C10CoryM
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 01:51 AM |
|
|
CEC or BEC for me?
Hey guys,
Just throwing this out there.....
I am having a hard time finding the engine/trans I want, and find myself wondering if I would be happy with a BEC instead.
The goal: reasonably priced street and autocross car that can be driven nearly year round. Need to be able to sort of keep up to a couple 500bhp+
camaros in acceleration.
The plan: bookish chassis, wide track, 3.8L GM V6, 205bhp/230ft/lbs stock. Car should weigh in at a portly 1500lbs curb weight. 3.08 posi in a
live axle rear. This gets me good acceleration, VERY reliable driveline, potential for another 100bhp with just a cam swap and mild porting, and
gives me a ridiculous amount of torque (which I like..... a lot), even with the heavy engine it will corner/brake well enough for me to start with.
BEC pros: lighter weight, sequintial box, better balanced car, high rpm band, great on track days (not common here  ), and just plain cool.
BEC cons: slightly more expensive, less power, no torque, needs reverse motor, maybe not enough power to carry weather gear etc and still accelerate
well, probably won't keep up to my friends camaros, and less reliable.
To sum it up, I like the thought of a BEC but think it would do better as a stripped down, dry weather only car. I am still thinking the heavy CEC
is the better option for me for my intended use.
Am I missing anything? What do you guys figure?
Cheers,
Cory
[edited for typos]
[Edited on 21/11/07 by C10CoryM]
"Our watchword evermore shall be: The Maple Leaf Forever!"
|
|
|
|
|
worX
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 02:13 AM |
|
|
Hi Cory,
I'm not sure either a BEC or a CEC is gonna keep up with your friends in their 500+bhp Camaros and the like (on the whole)!!!
However, whenever a question like this is asked it always gets anwered in two ways, in two quite simple ways actually! All the CEC guys say CEC, and
all the BEC guys say BEC!!! (to a point!)
The only way to truly decide is to get a run out in both types of cars (if thats possible for you).
I reckon that a lightweight BEC with a relatively new engine install (2006/7 ZX10R's etc) should be able to keep up with the acceleration of the
camaro's, assuming that you are running nice tyres and so on.
The ability to drive a car (BEC) hard all the way through the rev range and then snick a (sequential) gear so easily and keep it on top power is just
sublime!
As for a BEC with wet weather gear, then like anything else it can be planned for and made in a lightweight sort of way, you can easily have a
screened and soft roof on one, and BEC cars don't really have zero torque like people say, they are well capable of pootling round in higher
gears and low revs, as long as you don't expect anything much from them - this does mean though that they aren't the uncompromising
"animals" that some people make out!
And just to whet your appetite here's a very short video of someone in the US in a BEC with a screen etc - It's one of my fave vids,
don't know why - I just like it!
YOUTUBE VIDEO LINK
Cheers,
Steve
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 06:01 AM |
|
|
I would say if you want reliability over the long term go CEC but keep weight down and use a turbo engine like the Nissan or Volvo ones.
Go BEC if you want out and out performance and some reliability but go for extra lightweight construction and the biggest engine out there such as a
Bussa 1300 or Kawa 1400 which should give acceptable gearbox life.
Whatever you do for competition use, lightness is the answer - I think a V6 is the wrong choice.
A good alternative, that if well built should give you about 50 000 trouble free miles, is a Mazda turbo rotary. Used extensively in racing in SA -
light and powerfull with anything up to 350 reliable horsepower available.
[Edited on 21/11/07 by Ivan]
|
|
|
ditchlewis
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 08:21 AM |
|
|
i'm with Ivan the two are chalk and cheese and it's best to try both.
the mazda rotary engine is a good light choice, i've also seen companies offering triple rotor engines offering over 500 bhp, not cheap but more
than enough power for you in such a lite car
ditch
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 09:24 AM |
|
|
my 300zx tt had around 450 brake and a good bike engine car would run rings round it through the bends
and the buzz from the BEC been there done it compared to bigger cars
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
2b_pablo
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 09:46 AM |
|
|
lancer evo engine running around 400bhp should see most things off 
someday I will!
