rscosworth
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 06:59 PM |
|
|
Bike or Car Engine - You Decide!!!
Guys Guys Guys,
I defo wanna 7 esq car, and have seen a few Car Engined and Bike Engined cars i have really liked the look of.
Having never driven either i would like your opinion.
I wanna use the car for weekend blasts, runs of 2-3 hundred miles, and sunny evening fast fun.
What would suit my needs best?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
shortie
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
2-3 hundred miles!!!!
Forget a Bike engine, definitely car.
Rich.
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
You have no idea what you've started!
I have a feeling this'll be a long thread 
PS - BEC excellent - car engines for old men who drive slow with one indicator still switched on! 
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
you need a ride in both. I dont think the distance is an issue, as i dont find the drone of my BEC to be anywhere near as tiring as people say.
Where abouts are you? And do you plan on doing any trackwork, and whilst im at it, what sort of money do plan on spending on the engine?
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 07:47 PM |
|
|
sorry CEC guys but 12500rpm n flame spiting exhaust will always be music too my ears, just makes a mess of the passengers eye brows.......
BEC every time for me.
|
|
|
zetec7
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 07:49 PM |
|
|
Largely depends on what appeals to you more - BECs are high-revving, screaming beast, usually requiring you to get out and push to back into a parking
spot. CECs are more sophisticated, also wonderfully fast (certainly faster-accelerating than any other car you're likely to find for under $1
million), and probably longer-lived. The BEC guys will probably jump all over me on this post, but take any engine, double the weight it has to move
(and double the strain on its trans, only designed to move half the weight), and it simply won't live as long as it should. On the other hand,
take a free-revving twin-cam motor, put it in a car that weighs HALF as much as it was designed to be in (ditto the transmission), and you've
got breathtaking performance and a long life. IMHO.
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
Performance wise, to get a car engine to be anywhere near as fast as a BEC (and million dollar super cars as well!), you need to put a lot of cash
into it to tune them up (they're still quick though).
BEC with a decent engine will be 0-60 in about 4 secs (give or take), and come with a 6 speed sequential 'box as standard. All this for about
£1000 - £1500. Get a car engine and gearbox that beats the performance for that money and I'll be impressed. Reversing's not an issue -
they're light as a feather an really easy to pull around by the roll bar.
Depends what you'll primarily use it for though
|
|
|
Lightning
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
Bike engine in a seven every time. If you want to cruise by a TVR 90mph @ 3000rpm as apposed to 9000rpm in a BEC.
A seven should be as light as possible and highly chuckable......I miss my BEC....sob sob
Steve
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
it says a lot when chris mason's s2000 indy was faster up the strip than hellfire. (that's iirc. i'm sure i'll hear about it
from steve if i'm wrong)
chris isn't a millionaire afaik, and didn't spend hundreds of thousands on his car.
but a cec can easily be quicker than a bec. you've just not got to try starting with a pinto.
tom
|
|
|
tom windmill
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 08:17 PM |
|
|
BIKE ENGINE get mr hellfire on the case!!
|
|
|
MkIndy7
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 08:22 PM |
|
|
The Nissan 200SX engined 1's were even quicker still weren't they?
|
|
|
ch1ll1
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 09:05 PM |
|
|
bike engine for me
hellfire is very quite tonight !
the calm b4 the storm i think !!!
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 09:24 PM |
|
|
I'd love a car engined car but wouldn't pay more for a slower, heavier engine. An engine that makes the car slower to accelerate and
brake and turn in. and makes the steering heavier.
I'd rather get to 60 2 seconds faster and push the car into a parking space.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 09:30 PM |
|
|
chris mason was selling his s2000 engine and ancilliaries for £6k, whereas the IMHO best bike engine (according to malc anyway) is the zx10, which is
more like £1.5k, plus the dry sump to match chris' spec.
And as smart says, the drag strip doesnt reflect cornering and braking.
Turbo'd engines too dont match up to NA in many instances.
BEC all day for me, though the unreliability does admittedly annoy me. That said, im using an 8 year old engine, and its been bodged.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 09:48 PM |
|
|
Chris Masons S2000 ran the quarter mile in 12.138 seconds. Our ZX12R ran the distance in 12.523 seconds. Less than 0.4 of a second to save you doing
the maths. 
I have a rough idea how much Chris Masons engine cost and I know that ours was consideraby less. Unfortunately, we never managed to get together on a
trackday, so who knows which would have been quicker and by how much.
Also, again if you look at the results you'll probably find that the overall winner at York was a BEC Other than Chris Masons S2000
and Pauls SX200 Turbo Nissan, no other CEC's were faster than the BEC's.
In the vast majority of cases, you generally have to spend lots more cash on a CEC to get similar performance to a BEC and then the BEC also has a six
speed sequential box and the soundtrack to go with the performance.
BEC every time. No contest.
