for not much £$£$£$£$£$£. Get the right engine and you can always increase at a later date to 180 - 200+
Still haven't found what I'm looking for. (bloody hell, could make a song outta that).
Starts to ramble again !
SO ENGINE, still havent decided, read lots of posts, measured lots of bits of engines, and still no further on.
Question HOW MUCH BHP IS ENOUGH ?
Standard escort back axle so that should limit a few things.
YOUR OPINIONS PLEASE !
Still kinda thinking Nissan silvia, just to be a bit different. But hey, that today, tomorrow who knows !
150 bhp will run through th rear axle no worries and will see plenty of for not much £$£$£$£$£$£.
Get the right engine and you can always increase at a later date to 180 - 200+
i had heard that 200BHP was "optimum" for a 7 type, this is what i had heard nothing more.
torque is good aswell, plenty of it and from as low in the rev range as possible (in a petrol engine anyway).
it does get to the point where you will just loose traction if you have too much bhp and also bear in mind the aerodynamicness (or lack of) much over
110-120mph.
traction and torque are more important than outright power imho.
it's not what you've got, but what you can do with it 
Ned.
quote:
Originally posted by ned
it's not what you've got, but what you can do with it
Ned.
quote:
Originally posted by ned
torque is good aswell.......
it's not what you've got, but what you can do with it
Ned.
The aerodynamics on me Gemini have got to be a bit better than a seven, but I plan on having Brooklands screens so outright speed isint what i'm
looking for. Just want to know what'a a reasonable target.
The 8v silvia is 135, and with an intercooler and induction should give a bit more.
The 200sx Ca18det is 170 bhp, and the SR20det a nice 205, and a bit lighter (and more money).
Still thinking aloud.
more suggestions needed.
As a sort of aside, what are bike engined cars like when it comes to accelerating quickly at mid range? I know they aren't all that torquey but I
was under the impression they could still easily keep up with a powerful car engine.
Pete
Sounds like a cue for a poll....
check out -
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=16288&page=1
#pid130560
[Edited on 10/8/04 by protofj]
I went for a spin (litterally) with OX in his R1, his mate and his buddy in a blade indy and his brother and his gf in his 1.8 pinto indy, i couldnt
see behind me to see where his brother was but at the end of a 30mile blat his brother pulled in right behind us .
from talking to OX afterwards he was saying that between his brothers 1800 (i think) pinto and his R1 there was not a lot in it from 50/60-90mph the
only gain OX had was carying the speed into the roundabouts/corners and initial acceleration and getting the power down coming out. - i can say that i
was most surprised.
[Edited on 10/8/04 by colmaccoll]
How much power is enough ?
I was sold my xflow on the basis that it makes 130bhp - dyno tested - this may be the case, but I doubt it because I haven't seen the proof on a
dyno myself. In all likelyhood it doesn't make any more than 130bhp so lets say it makes 120bhp for talkings sake.
that's enough grunt in a locost to spin the wheels in 3rd gear and frighten the crap of anyone who has ever sat in the passenger seat. Two of
whom were bikers, one with a Buell Lightning and the other who has a CBR600 and now a Lotus Elise.
Don't get me wrong, bad men keep tempting me with powerful engines - you all know who you are but in all honesty, I don't need anything
more than 130bhp.
That's if I already have 130bhp..which I may or may not have at the moment...
[Edited on 10/8/04 by zilspeed]
too much is never enough, (this is my American bigger is better raving lunatic answer, pay no attention to me whats ever its a slow day for me at
work) If you are having problems stripping out tranny gears that means that you bought an inferior tranny, that will give you a good reason to
upgrade to a 6 speed sequential with paddle shift behind the steering wheel box. If your having problems with grip you need a limited slip rear axle
and some real big sticky tires, ones that are coated with glue. If your frame stars to bend thats alrighjt, just bend it back on a chassis jig and add
some extra support, the chassis is meant to be bent a few times. If you are looking for 1000 hp from a 1.6l engine, just add a few sequential turbos,
and some boost 100lbs should do fine, just dont forget to re-do the fuel system.
Remember the key phrase is bigger is better, now go out there and find yourself a v16 engine to stuff into our chass, and dont forget to add a few big
turbos to it.
