Board logo

Rally car engine - suggestions
BaileyPerformance - 6/11/14 at 10:51 AM

Hi,

We are looking into the feasibility of building a turbocharged Fiesta / Focus rally car engine, as i understand it to compete in the 2000cc class a factor of 1.7 needs to be applied to any forced induction engine.
So, we are limited to 1176cc (or as close as possible)

Also, we need to run a 34mm restrictor on the air intake of the turbo.

I'm thinking of using the 1.25L engine used in the fiesta, (Sigma Zetec-SE) with a smaller bore to get below the cc limit.

With a variable vain turbo, high CR and decent amounts of boost i'm hoping for 220BHP

Any other suggestions / comments?

Cheers Dale

loggyboy - 6/11/14 at 10:56 AM

This 1.0 (based on a sleaved 1.2 Vauxhall lump) achieved some impressive figures.
http://www.turbosport.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150737

DW100 - 6/11/14 at 11:55 AM

1.0 litre Ford Ecoboost?

Didn't ford get that sort of figure from the one they used in the formula ford ?

http://www.ford.co.uk/experience-ford/AboutFord/News/VehicleNews/2012/EcoBoost-Nurburgring

[Edited on 6/11/14 by DW100]

DW100 - 6/11/14 at 12:08 PM

There was also a 1.1 16 Valve K series in the Rover 25 around 2002 which is 1117cc. It probably uses the same head as 1.4 /1.6 / 1.8

CNHSS1 - 6/11/14 at 12:18 PM

ecoboost is also tiny so could be moved back or at least rotated rearwards like they used to do in BTCC chassis, to aid weight distribution. ill bet its the lightest option of the FI dinky engines too

beaver34 - 6/11/14 at 12:33 PM

seems feesable, i dont think yo have an issue getting that power on the 1.25 sigma,

i run a 1.6 sigma on 1bar off boost that 340bhp @ just shy of 8k

the engines like to rev which is good, stock crank will do 8k, so will rods and pistons in N/A form set of valve springs also needed and it will be fine

would be cheaper than a 1.0 fox engine at the moment too, although the fox is alot better from the off being a F/I engine to start with

MikeRJ - 6/11/14 at 12:48 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance

With a variable vain turbo, high CR and decent amounts of boost i'm hoping for 220BHP


That probably won't be very competitive in the 2.0L class. There are plenty of cars making ~300bhp on 2.0L normally aspirated engines, and plenty of 1.6L normally aspirated engines making comparable power.

BaileyPerformance - 6/11/14 at 01:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance

With a variable vain turbo, high CR and decent amounts of boost i'm hoping for 220BHP


That probably won't be very competitive in the 2.0L class. There are plenty of cars making ~300bhp on 2.0L normally aspirated engines, and plenty of 1.6L normally aspirated engines making comparable power.


Maybe, we've mapped several competitive rally cars, the last one was an Escort Mk2 with a vauxhall 16v on Jenveys. It made 210BHP.
Lots of folk claiming 280+ out of a 2.0L red top, most dont achieve it in reality. I would say a good average would be 250BHP.

Really high spec 2.0L engines tend to be peaky, making good power over 6000RPM but not much below 5. I was hoping to bring the mid range up abit with a well sorted turbo engine, to be honest i dont know if it will be competitive, but if the car is light and the engine as all ally and lightweight too it stands a good chance.

I think the new world rally car format is 1600cc turbo, rated at 300BHP from 3000rpm up, that would be nice!!

BaileyPerformance - 6/11/14 at 02:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by DW100
There was also a 1.1 16 Valve K series in the Rover 25 around 2002 which is 1117cc. It probably uses the same head as 1.4 /1.6 / 1.8


I think the first K series was fitted with an SU and SOHC, the 1.4 was DOHC, not sure

CNHSS1 - 6/11/14 at 02:45 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance

With a variable vain turbo, high CR and decent amounts of boost i'm hoping for 220BHP


That probably won't be very competitive in the 2.0L class. There are plenty of cars making ~300bhp on 2.0L normally aspirated engines, and plenty of 1.6L normally aspirated engines making comparable power.