Phil
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
Get a bec. They're lighter, faster, more agile and probably stop slightly better, and are cheaper than a similar speed cec. Oh, and the flame
spitting is always a good thing to have!  As is the 6 speed sequential box. And the 11,00 rpm red line. And
'forgetting' to re-calibrate the speedo so it reads up to 180/190 mph.
Need I go on?
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
TangoMan
|
| posted on 10/10/06 at 10:34 PM |
|
|
Just to add my two pence worth
On a recent track day at Teesside ther were several blow-ups on the day. None was a car engine!!
Up to then I hankered after a BEC but having spent the day there there was not as much performnce difference as I expected. On a bigger track it may
be different though as I was perhaps just more 'on the ede' that the BEC guys.
As a trackday tool I would opt for a BEC ever time. The sound track and sequential box win hands down. For road work though I will stick with the CEC.
I drove to LeMans last year in two 300 mile stints. I wouldn't fancy either the drone or the unreliability of a BEC on that journey.
Admittedly the Pinto needs more power so I a swapping for a Zetec which may then be fettled to improve.
Summer's here!!!!
|
|
|
DavidM
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
CEC every time. How can BEC's be faster when they spend most of their time with the gearbox in bits!;
David
Proportion is Everything
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 01:03 PM |
|
|
Most bike engines have 150 - 180 BHP as fitted to cars.
Most 2.0 car engines have 95 - 145 BHP in stock form as taken from the donor and with free flowing exhausts and other thing, can have a little more.
Your 170 BHP zetec may have more power than a basic 1000cc bike but it has more weight and so is isn't quite as fast.
A 170 BHP car engine insallation with megasquirt and a rear wheel drive box will I'm sure cost more than a basic bike install with speedo healer
and carb jets.
Sure, car engines go much higher than 170 BHP but it starts to cost serious money.
The westfield s8 has the same 0-60 time as the westfield megabusa despite having more power because it has more weight. The torque of the rover V8
means it has more difficulty putting the power down without wheelspinning. The revs of the busa are what enables it to keep up. The light weight
high revving nature of the bike engine suits a lightweight car perfectly. Despite the shortcomings of a BEC, it is still the most suited type of
powerplant for a seven.
The ideal engine for a seven would be this: A bike engine with a VTEC or VVT system to give good low down pull as well as the bike engine race cammed
power. It would have a bike clutch but resized to match the weight of a car. It would have a wider range gearbox to allow more comfortable cruising
at speed and would also have a built in reverse. The engine management system would have built in controls for a closed loop cat for SVA.
It wouldn't be difficult for Yamaha or someone to make such an engine. I'm sure that if your business plan had sufficient funds, Mr
Yamaha would make them for you. I bet none of our specialist car companies have the backing to do this though.
The other way to do it would be to start with an S2000 engine. with a 9000 RPM red line, it isn't far off a bike engine in terms of revs and it
already has low down pull. It's a bit heavy, partly due to having a separate transmission and a big heavy clutch. Integrate them into the
crank cases a-la bike engines and you're getting towards the same place.
Your work-a-day car engines are just not good enough. A crossflow won't make enough power. A pinto is too heavy. A highly tuned zetec,
duratec or other modern common 2 litre is too expensive. For reasonable money in a lightweight locost, you can't beat a BEC.
The only thing i'd add is that a carbed pinto is yours for £100 or is free with your donor. you can't get much cheaper than that. If
cheap is what you want, and don't we all, then this is hard to beat. You can't really claim that it is best though.
[Edited on 11-10-2006 by smart51]
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 01:49 PM |
|
|
also when a crowd of people look at the car what engine mate what engine etcetc
its a car engine no one gives poo
show them MR R1 and there crowding round it!!!!
|
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.
|
scoey m
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 02:47 PM |
|
|
im building bec cause im a tight c**t and the thing i thought about was cheap road tax and cheap insurance only 1000cc and sequential gearbox +
0-60
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
I remember well a track day some years back, Evo owner walks over, "WTF is in that ?"
"Just 0.9 of a litre" was the reply......
was his reaction, these sub £1k bean sprout eaters take some lickin.......
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 03:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scoey m
im building bec cause im a tight c**t and the thing i thought about was cheap road tax and cheap insurance only 1000cc and sequential gearbox +
0-60
Not to rain on your bonfire, but have you actually checked you will get cheap insurance?
The insurers now ask whether it's a BEC when you tell them the small engine size, I think the insurance is only cheap if it's a 1000cc CEC
- not that kit insurance is ever really expensive on a comparative performance basis to tintops.
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 03:41 PM |
|
|
Always a winner that. Out having a play with a cobra once and wlatzed off into the distance. Had to stop for fuel a few (~8) miles down the road, and
thought I'd sit and see if he turned up. He did, after I'd filled up (admittidly only £13! ) and was somewhat annoyed to discover the
1.1 car had beaten his RV8 cobra! Was a most happy bunny that day!
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
scoey m
|
| posted on 11/10/06 at 05:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Not to rain on your bonfire, but have you actually checked you will get cheap insurance?
No mate
Not checked just thought it would work like that + info from other people
|
|
|