[Edited on 10/8/04 by derf]
quote:
Originally posted by colmaccoll
he was saying that between his brothers 1800 (i think) pinto and his R1 there was not a lot in it from 50/60-90mph the only gain OX had was carying the speed into the roundabouts/corners and initial acceleration and getting the power down coming out. - i can say that i was most surprised.
To quote Lord Carroll Shelby of the Cobra...
"Too much power is just enough"
Get a big American V8 and a massive grin.
I've just been out over the weekend as a passenger in two Caterhams. One a ten year old car with a standard 1600 cross flow running leaded
petrol through twin webbers, pushing out 130bhp. The other was a three year old car with a 220bhp vauxhall 16v running throttle bodies and a
progammable ignition (£7500 spent on the engine alone).
Basically there wasn't as much of a difference in performance as you might think. Both cars lightning quick off the line, very noisy, able to
carry huge speed though corners (both running 13" alloys and very sticky Yoko's) and to stop in no distance at all. Both able to overtake
traffic easily.
But, they are both limited to a top speed around 70mph (officer). 120 (coughs). Partly i suspect due to gearing, aerodynamics and eyelids folding
back.
It depends what you want from your car, and how much you are willing to spend as to how much bhp you need.
IMHO the Colin Chap who designed these seven type cars to be lightweight so they didn't need mega bhp? Some even had 948cc BMC A-Series
engines?
So perhaps an alternative question might be what is your power to weight ratio??
I'm always suprised when americans keep talking about TRANNIES.
They are a strange breed over there
Nothing wrong with a good tranny! Seems to me that the perfect amount of power is exactly enough to scare you into an ear to ear grin. But, if you
wanted to put a locost into the same power:weight as a Viper about 185hp would do the trick with the same lb*ft of torque. But the vipers making its
max torque by 3K, oh, and running 315's out back. Cheers!
Hi,
Following on from the comparison of the 1800 pinto and the R1 engined cars, bear in mind that it is always easier to follow than be followed. I used
to be able to follow a friend of mine closely even though he drove a 2.0 Pinto engined Mk2 Escort and I was in an old Metro 1.3S. This used to piss
him off big time too...
The thing was, if he was behind me he could get past on the straights due to bigger grunt but once past I could always match him. It's a
psychological thing I think because you always seem to push harder when behind than if in front. (If you'll pardon the expression... )
The other thing I'd like to challenge is this whole, "What you need is mid-range grunt," argument. If you want to trundle around in the
"mid-range" then best of luck to you but any engine has a range of RPM which makes best use of the characteristic power curve of the engine
within the confines of the gear ratios you have available. It doesn't matter if it is a bike engine, a V8 or a diesel engine. If you want maximum
performance then you need to work out your optimum gearchange points using a dyno power curve and your gear ratios. Then program your shift lights to
match.
The whole torque versus power argument has been done to death and the usual outcome is that neither is better, some people can simply relate to one or
the other more comfortably.
For example, torque provides force which acts on a mass and gives acceleration which when applied over time gives a velocity increment. On the other
hand power applied over time builds kinetic energy which when divided by mass gives the square of velocity. I find the latter method more comfortable
as I think of the vehicle in terms of energy and energy transfer. This is much easier to work with when you start thinking of braking systems, cooling
systems, fuel systems and transmission systems because you can more easily work between, say, kinetic energy in the vehicle and heat energy in your
brake discs after stopping the vehicle.
Just my tuppence worth...
Cheers,
Craig.
Obviously the weight is key to what is required to get a car moving. I've heard guys on hear talk about 300bhp turboed BEC's and cant
imagine they are anything less than terrifying to drive. We Americans have heavy cars so we have big engines (a guy at my work drives a 585bhp
mustang, daily) and everything is a damn drag race. I think I would be thrilled with a 1100lb car with around 160bhp....
Fletch.
Craig,
He was following us but we were following a blade engined indy and if you have even been in a car with OX, there is no taking it easy! and we were
by no means all over the ass of the blade car either, it was a pretty fair contest (probably due to our car carying an aditional 10-15 stones in
weight! )
By mid range grunt i was talking about mid (speed) range not rev/torque range grunt.