PaulBuz
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 04:45 PM |
|
|
BEC vs CEC
I've been meaning to ask this for quite a while.
You have a 500kg BEC with 180 BHP that hits 60 in 3.5 secs.
Next to it is a CEC that also weighs 500KGs & also has 180BHP.
Now I'm only guessing here but I would think it would hit 60 in 4.5 ish.
Why the 1 sec difference?
Does larger flywheel enertia make such a difference?
ATB
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 04:52 PM |
|
|
It all comes down to weight and gearing. 99% of cec's are heavier than a bec and the standard first gear on a type 9 box is rubbish for a 0-60
dash.
A lightweight cec with a quaife box and sticky tyres so it can put down the torque without spinning the wheels will be closer on 0-60 but will be
faster midrange and have more top end imho.
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
Toady1
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 05:04 PM |
|
|
in real terms there would be f all in them, except the cec would keep pulling past the bec after 60+ as it has the torque to keep pulling. If they
weigh the same and have the same power it will then be in the grip and gearing.
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
The main thing is finding two cars that weigh the same. Most bec owners try hard to lose kgs, but cec owners might not to the same extent, having got
a big/heavy engine. As said, all things being equal as per weight/power, the gearing and grip are what do it.
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
hi all all i can say is if you go to york race way on the 16th of july you may find the answer
Jacko
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 06:39 PM |
|
|
BECs also have a sequential gearbox which helps if/when you need to shift.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
Ian's hit the nail on the head, its mostly the gearbox that gives you the gains, but FWIW a 550kg BEC wouldnt hit 60 in 3.5s, it would need to
be sub 450kgs to do that.
Toady, don't start on the torque thing, torque at the wheels is what counts, not flywheel torque. A BEC that can get to 60 in under 4s will
still hit 100mph in less than 10s, a CEC that can get to 60 in similar time won't get there noticably quicker.
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 08:26 PM |
|
|
I've never quite known what to make of this whole deal. Most of the BECs I've seen before have been blade / ZX9 or R1 powered. Similarly,
most of the seven type cars I have seen have had 6J or perhaps 7J wide wheels and tyres.
At the weekend just past, I had the privilege of marshalling at a particularly good corner at the hillclimb at Forrestburn.
Every car had to exit a 1st gear hairpin and hammer up through the gears. 180bhp CECs and 150bhp BECs seemed very close indeed. (Blade/R1/ZX9 - vs -
Zetec or standardish Vauxhall XE on carbs).
Very tweaked XEs - (around 230-250bhp) and the one or two Busa powered cars were extremely close on sheer grunt out of the corners. These cars also
typically had more rubber on the back end with between 8 and 10 inch wide tyres.
This car weighs 438kg, has a standard Busa engine and 8 inch wide rear tyres and a quaife freelander diff. Spat out of the corners like a cork from a
gun. The gering and gearshift itself must have been a huge factor. Awesome.
 
Rescued attachment FuryBusa
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 10:33 PM |
|
|
There are other significant differences too, usually a bec will have much lower inertia not having a flywheel compared to a cec, the gearbox although
offering better gearing will also have slightly lower inertia. Most becs also have slightly better weight distribution so although you might find one
that weighs the same as a cec, the balance will be different.
There are a number of small things like this that when out together give a bec a useful advantage over a cec, at least a cec that hasn't had a
lot of money spent on it.
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 11:10 PM |
|
|
i'll not enter deeply into the bec/cec discussion, but that cage on the fury busa looks really useful i'm no physician, but i'm
sure half a head is just as bad as none!
tom
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 3/7/06 at 11:11 PM |
|
|
I'm not going to get into arguments about performance, suffice to say that if you're old (40 on 7/7) and lazy, then a big engine
can't be beaten
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 4/7/06 at 06:36 AM |
|
|
The driver of the Fury Busa is 63...
(And yes, the cage does look a bit short from that angle/ Must have a right good look next time out.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 4/7/06 at 07:19 AM |
|
|
We always find these threads very entertaining... suffice to say, we shan't be commenting
|
|
|
Toady1
|
| posted on 4/7/06 at 04:26 PM |
|
|
all i can say is i would like both!
|
|
|
AlexS
|
| posted on 4/7/06 at 07:28 PM |
|
|
Yep i would give my right arm for a MK with a nice Zetec or a R1 engine so makes no difference :-P
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 4/7/06 at 10:34 PM |
|
|
I bet a bec can't pull away in top (at a reasonable turn of speed)
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 4/7/06 at 11:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I've never quite known what to make of this whole deal. Most of the BECs I've seen before have been blade / ZX9 or R1 powered. Similarly,
most of the seven type cars I have seen have had 6J or perhaps 7J wide wheels and tyres.
At the weekend just past, I had the privilege of marshalling at a particularly good corner at the hillclimb at Forrestburn.
Every car had to exit a 1st gear hairpin and hammer up through the gears. 180bhp CECs and 150bhp BECs seemed very close indeed. (Blade/R1/ZX9 - vs -
Zetec or standardish Vauxhall XE on carbs).
Agreed. One of my best mates has a ZX9R BEC Fury, and I've a 2.0 Zetec Fury.
In real world driving, there's very little between them (driver differences matter more) except I have a windscreen and roof for when it rains
|
|
|
Stu16v
|
| posted on 5/7/06 at 05:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
I bet a bec can't pull away in top (at a reasonable turn of speed)
Handy if you are going to tow caravans with your car
Dont just build it.....make it!
|
|
|
fastavatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
