I love speed :-P
|
 posted on 21/10/03 at 05:49 PM |
|
|
Engine Weights????
I don’t suppose that anyone out there has a list of engine weights and bhp???? Or what do you think is the best engine for power/weight. The max
engine size has to be 2 litters for insurance propose.
Thanks 4 ur time
Philip Moreton
Don't Steal
The Government doesn’t like the competition
|
|
|
|
|
Stu16v
|
| posted on 21/10/03 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
What kind of budget?
For the maximum power to weight for an engine it has to be a Holeshot Hyabusa....
Dont just build it.....make it!
|
|
|
I love speed :-P
|
| posted on 21/10/03 at 06:11 PM |
|
|
i have already thought about bike engines but insureance is far to high 
Don't Steal
The Government doesn’t like the competition
|
|
|
zetec
|
| posted on 21/10/03 at 07:15 PM |
|
|
Most modern Ford/Vx/Rover engines will easily put out 160-200bhp without too much work. The Rover K series is probably the lightest along with the
almost new Ford Duratec. There is always the question of reliability with the Rover unit. I would say fit a good standard engine and upgrade with
cam/head mods once you have an idea of what you want from the car. I would much prefer a car which handled well and meant you can use all the power
it had to one which was unusable because it was too powerful for the chassis. There is a lot to be said foor zetec/ecotec/XE 16v engines, cheap and
plentiful and loads of bolt on goodies.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 21/10/03 at 10:07 PM |
|
|
I'd second the K-series although it does have a habit of blowing its head gasket from time to time. This is more of a nuisance than a big
problem to be honest and can be easily fixed. It is a very light engine and produces good top end power. I did see a report which put it at the top of
the potential power to weight ratio when compared with other similar modern multivalve engines (Vauxhall, Zetec etc). I'll try to dig the report
out again.
I also recall that the 1.8 VVC engine should be avoided as it is less tunable than the standard 1.8 or 1.6 and is much more complex to fit. I'd
say go with a 1.6 litre K-series from a rover 216 as these should be plentiful and are an excellent engine.
HTH,
Craig.
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 22/10/03 at 08:59 AM |
|
|
don't bother with the ecotec. if vauxhall, use the Xe. the ecotecs are cheap, but less tunable and not as much fiddling has been done with them
as far as i know. ignition/injection could be a problem with ecotec, whereas there is a cheap solution to this for an xe.
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
kestrel1596
|
| posted on 23/10/03 at 01:02 AM |
|
|
Here's a link to what I think is the latest version of Dave Williams' list. Seems to be missing the K-series, but you might find some of
the entries useful:
http://www.angelfire.com/ar/dw42/engfyi.htm
hth
Kevin B.
|
|
|
Noodle
|
| posted on 23/10/03 at 06:07 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ned
don't bother with the ecotec. if vauxhall, use the Xe. the ecotecs are cheap, but less tunable and not as much fiddling has been done with them
as far as i know.
Try SBD: http://www.sbdev.co.uk/
Cheers,
Neil.
|
|
|
fastavatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
