OK, maybe not the cheapest engine but there are other similar engines out there for less money.
Phil
[Edited on 31-5-06 by Hellfire]
Hi guys!
I want to build a small mid-engined car, but I can't decide which engine to use.
It can be either 4, 5 or 6 cilinders, has to be powerful and light, but above all, it has to be relatively cheap!
Some options I've considered but haven't rejected yet:
- Honda 1.6 VTI 160 hp
- Honda 2.2 VTI 185 hp
- Toyoya 2.0 Turbo (3SGTE) 200+ hp but may be hard to find
- Audi 1.8 20v Turbo 150+ hp but may be too expensive
- Volvo T5 225+ hp but may be too heavy
I'm assuming buying a damaged car and using as many parts of it as possible would be the cheapest option.
mazda 2.5 v6 as used in nobles and the like, can find them in 626GT's MX6's also the same engine in the probe and Mondeo ST's they also
come in 1.8l V6 and 2l V6 flavours in the mx3 , 323f and Xsedos range.
Nice light all alloy V6's that have been used all over the place
I bought a 21K miles rover 214 that had been t-boned for £400.
It provided a fuel injected 16 valve 1.4 ltr k-series engine, Exhaust header and cat, gearbox, driveshafts, Brakes, steering column and handbrake.
I choose the 1.4 because it would keep my roadtax and insurance low, but there is nothing stopping you from using a 1.8 ltr engine.
I would recommend a cambelt change and check the radiator for oil. The k-series does sometimes have head issues, especially if no anti-freeze use.
for transverse mounted power per pound spent the SAAB 9000 2.3 turbo takes some beating.
You can buy a complete car for £500, they are 225hp as std (in the griffin) and with a few ecu tweaks and suitable charge cooling will easily push
350hp.
They will go to much more with further mods, the base engine is incredibly strong.
Volvo T4 is also a good bet though less cheap.
Thanks for the replies!
The mazda v6's are interesting but they don't have enough power
I'm still going to look into the saab but I think it's old.
I'm now leaning towards the Honda 1.6 VTI engine because it seems to be the lightest and cheapest of my list to me.
If possible I would also like to use the steering column and rack, hubs, uprights, maybe brake compontents and pedals and a lot of minor stuff.
Any thoughts on that?
A lad round the corner from me used the 2.2 Honda Vti in his Mojo 2. I think the gear links were awkward to get right but its quite a potent performer (he fitted throttle bodies and ECU as well).
Mid engine cars were made to take bike engines weren't they? Just look at the Elise's, they're ripping the engines out and replacing
with Hyabusas - Definitely powerful and light.
OK, maybe not the cheapest engine but there are other similar engines out there for less money.
Phil
[Edited on 31-5-06 by Hellfire]
quote:
Originally posted by 12a RX-7
mazda 2.5 v6 as used in nobles and the like, can find them in 626GT's MX6's also the same engine in the probe and Mondeo ST's they also come in 1.8l V6 and 2l V6 flavours in the mx3 , 323f and Xsedos range.
Nice light all alloy V6's that have been used all over the place
For my next project, it will be R1 powered.
I think the engine only weighs 48Kg and is approx 140bhp (unless someone knows the proper figures!)
Not only will it sound like a race car, the paddle shift option looks like a good idea.
I am a bit puzzed at how you can say that the Mazda/Ford V6 is short of power and then say you will use a Honda 1.6!!!
SAAB engine may be a little older but.....well, up to you, can't be bothered to go into it but needless to say it will make a honda 1.6 seem akin
to a go-ped!!
Is the SAAB lump all alloy or does it have an iron block?
iron block I'm afraid, but not too bad weight-wise. Certainly lighter than the Volvo T5 that was mentioned!!
I have looked into using this engine pretty extensively myself, in the back of a mid engined class 7 autograss car, hence my suggestion.
The weak point is really the GM gearbox, which is pretty marginal, certainly risky at 350hp.
I know that Dave Walker (of Newark Engines, who used to post on here a lot) has had a bit to do with class 7 saab turbo powered mid engined pug 205,
and said it worked extremely well.
I got put off that route when I saw the 604hp wildcat V8 engined rwd mini at the autosport show, made me realise that 350hp with car engine weight
wouldn't cut the mustard, so I am going for 2 bike engines instead.
