clutch_kick
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 02:02 PM |
|
|
What's the weight of a .....
1) .... S2000 engine + Gearbox
2) .... Toyota 4A-GE 20v Engine
3) Type 9 G/box
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Flamez
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 02:31 PM |
|
|
A lot more than a BEC hehehehe....
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 02:37 PM |
|
|
Type 9 is 39kg from memory - thats 2/3rd of an complete R1 engine / gearbox / carbs etc!!! 
|
|
|
contaminated
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 03:22 PM |
|
|
4 age is 100kg
|
|
|
contaminated
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 03:27 PM |
|
|
s2000 is 158kg including standard manifolds, flywheel and fluids.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 04:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by contaminated
s2000 is 158kg including standard manifolds, flywheel and fluids.
That's interesting, so a manufacturer that makes bith bike and car engines chooses to make a car engine as heavy as that. Could it be that they
intend to car engine to last more than 20,000 miles?
John
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 05:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
That's interesting, so a manufacturer that makes bith bike and car engines chooses to make a car engine as heavy as that. Could it be that they
intend to car engine to last more than 20,000 miles?
Nope, not at all.  The car engine is designed to propel a vehicle that weighs approx 1,300kg whereas the bike engine is designed to propel a vehicle
that weighs only approx 215kg.
Given that a fully built seven is closer to the motorbike weight than the car, it makes sense to use the appropriate engine. BEC everytime. 
Phil
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
That's interesting, so a manufacturer that makes bith bike and car engines chooses to make a car engine as heavy as that. Could it be that they
intend to car engine to last more than 20,000 miles?
Nope, not at all. The car engine is designed to propel a vehicle that weighs approx 1,300kg whereas the bike engine is designed to propel a vehicle
that weighs only approx 215kg.
What has the weight of the vehicle got to do with the weight of the engine? Why does fitting the engine to a heavier vehicle mean that the engine
itself needs to be heavier?
I reckon its got more to do with longevity than weight. No manufacturer would ever make an engine heavier than it needs to be, and car engines
are expected to run a lot more miles than a bike engine
John
|
|
|
Triton
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 06:40 PM |
|
|
BMW boxer bike motors will do over 100,00 miles and weigh nowt compared to their car motors...so kinda blows that one a wee bit.
Heavy is cheaper to make
My Daughter has taken over production of the damn fine Triton race seats and her contact email is emmatrs@live.co.uk.
www.tritonraceseats.com
www.hairyhedgehog.com
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
No manufacturer would ever make an engine heavier than it needs to be, and car engines are expected to run a lot more miles than a bike
engine
John
Thats a very good point......... and seeing as your average se7en is going to do between 1000 and 3000 miles per year, by the above logic we should
all be using bike engines which are expected to be thrashed silly for 30,000 miles!!! Argument resolved!!!
|
|
|
Mark G
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 06:53 PM |
|
|
Think of it like this, Bike engines need to be light so they make them light, which costs more.
Car engines don't need to be light atall. The weight of the engine doesn't matter, so they make the engine as cheap as possible and it
weighs what it weighs. simple.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 07:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul TigerB6
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
No manufacturer would ever make an engine heavier than it needs to be, and car engines are expected to run a lot more miles than a bike
engine
John
Thats a very good point......... and seeing as your average se7en is going to do between 1000 and 3000 miles per year, by the above logic we should
all be using bike engines which are expected to be thrashed silly for 30,000 miles!!! Argument resolved!!!
Did you think I was arguing against the use of bike engines in LSIS's? Why did you think that?
I am considering the use of a bike engine in a project I have coming up soon. Never-the-less I am still interested in why car engines should be so
much heavier than bike engines, and haven't heard a convincing explanation yet. The cost suggestion doesn't hold water, manufacturers are
very careful about the costs of everything they make, and that includes bikes
John
|
|
|
oldtimer
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
4age previously quoted as 100kg - I think it is 80kg but wait to be corrected..... I've got a couple so could weight them I suppose....
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 07:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark G
Think of it like this, Bike engines need to be light so they make them light, which costs more.
Car engines don't need to be light atall. The weight of the engine doesn't matter, so they make the engine as cheap as possible and it
weighs what it weighs. simple.
