have a chat with the guys at TTS Engineering who have over 30 years of experience tuning bike engines.

The airbox/exhaust/fuelling combination of a standard set-up is very much a compromise between emissions, noise and power. Yes, the bike manufactures have spent millions of pounds finding the best compromise but it is still a compromise. Simply removing the airbox will definitely make things worse. Similarly, so will changing the exhaust. These mod’s have to be done as a package with the fuelling (since both mod’s will flow more air and hence require more fuel) but there are significant gains to be seen by doing so. Yes, you must ensure that cold air is getting to the filter but that doesn’t need an air box.

The current Brittish Superbikes have about 215BHP at the rear wheel (so over 230BHP at the crank) and they are not actually allowed do very much to them. The best MotoGP bikes have about 240BHP at the rear wheel. Maybe 200BHP is a bit ambitious but not as stupid as you seem to be suggesting.

You are right, I am talking about BHP at the crank, this is the only way of comparing like with like. What use is comparing the rear wheel horse power of a motorbike with that of a Ford Focus for example? We all know that it is the BHP at the wheel that counts but since all cars are different the best way to compare an engine to another engine is to quote BHP at the crank.

A standard ZX9R is 142 BHP at the crank. I removed the airbox, removed the emissions system, changed the exhaust and took it to TTS and it had only 88BHP (way too much air going through the engine for the standard jets so running very lean). After 3 hours of Dyno time I had 161BHP at the crank which is about a 13% increase in power. If the same applies to a 175BHP engine then that would be about 198BHP so maybe not so ridiculous?

Also worth noting that the TTS guys said after these mod's it becomes exponentially harder to gain extra horse power without increasing capacity, or using a turbo/super charger. Hence the Superbikes at over 230BHP is some achievement.

so you reccomend TTS mate I think i might book in by the sounds of it

what kind of price did you pay

Yeah, I couldn't recomend them high enough, nice guys too, obviously very enthusisastic about what they do and let you get right in amongst it if you want. I think the Dyno time is £50 per hour then you need to pay for the jetting kit. There are definately cheeper ways of doing it but after spending thousands building a car I think it worth spending an extra few hundred quid to know that it is set up as best it possibly can be.

If you do go, ask them to show you their 500BHP supercharged Busa drag bike. When I was there they were replacing the engien mounts because the reaction of the huge engine torque on the mounts had cheesed them completely.

Chris - I spoke to these guys yesterday - http://smartfxmidlands.com/ they are only down the road from me and have a bike engine specialist there. My mate who fitted my jets worked with him at D&K motorcycles and says he's an absolute genius engine tuner. He said he can fit a dynojet kit and get it running 99% perfect without a rolling road, but if needed they have access to a rolling road in Dudley.

Maybe worth a look, I'm going to pop down to them soon to setup my suspension properly, corner weights etc.

Good luck with the SVA tomorrow

[Edited on 8/6/06 by Paul G]

cheers mate

hope they set it up good

Calm down....

quote:

---

Originally posted by birt
Wildchild,

Are you suggesting that removing the air box, fitting a free flowing exhaust and re-mapping the fuel will do no more than bring the power back up to what it was before you removed the airbox. If you are then you are very wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by birt
The current Brittish Superbikes have about 215BHP at the rear wheel (so over 230BHP at the crank) and they are not actually allowed do very much to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by birt
The best MotoGP bikes have about 240BHP at the rear wheel. Maybe 200BHP is a bit ambitious but not as stupid as you seem to be suggesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by birt
You are right, I am talking about BHP at the crank, this is the only way of comparing like with like. What use is comparing the rear wheel horse power of a motorbike with that of a Ford Focus for example?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by birt
A standard ZX9R is 142 BHP at the crank. I removed the airbox, removed the emissions system, changed the exhaust and took it to TTS and it had only 88BHP (way too much air going through the engine for the standard jets so running very lean). After 3 hours of Dyno time I had 161BHP at the crank which is about a 13% increase in power. If the same applies to a 175BHP engine then that would be about 198BHP so maybe not so ridiculous?

---

We got 180bhp at the rear wheel on a gsxr 1000 with a few kit parts, a gas flow and a decent race system and can...

I don't find that at all surprising.

and that is around 200 at the crank, what were the kit parts (if its high comp pistons and cams thats cheating)

Were we goin wit this... only so much power available but it comes down to wats sensible n safe gonna get to were it gets silly. My Blade is totally sensible in the right hands dont spoil it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by cossey
and that is around 200 at the crank, what were the kit parts (if its high comp pistons and cams thats cheating)

---