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 10:35 AM |
|
|
In a straight line It's mainly to do with power/weight ratio (and gearing).
How much does one of those camaros weigh?
If it weighs say 1.5 tonnes and has 500 BHP then the ratio is 333 BHP/tonne
If you have a BEC with 170 BHP say which weighs about half a tonne then the ratio is 340 BHP/tonne.
a CEC with 250 BHP which weighs say 650kg will have a ratio of 384 BHP/tonne
The gearing - a higher ratio final drive say 5:1 will make acceleration better whereas a lower ratio say 3:1 will make acceleration slower but give
more relaxed cruising.
so a good powerful CEC is the way to go in my opinion, particularly if you want a reverse gear, a more pleasant drive etc.
If going round corners fast is also important to you, then that can affect your choice too. The BEC which is lighter should get round the corners
quicker as it is lighter and hence takes less effort to get round.
I have driven both by the way
Cheers
Mark
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 10:52 AM |
|
|
its an easy choice over there , volvo turbo , ive done it , its been done .
everything can be made to fit , it suits the car lhd even more (they were made like that)
somebody has just run an 11.8 with an 8v motor in a 240 .
in sweden there in the 10s - and i know that sort of bracket will make your ears prick up !!
youll proabably need to rob the guys camaro gearbox , but everything else will remain volvo
and youll remain completely different to everybody else .
any mods you make to th eengine - youll find yourself well supported in that area , theres lots of knowledge . The reason i did it is because im
biased(obviously) but theres a lot of heaadroom . bolting in the std 180bhp B230et is just the start , extra boost , chip , cam , etc will see you
into the 300s , and you wont have to take the motor out .
And then you could just stick a t5 motor in , its just as simple .
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
drlloyd
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 11:14 AM |
|
|
A tuned Rover V8, possibly from a TVR(more compact and already fairly tuned) would be the one I would (and am!) go for. A Rover V8 (having an
aluminium block) would be nowhere near as heavy as the V6 you mentioned and you would retain the everyday driveability of a car engine. It would be
fairly straightforward, and relatively cheap, to obtain an awesome power to weight ratio!
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 03:17 PM |
|
|
Do what im going to do, Modify the engine bay of a locost to fit an aj6 twin turbo or aj16 4.0 supercharged jag engine
Or go V8
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
iscmatt
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 04:42 PM |
|
|
the 50/50 vote split says it all!!!
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
Its 51.85 - 48.15 to cec now
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 11:41 PM |
|
|
Does Vancouver still run the ICBC insurance scam^H^H^H^H monopoly? (for the Brits that don't know the government of British Columbia run an
insurance company which you legally have to use).
If so you might want to check to see if it's possible to insure a car with a bike engine. I know some countries (Australia?) don't allow
it, and it's the kind of thing ICBC might not allow.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 11:46 PM |
|
|
the guys in canada think of whats local to him .
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
C10CoryM
|
| posted on 22/11/07 at 04:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Does Vancouver still run the ICBC insurance scam^H^H^H^H monopoly?
Yes, they do. For this though, neither car will be more difficult to insure. BEC need a reverse though.
Basically, Id like to sneak in the 12s in the 1/4mile. Otherwise I won't be able to go out and play with my friends .
Looking at the lotus exigeS, with 218bhp, 160ft/lbs, and 2000lbs running high 12s, I think both engines would do it. I think the cec would be able to
do it all day long reliably though. I am known to be hard on drivelines so durable is good.
Im having a hard time comparing the 2 cars. The BEC would weigh in around 1100lbs or so? Say 160-190bhp, and maybe 100-130ft/lbs of torque. The
power to weight ratio of the bec is better, but theres still 100ft/lbs of torque more to the cec. That's significant, but I wonder if
it's enough to cover the 400lb weight difference. I would guess so personally. Also I can add at least 50bhp to the 3.8L with just a
cam/springs.
Was thinking a bec would be easier to keep cool though. Going to need a good (aka expensive) radiator for the 3.8L.
Still leaning towards the cec......
Cheers.