I missed this post when composing my last repy, but that sounds most unlikely to me, contrary to how things might seem car manufacturers are very
concerned about weight.
I'm not saying it isn't true about the less weight being more expensive, and I would be interested to hear some technical details.
I still think it has a lot to do with longevity, highly tuned engines always wear out faster than normal engines
John
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr hendersonDid you think I was arguing against the use of bike engines in LSIS's? Why did you think that?
I am considering the use of a bike engine in a project I have coming up soon. Never-the-less I am still interested in why car engines should be so
much heavier than bike engines, and haven't heard a convincing explanation yet. The cost suggestion doesn't hold water, manufacturers are
very careful about the costs of everything they make, and that includes bikes
John
I didnt know which way your preference was to be honest - but it just struck me that the average se7en gets used much more akin to a motorbike, ie
limited mileage for generally high speed motoring and not plodding around town.
I guess a car engine / transmission is designed to lug 5 times the weight (car / 5 passengers / luggage - say 1800kg) of a bike with 2 people around
(say 350kg), and last for 4 or 5 times as long so by necessity has to be engineered an awful lot heavier duty.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
Honda did one make a lightweight engine for a car, it was a real gem, 800cc 4 cylinder, roller bearing crank, DOHC and gave 70bhp at 8000rpm normally
aspirated.
The car was the s800 from 1966, amazing when other 800cc engines of the time were struggling to produce over 35bhp.
The engine was costly to make, and needed very regular maintenance. They could have cut costs and used white metal bearings and made everything
heavier, but that would have missed the point.
I prefer a car engine to a bike, because I like to lounge around in fifth gear and lazily pass other cars with just a blip of the throttle, if I was
30 years younger I would probably prefer a bike engine, constant involvement, high revving, instant response.... get use the type of engine to suit
your driving style and stop bickering over it
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 07:52 PM |
|
|
The main reasons for the weight difference, from me, who is no engine designer!
1) Longevity - bikes don't do many miles, even less at full load, and high revs for prolonged periods.
2) Really longevity again! - cars can put their engines under peak load for HUGE periods of time compared to bike engines, which leads to heat soak,
and also really tests the rigidity of the engine block etc. Any flex will generally result in wear and reduced engine life.
If you put a bike engine and a car engine on a dyno at full load, it won't come as any surprise that the bike engine will expire first!!
Take two extremes of engines, firstly, agricultural or marine diesels. These are HUGE, HEAVY and, generally, have very low specific power outputs, but
this is because they spend nearly their whole lives at full load, and they are expected to last a long time.
At the other extreme, my 1:8 scale rallycross buggy has a 3.5hp, 3.5cc nitro engine which fits in the palm of my hand and weighs only grammes. Now I
don't go bleating about how much better it is than a bike engine because I know they do different jobs!! 1000 hp per litre is pretty good going
but its only expected to last a few hours at most.
Likewise bike engines use stuff like super thin slipper pistons, that race car engines use, but they are not used in road car engines because they
load the bores up too much and wear them out too fast.
I could go on but that's summed it up
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
plantman
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
just my two pees worth but i believe that the car engine block has to be heavier than a bke engine is to do with the torque that the engine produces
& the weight the engine 'sees'( through the gearbox back axle)
these forces i believe produce extra stress on a car engine block all of which means the car engine to block has to be a lot stronger than a bike
engine to withstand the extra forces.
more modern engine blocks tend to have ribs on them to increase the rigidity of the block and reduce the weight duratec sr20de and A+!
|
|
|
nstrug
|
| posted on 29/8/08 at 09:03 PM |
|
|
Double the displacement, double the torque, double the amount of metal required to maintain structural rigidity?
Car engines are designed to last longer than bike engines true, but the last time I looked, it wasn't the parts responsible for the bulk of the
weight (head, block, bottom end) that wore out in a bike engine.
Bike engine's rev higher in order to make power with limited torque and so all the moving parts wear out quicker - the heavy bits
don't.
Look at an F1 engine to see the same effect - being a normally aspirated 2.4l they don't produce much torque (300-350 Nm) but make it all up on
the revs - the result is an engine that doesn't have to be very strong, and can therefore be built very light. The downside is the 19k RPM
redline leads to moving parts wearing quickly.
