rv1890
|
| posted on 19/4/06 at 05:42 PM |
|
|
yamaha motor sump issues.
I plan on using this engine. It is a yamaha xs 1100 from a 1980's motorcycle shaft driven. The question I have pertains to the sump.
Will I have an issue running this motor in a car as far as the sump goes??
I understand that some motors will need a dry sump kit in order for it to work in a car, and those sump kits are really expensive. Can I get away with
this on this motor? Enclosed is this picture if it helps. Oh yeah...I dont even know what it has now dry or wet.
 
Rescued attachment euroengine.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
| posted on 19/4/06 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
Is it air cooled?
Would that be OK under a bonnet?
I believe there was a Suzuki that was kind of oil cooled, but had small fins on the cylinders
|
|
|
rv1890
|
| posted on 19/4/06 at 06:18 PM |
|
|
Not worried about air or water colled. Ive taken care of that issue.
Will it be fine as far the sump goes??
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 19/4/06 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
mhh
If i was you i would try to increase the oil capacity and then you should be fine for normal road use..
but try to make the oil capacity higher..it will result in cooler oil..and will make return less important...
By increasing the volume you won't pressure up the carter...
but be aware of enough oil cooling and head cooling... remember that oil takes away 70+% of the engines heat..(its in direct touch with the
parts..)
Tks
If i see your sump i would maybe chop it a bit, but in the room you have got just weld some round alloy tubes to it to increase the capacity...
when the oil pump will suck it will have plenty oil because of the fact that the oil level won't decrease that fast...
untherstand the trick??
[Edited on 19/4/06 by tks]
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
yorkshire-engines
|
| posted on 19/4/06 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
Hi
the yamaha xs1100 was a good motor i had one years ago as a road bike
the sump on that model should be ok as it is if you have the room to fit it leave it as standard the sump is a wet one and as you will be fitting
it in the same position as it would be in the bike you will get away with just a sump baffle
i believe mk tried this engine as well so may be worth a call to them
cheers malc
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 19/4/06 at 09:02 PM |
|
|
The problem is there are no hard and fast rules on which will be OK and which won't, virtually all the engines we use today have been proven one
way or the other by brave people pioneering them in BECs and seeing if they blow up or not! If you can find someone else thats used one then thats a
good start, but it also depends on what you'll be doing with the car, a wet sump may be ok on the road but not be up to track work for
example.
Chris
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 19/4/06 at 10:06 PM |
|
|
yeah
agree with all of that and wants to add
that for you the oil is deadly, because it takes away cooling and it takes away what it needs to do...engrase..??
anyway your engine won't be up to the job if it doesn't has 100% oil pressure..
because when the temp rises on a bearing or what ever..the forces rises to...
and with no oil present...it wil go away very very fast...
sow if i was you i would increase oil capacity..making the pump starvation not a issue anymore..
tks
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
rv1890
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 02:03 AM |
|
|
I understand about the wet tank. Ill increase cap. on the tank. Is there any greasing of the driveshaft that I need to do???....I plan on connecting
to a ford diff. with a small u joint.
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 05:15 AM |
|
|
On the pic
i see the rubber ribbled hose..in there i bet its mad grease house.... be sure it is in spot condition by checking for leaks an filling it with new
grease...
Its like drive shafts...
1) the rubber hose wears / breaks
2) the grease will fly out by the spinning of the shaft
3) sand will come in true the hole, sand is like poision for us mechanicals..
4) the sand will destroy your halftshaft
it will wear the uj, the noise and vibrations will go up because of the increasing play.
5) because of the fact that the other side of the UJ doesn´t is symetrical anymore with the wearing/weared side, the UJ becomes very unstable and will
increase the forces on the bearings madly..
Sow you could change the rubber cover or just regrease the thing.
Regards,
Tks
p.s. needless to say that you should to check the play of the UJ..
[Edited on 20/4/06 by tks]
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
JoaoCaldeira
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 07:15 AM |
|
|
Doesn't it rotate the wrong way?