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
I am a bit puzzed at how you can say that the Mazda/Ford V6 is short of power and then say you will use a Honda 1.6!!!
SAAB engine may be a little older but.....well, up to you, can't be bothered to go into it but needless to say it will make a honda 1.6 seem akin to a go-ped!!
quote:
Originally posted by Pseicho
I looked the hp figures and the 2.5 liter ford has only 170 hp (unless you go for the ST220 or a Noble)
The duratec engine is much better than those power figures would suggest. Ford fitted THREE cats and once removed, and you add a decent inlet/exhaust system and you'll see 200+bhp from the standard v6. If you start with the 220 bhp version, you'll get 240-250+ with a few bits and pieces. And the sound of a lovely v6. Oh, and it's all ally, so weighs not much too.
£ for lb - a bike engine is the only choice.
Alfa V6, 200bhp, all alloy, fuel injection and cheap.
Stratos replicas use them for good reason
Looks and sounds good to.
Forget the B16/B18 Honda engines unless you plan to also use the gearbox and diff from the donor as they spin in the opposite direction to most other
engines. Honda only started making engines that rotate clockwise from about Y2K with the F20C and K20's. Never had any dealings with the 2.2 out
of the Accord not 100% on that one but I guess that also spins the anti-clockwise as it was available before 2000.
Getting decent power out of the B16/B18 is easy though, TB's, Cam's and a mappable ecu are a very good place to start.
Why not have a look for a Civic Type-R with the K20A engine. 197BHP and plenty more available if you are willing to spend some money. Standalone ecu’s
of note for the Honda engines are Motec M4, dtafast S60Pro, AEM EMS, Emerald, Hydra and Hondata.
A motorsport gearbox which spin’s anticlockwise is available but it will cost about 4/5K plus import duty.
A good place to start for Honda parts/tuning are and advice....
http://www.mardigras.co.uk/
http://www.clockwisemotion.co.uk/
Mardi-Gras are a good set of guys and know what they are talking.
You could also give Johnny a call at bookatrac as he usually has a few K20's knocking about.
If you need any further help with the Honda engines let me know as I've been racing the m for a few years now.
Don't dismiss the Duratec 2.0/2.3 as it is a cracking engine with huge potential. They are easy to tune and you would see greater rewards for
your money then you would with the Honda's.
Have you though about the 1.8T from Audi, there are plenty of crashed TT and the like around.
[Edited on 31/5/06 by atomic]
After some research I think the Ford V6 would be the cheapest option, so it's definately worth considering. But I think it would need some
tuning, does anyone have any links about that?
And what does the V6 weigh?
Another option would be a 2ltr 16v Toyota 4AGE and fit a 20V head. These are very capable engines and can be found for very little money.
quote:
Originally posted by atomic
Another option would be a 2ltr 16v Toyota 4AGE and fit a 20V head. These are very capable engines and can be found for very little money.
just a typo. My fingers working quicker that my brain. Happens alot :-)
quote:
Originally posted by atomic
Forget the B16/B18 Honda engines unless you plan to also use the gearbox and diff from the donor as they spin in the opposite direction to most other engines.
), as far as the piston travel is concerned it doesn't
make a difference does it, they'll still go up and down either way? In a four cyl the pistons are 180 crank degrees apart so the direction
shouldn't make a diference to the order. The original engine management might have a bit of a fit but that's not insurmountable, just bin it
and fit something else... 
just the cams would need to be made backwards
no offence but you said you'd rather use a 1.6 hinda engine than a 2.3 saab, you recon a 200bhp v6 would need 'tuning' have you been in
a car similar to what you have in mind or another lightweight sportscar of a similar power/weight ratio of what you are trying to achieve? If not I
think you'd be very suprised - most 7's don't make 200bhp - i'd bet money that a very small percent - probably less than 5% of
road going examples do and none of them in my experience could be called slow.
please don't take offence, i'm just trying to put it into perspective. i spent a fair amount on my engine and to a degree got worried about
figures, but having seen it on the rolling road and my experience in similar powered cars it should be more than enough to start with.
Ned.
Ned, you're definately right. The reason I'm aiming for so much power is because when I'm going to build a car, I want to do it right.
I don't want to have to build a second car once I'm used to the first one.