Nick
|
|
|
johnston
|
| posted on 30/8/08 at 07:17 AM |
|
|
Just my 2p's worth but even though i do like the the sound and the idea of screaming around going up and down the gearbox quite appealing i
think for me the appeal would wear off very quick when on the road.
Think as well the fact a bec has to lug about twice the weight it was designed to carry every day does seem to suggest its overloaded. Where as a car
engine from say a focus is designed to lug around a ton plus the family a boot full of crap and tow the caravan up and down the country without
complaining therefore needing to be more durable and therefore heavier and lets face it from factory quite de-tuned.
Personally seen as its quite a heated debate i'd say that there isn't actually a right answer to weather a bec or cec is best in fact both
are wrong :p we need a 7ec !!
|
|
|
johnston
|
| posted on 30/8/08 at 08:19 AM |
|
|
Just my 2p's worth but even though i do like the the sound and the idea of screaming around going up and down the gearbox quite appealing i
think for me the appeal would wear off very quick when on the road.
Think as well the fact a bec has to lug about twice the weight it was designed to carry every day does seem to suggest its overloaded. Where as a car
engine from say a focus is designed to lug around a ton plus the family a boot full of crap and tow the caravan up and down the country without
complaining therefore needing to be more durable and therefore heavier and lets face it from factory quite de-tuned.
Personally seen as its quite a heated debate i'd say that there isn't actually a right answer to weather a bec or cec is best in fact both
are wrong :p we need a 7ec !!
|
|
|
procomp
|
| posted on 30/8/08 at 03:13 PM |
|
|
Hi without getting into the debate over bec or cec engines. A lot of the later car engines especially from the japs are getting quite lite.
The Ford zetec Se range weigh in at 75kg with only a starter motor to add. There are other engines a bit lighter than that also. And they are capable
of running to 9k all day long.
We could start arguing over why the KIT manufacturers do not make thier cars significantly lighter if they are only building them with a bike unit in.
Because at the end of the day whether it's a bec or a cec there dose not appear to be that much difference in the final weight of these cars at
the end of the day.
Cheers Matt
|
|
|
clutch_kick
|
| posted on 30/8/08 at 05:23 PM |
|
|
Geez guys!! I never figured this woould turn out to be another BEC/CEC debate!!
I just wanted 3 simple weights lol !!!
My reasoning is ... why do I go spend big bucks on a F20C engine, when I can have a 4A-GE 20v for much uch less, and tune it mad.
So I figured weight was a good starting pioint, since the 4A-GE tuning would end up costing more than the Honda Engine to begin with lol.
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 31/8/08 at 07:04 AM |
|
|
The last time I weighed my 4AGE 20V as the bare engine with the inlet manifold and alternator only attached it was around 90kg. I have it on a stand
out of the car at the mo so I'll probably weigh it again.
IMHO there are two choices to tuning the 20V. First use the engine in standard form with a less restrictive inlet/exhaust. Accept its a great little
screamer but ultimately limited to around 150BHP/115 lb ft without a lot of expensive modification.
Second route is of course forced induction which I'm now moving to stage two of my developement after a year running with 260BHP. I'll
probably start a new thread soon detailing what I've found for those interested.
|
|
|
bigpig
|
| posted on 19/9/08 at 10:47 PM |
|
|
Bike engines are light becuase the manufacturers are in competion over power to weight. To pull heavier bikes you need stronger clutches &
gearbox, so the lighter you make it the better. To produce a lot of power for the weight you need light internals, hence lower weight too. With
lighter internals you can have lighter engine cases too.
In addition, with a light weight bike you don't need such a heavy flywheel, cutting more weight.
My only concern with a BEC would be that its twice the normal weight a bike engine would be expected to cope with. Bike engines like to be freely
revved rather than laboured, thats when they go wrong, but gearing would help with that.
Then again there is the Suzook 1100 & 1300 engines which are the basis of many drag racing bike, but that is Suzuki just being akward 
I guess its just put in which ever one you feel is most appropriate to what you want. I like a more lazy approach, so for me a Pinto is ldeal.
|
|
|