Maybe, we've mapped several competitive rally cars, the last one was an Escort Mk2 with a vauxhall 16v on Jenveys. It made 210BHP.
Lots of folk claiming 280+ out of a 2.0L red top, most dont achieve it in reality. I would say a good average would be 250BHP.

Really high spec 2.0L engines tend to be peaky, making good power over 6000RPM but not much below 5. I was hoping to bring the mid range up abit with a well sorted turbo engine, to be honest i dont know if it will be competitive, but if the car is light and the engine as all ally and lightweight too it stands a good chance.

I think the new world rally car format is 1600cc turbo, rated at 300BHP from 3000rpm up, that would be nice!!


that all sounds very sensible to me :-). A 'drivable' package with mid range torque in a lightweight car, will beat a 280hp 'peaky as hell' XE in the hands of most people.

DW100 - 6/11/14 at 03:18 PM

No definitely a 1.1 16 valve version with multipoint injection in 2002 Rover 25s they also had a ford BC gearbox

BaileyPerformance - 6/11/14 at 03:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by DW100
No definitely a 1.1 16 valve version with multipoint injection in 2002 Rover 25s they also had a ford BC gearbox


Nice one, i'll look into that, would save the headache of sleeving a zetec SE

Ugg10 - 6/11/14 at 04:01 PM

A bit left field but Turbo'd R1/GSXR bike engine in a cradle like those made for Mini's (look up Miniexvo and Promotive I think, may be able to adapt for a Ford Ka) plus an RS turbo LSD with chain drive. Should make about 230hp and be really light and compact and have a 6 speed sequential box.

Edit also here - FWD R1 Race Conversion Kit


[Edited on 6/11/14 by Ugg10]

MikeRJ - 6/11/14 at 06:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance

With a variable vain turbo, high CR and decent amounts of boost i'm hoping for 220BHP


That probably won't be very competitive in the 2.0L class. There are plenty of cars making ~300bhp on 2.0L normally aspirated engines, and plenty of 1.6L normally aspirated engines making comparable power.


Maybe, we've mapped several competitive rally cars, the last one was an Escort Mk2 with a vauxhall 16v on Jenveys. It made 210BHP.
Lots of folk claiming 280+ out of a 2.0L red top, most dont achieve it in reality. I would say a good average would be 250BHP.

Really high spec 2.0L engines tend to be peaky, making good power over 6000RPM but not much below 5. I was hoping to bring the mid range up abit with a well sorted turbo engine, to be honest i dont know if it will be competitive, but if the car is light and the engine as all ally and lightweight too it stands a good chance.

I think the new world rally car format is 1600cc turbo, rated at 300BHP from 3000rpm up, that would be nice!!


Yes you do hear a lot of BS regarding power of engines, and the old Vauxhall red top is getting a bit long in the tooth these days, though there are still some quick Escorts running them.

I service for a chap running a Peugeot 205 that has an Mi16 making a around 275 bhp and it's amazingly tractable, pulling cleanly from ~2000 RPM up to around 9000 RPM, though to be fair it hasn't be terribly reliable and it wasn't cheap. The really quick Escorts are running Millington engines which he struggles to keep up with, though again you need deep pockets.

We talked about going for a small turbo charged engine last year, but the fact that almost no-ones doing it, and certainly no-ones doing it successfully in the events I've been to, suggested it might not be the way to go.

BaileyPerformance - 6/11/14 at 10:46 PM

Mike, agree with everything you said, it is possible to get a good very high power 2.0 engine to be tractable, we did an NA Cosworth YB some years ago, it made 262bhp, would take full throttle around 2k and pull to 8500.

I think the key to developing a successful race car is to think out of the box, always look at what others do but don't always follow. We've been involved in Autograss for a while, the first bloke to shove 2 bike engines in car started a trend which people followed.

In theory at least it should be possible to build a small turbo engine with more power at lower rpm then a cammed up 2.0, power to weight should be better too.

It is a gamble, really hard to say if its worth the development cost.

Ugg10 - 6/11/14 at 11:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
I think the key to developing a successful race car is to think out of the box, always look at what others do but don't always follow.