I did have a supersport bike so I know what a high power to weight ratio feels like
By the way, when I said the Ford V6 needs tuning, I had the original in mind like it's fit in the mondeo (with 170 hp). If it makes 200 hp when
you remove the cats then that's fine.
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
just the cams would need to be made backwards
why not just turn them round, redrill the pulleys and change the firing order then?!
quote:
Originally posted by atomic
Forget the B16/B18 Honda engines unless you plan to also use the gearbox and diff from the donor as they spin in the opposite direction to most other engines.
Surely the best way to mount an engine in a mid/rear car is logitudinally? Just a thought.
Most of the more serious Elise conversions use either the Honda K20A, Audi 20V turbo or a few now have the Duractec 2.0L fitted. Still a few Hi Po K
series being done but they generally require more maintenance. Budget for those range from £7-10K so not exactly cheap.
Iron/Steel blocks are not necessarily a lot heavier than alloy. For example a K series would weigh 80+kgs compared to 90kg for a 4AGE in similar
stripped spec. The 4AGE is smaller though.
If you wanted 200bhp then yep a 4AGE can do this but it wont be cheap. The 1.8 2ZZ-GE would be there as it starts with 189BHP and finally cams are
available. However the Honda K20A will always be that bit more powerful and more widely used.
The Honda is worth considering as with a new ECU and decent induction/exaust they put out an easy 230BHP and 300BHP again an easy figure acheived with
an Eaton M62 supercharger on it. The downside is the rather tall and bulky head due to the VTEC mechanism, not brilliant for CoG and polar moment at
the back.
As I said earlier, what exactly is wrong with the SAAB 9000 2.3 16v?
225hp as std, remap and an intercooler plus possibly a bigger turbo will yield 350hp...........................
You can buy an entire, late (post 1994) SAAB 9000 Griffin with manual gearbox for £500 no problem, and the engines are totally bullet proof, 200,000+
miles is std procedure.
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
Surely the best way to mount an engine in a mid/rear car is logitudinally? Just a thought.
Mounting the engine logitudinally gives better weight distribution and lower centre of gravity.
Technically any car with the engine and GBX over the rear axle is really rear engined eg the Elise. Look at the weight distribution of an Elise approx
60/40 (rear/front). the mass over the rear axle also acts like a pendulum and makes them spin like a top when the rear end breaks loose. The mk2 MR2
turbo was revised at the back due to the tendency of owners going backwards through hedges!
Oh and I've owned both of the above and experienced both spinning on track days
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
...
Technically any car with the engine and GBX over the rear axle is really rear engined eg the Elise. ...
quote:
Originally posted by iank
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
...
Technically any car with the engine and GBX over the rear axle is really rear engined eg the Elise. ...
The rest of your post makes sense, but this is just wrong.
If you actually look the engine and gearbox are on the cabin side, the driveshafts are behind the engine. The engine isn't on top of the gearbox its by the side (unless you are using a mini engine) So the elise/MR2 etc are quite legitemately mid-engined.
Weight ratio front/rear is a greatly debated topic and it depends which side of the fence you prefer as to which is best.
Two opposing, but not necessarily wrong arguements.
50/50 to 45/55 slight rear bias makes the car very stable during the transitional period of turning in. And it could be argued that the car spends
more time in transition than in constant rate turn.
45/55 to 40/60 rear bias is considered more stable during constant rate turning and is slightly better at the exit transition stage. It could also be
argued that as the front takes a larger turn radius than the rear it would be preferable to move weight rearwards to reduce the pendulum effect.
Please excuse the terminology, but I know what I mean!
A lot of mid-engine cars use FWD engines to achieve this. They tend to be narrow and tall to fit in the front engine bay.
Now cars designed with a longitudinal engine and transmission eg Ferraris, Porsches, Lambos etc have designed the whole package with a very low crank
centre line at least thats what I've noticed in the past.
My car has a fwd engine mounted at the rear of my car. It was the simplest and cheapest option.
We built a transverse mid engined nova rally car years ago and the weight distribution was only a few percent away from 50-50 (46-54 front-rear
iirc)
just have to design it carefully.
quote:
Originally posted by bimbleuk
The mk2 MR2 turbo was revised at the back due to the tendency of owners going backwards through hedges!
place one gearing pair on the cam
then you could turn the crank one way..
and the cam would turn the way it likes..
what would be now the problem?
shouldn't be to difficult to do?
Tks