Joao
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 08:31 AM |
|
|
There's a great chunk missing out of the casing and the pistons are exposed, it'll never work.  I've seen this engine used in a
trike with a Ford axle but it was an old plodder riding it so I don't suppose it was stressed in any way like it would be in a car.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Coose
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 09:22 AM |
|
|
Can I ask why you want to use an XS1.1 (as they were known....  )? I can understand the shaft-driveyness, but unless you already have one kicking
around and are either building something for a laugh or very skint I don't quite get it!? You can pick up an old FZR1000EXUP or a GSXR1100 for
peanuts now, and either of those would be a damn sight better! If an XS gives any more than a real world 90bhp I'll be surprised!
I don't mean to sound negative - I'm just trying to be objective! 
Spin 'er off Well...
|
|
|
rv1890
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 03:48 PM |
|
|
Im being subject to cirticism because of the use of a driveshaft, although it is more durable and less expensive than a chain driven system.
Anyhow, I dont mind the suggestion of a chain driven system such as everyone is recommending, but until someone steps up with an affordable chain
drive differential then a driveshaft is the way I shall go.
I would also much rather use a chain drive, but so far the only one I have seen in wide use is the Quaife, and they are just as expensive as the motor
itself. Any alternatives???
p.s. Im not sure if everyone noticed, but the design on the turner-auto-design website uses a yamaha r-1 with a driveshaft connected to a BMW rear
end.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 06:46 PM |
|
|
What car are you planning to put it into? Just because its chain driven on the bike doesnt mean it needs to be chain driven in the car, 90% of us use
prop flange adapters that allow a prop to be bolted to the output shaft of a chain drive engine, so thats really not a limitation unless you have a
mid engined car and have no room to run the engine longitudinally with a prop between the engine and diff.
[Edited on 20/4/06 by ChrisGamlin]
|
|
|
rv1890
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 07:17 PM |
|
|
Ok...It will be mid engine. And has be IRS which means that I would need a rear differential so that it can be driven via a propshaft connected to a
IR differential out of a ford or a bmw or whatever it may be. Hence the name "gear differential".
My other option would be to have a chain drive differential, such as a Quaife (too expensive). Hence the name "chain differential".
Now....do I completely not know what I talking about??? or understanding it wrong. I can either adapt a driveshaft to a differential out of a car, or
I can run a chain to a chain differential. The latter of the two is to expensive. So I am asking advice on the drive type. Ive been searching the
photo archive on this site, and cant seem to find good pics on how different systems are being adapted.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 09:32 PM |
|
|
Theres no reason why you couldnt have the same configuration as youve seen on the Turner Auto website, its basically the same as any front engined car
but with a very short propshaft. There are several other cars that use this configuration for mid engined cars (such as the Fury Menace), and I do
think it would be a better route with a proven engine, rather than try to pioneer a comparatively outdated and underpowered alternative just because
it uses shaft drive
cheers
Chris
|
|
|
Coose
|
| posted on 20/4/06 at 09:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
I do think it would be a better route with a proven engine, rather than try to pioneer a comparatively outdated and underpowered alternative just
because it uses shaft drive
cheers
Chris
Exactly my point! I wasn't criticising the point of using shaft drive, just the choice of engine!
Here are the quoted bhp and torque figures for the XS as tested by an american magazine....
RPM BHP Torque
2500 16.7 35.2
3000 22.3 39.0
3500 30.5 45.9
4000 36.7 48.2
4500 43.2 50.4
5000 49.2 51.7
5500 55.6 53.1
6000 61.6 53.9
6500 65.2 52.7
7000 68.5 51.4
7500 73.0 51.1
8000 74.9 46.7
8500 74.1 45.9
9000 73.7 40.9
9500 67.3 35.3
10000 61.1 30.4
I'd think again if I was you - what about a Suzuki GSX1100G? Essentially a GSXR1100 with shaft drive!
[Edited on 21/4/06 by Coose]
Spin 'er off Well...
|
|
|