Isn't that where the first bike engine based v8's came from. The story goes, a guy was running in a sprint 2.0l libra class (anything goes) and was sick of rebuilding his 2.0l NA 280hp engine after every race and came up with the idea of putting two 1.0l 150hp bike engines on one crank, hey presto a 2.0l NA engibe that would rev to 10.5k all day and give 300+ hp.

What is the turbo multiplyer these days, used to be 1.7.

If you want to think right out of the box, why not supercharge it at low revs and use a turbo for high revs (like lancia did in the 80's and vw golf 1.4 engine today). The merc kompressors (Eaton superchargers) have a clutched pully so you can disconnect them with a electrical switch from the ecu, then use a valve to divert the charge from the turbo, a idle valve may do the trick on the cheap.

ste - 6/11/14 at 11:40 PM

I'd be reading the blur book before committing to any engine change as certain things like turboing engines that aren't factory turboed already can't be done. Also, you can't mix brands of car and engine.

onenastyviper - 7/11/14 at 07:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by ste
I'd be reading the blur book before committing to any engine change as certain things like turboing engines that aren't factory turboed already can't be done. Also, you can't mix brands of car and engine.


Assuming you mean the MSA Blue Book ( )

Does the Blue Book really exclude things like that or is that down to the specific technical regulations of the relevant series - which are in addition to the Blue Book?

BaileyPerformance - 7/11/14 at 08:52 AM

quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
quote:
Originally posted by ste
I'd be reading the blur book before committing to any engine change as certain things like turboing engines that aren't factory turboed already can't be done. Also, you can't mix brands of car and engine.


Assuming you mean the MSA Blue Book ( )

Does the Blue Book really exclude things like that or is that down to the specific technical regulations of the relevant series - which are in addition to the Blue Book?


Good point, I think I'm ok to turbo a non-factory turbo car but changing the engine for I different manufacture could be a problem. I have a blue book, I'll dig it out.

BaileyPerformance - 7/11/14 at 08:53 AM

quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
quote:
Originally posted by ste
I'd be reading the blur book before committing to any engine change as certain things like turboing engines that aren't factory turboed already can't be done. Also, you can't mix brands of car and engine.


Assuming you mean the MSA Blue Book ( )

Does the Blue Book really exclude things like that or is that down to the specific technical regulations of the relevant series - which are in addition to the Blue Book?


Good point, I think I'm ok to turbo a non-factory turbo car but changing the engine for I different manufacture could be a problem. I have a blue book, I'll dig it out.

BaileyPerformance - 7/11/14 at 08:59 AM

Mr ugg10,

Twin charging does work, we've done it before, but the issue is the 34mm restrictor, that really limits top end power. So, a small turbo can be used meaning low lag negating the need for the supercharger.
I don't think the added weight of the blower is worth it, I think the key is small, lightweight and efficient.

If we could run without a restrictor then twin charge with a big turbo would be the way to go, we could see 350bhp out of 1100cc no problem.

ste - 7/11/14 at 11:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
quote:
Originally posted by ste
I'd be reading the blur book before committing to any engine change as certain things like turboing engines that aren't factory turboed already can't be done. Also, you can't mix brands of car and engine.


Assuming you mean the MSA Blue Book ( )

Does the Blue Book really exclude things like that or is that down to the specific technical regulations of the relevant series - which are in addition to the Blue Book?


Yes, the MSA blur book.

ettore bugatti - 10/11/14 at 09:25 PM

Could you get a diesel competitive?

BaileyPerformance - 11/11/14 at 08:56 AM

quote:
Originally posted by ettore bugatti
Could you get a diesel competitive?


Probably with enough effort, biggest issue is that they tend to be heavy and low revving compared to a petrol engine

BaileyPerformance - 13/11/14 at 10:45 AM

quote:
Originally posted by ste
I'd be reading the blur book before committing to any engine change as certain things like turboing engines that aren't factory turboed already can't be done. Also, you can't mix brands of car and engine.


Hi,
Can anyone clarify the rules regarding turbocharging and rallying?

I have a mate who rally's a mk2 escort with a Vauxhall 16v so the engine swap must be legal?