"Our watchword evermore shall be: The Maple Leaf Forever!"
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 22/11/07 at 01:27 PM |
|
|
I would go CEC.
I have been very interested in the BEC idea but so far it doesn't seem to stack up.
This was confirmed on the track day two weekends ago at Silverstone.
We were there with the Caterham C400 race car (2.0 duratec, 220hp, 525kg) and there was a westfield hayabusa BEC there as well.
I was very slow in the caterham due to rain and me being very careful in a car that wasn't mine, BUT, it was SOOO much quicker than the
westfield round the track with the proper driver in the caterham.
On the straights the sequential shift and screaming engine of the hayabusa made the westy SEEM quick, but the caterham drove past it like it was stood
still!!!!!!!!
The Caterham was also MUCH quicker (on the day) than 3 Porsche 911 GT3's.
There were actually 2 C400's there and they were by far the quickest cars on the track.
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 22/11/07 at 01:29 PM |
|
|
PS 200ish hp in a 550kg ish seven with decent stickyish, highish profile tyres and well set up rear end will yield mid to high 11s on qtr mile.
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 22/11/07 at 01:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by C10CoryM
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Does Vancouver still run the ICBC insurance scam^H^H^H^H monopoly?
Yes, they do. For this though, neither car will be more difficult to insure. BEC need a reverse though.
Basically, Id like to sneak in the 12s in the 1/4mile. Otherwise I won't be able to go out and play with my friends .
Looking at the lotus exigeS, with 218bhp, 160ft/lbs, and 2000lbs running high 12s, I think both engines would do it. I think the cec would be able to
do it all day long reliably though. I am known to be hard on drivelines so durable is good.
Im having a hard time comparing the 2 cars. The BEC would weigh in around 1100lbs or so? Say 160-190bhp, and maybe 100-130ft/lbs of torque. The
power to weight ratio of the bec is better, but theres still 100ft/lbs of torque more to the cec. That's significant, but I wonder if
it's enough to cover the 400lb weight difference. I would guess so personally. Also I can add at least 50bhp to the 3.8L with just a
cam/springs.
Was thinking a bec would be easier to keep cool though. Going to need a good (aka expensive) radiator for the 3.8L.
Still leaning towards the cec......
Cheers.
Think your weights for the CEC are a bit on the heavy side, my car is 2.0 16v vauxhall powered, 204hp, 168 lbft torque and weighs in at 540kg
(1190lb)......................................and no, there are not any trick alloy bits other than the front calipers, even the engine block is cast
iron, and I have some extra tubing in the chassis compared to book locost, and its wishbone IRS which isn't light!!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
C10CoryM
|
| posted on 24/11/07 at 03:10 AM |
|
|
Well, I think it's settled. Im sticking with the 3.8L cec idea. I don't think the bec would give me the miles I want. I run my cars
very hard and I don't think the bike engine/trans would handle it. The 3.8L will still corner well enough to keep me entertained. Certainly
faster than my autocross skills at the moment.
If I build another locost, it will probably be a stripped down, lightweight bec just because I think they are cool.
1500lbs is the max curb weight Im allowing. Any heavier and I will find ways to cut weight. The cars from the usa known as "stalker v6"
use the same engine/trans and apparantly weigh in at 1500lbs (680kg) or so. They are larger, use some heavy brake/suspension parts and have a one
piece fibreglass nose that looks heavy (could be wrong). I expect to come in a fair bit lighter, but Im being pessimistic on weights for now as I am
not buying anything expensive to save weight (yet!) and am adding some triangulation to the chassis.
Cheers.
"Our watchword evermore shall be: The Maple Leaf Forever!"
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 24/11/07 at 04:56 PM |
|
|
If you are looking at Dan's Deman BEC or CEC, please u2u me or email:
phoffen2001@yahoo.com
I will tell you my experiences.
Rich
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 24/11/07 at 11:01 PM |
|
|
That will be pretty big. You'll certainly need a wider than book chassis to fit it. I can barely fit a 1.8l Nissan engine in my narrow MK-alike.
Let us know how you do. I'm in Van a few times a year for family.
|
|
|
