desyboy
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
Bike engine
What is the best bike engine for a bec?
|
|
|
|
|
OX
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 06:36 PM |
|
|
haha ,you still havnt decided then 
|
|
|
richard thomas
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 06:43 PM |
|
|
Mine's a busa, my mate's is an R1 - for the cost difference the R1's the best. No contest.
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 07:07 PM |
|
|
Fazer or zx12 fazer on cost
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 07:25 PM |
|
|
didnt you answer your own question at stoneleigh
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by desyboy
What is the best bike engine for a bec?
Turbo Busa. No competition. 
Phil
|
|
|
snoopy
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 08:09 PM |
|
|
R1 gets my vote strong good priced easy to fit /wire up n fast enough
|
|
|
roadrunner
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
Money no object, it would be Busa, but i've just had a second little run in mine, and WOW, is it fast, scared the shxt out of me, and only cost
£400 for engine and loom.
|
|
|
yorkshire-engines
|
| posted on 20/5/07 at 08:40 PM |
|
|
zx10 zx10 zx10 zx10 zx10 zx10 zx10
then R1
then 1000rr
all in stock
then if money no problem zzr14 definatly
ring me anytime
cheers malc 07960011585
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 07:07 AM |
|
|
If you plan modifying it then the busa is the clear top choice. The litre engines will have a lot of trouble making more than 160-170 bhp regardless
of the bull you hear in the pub*, and you will want more power later, on that's for sure
If I was building my car again right now, I'd still use the busa.
* Unless you have mega budget, but as I've been reminded before, this is the *lo*cost forum
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CaLviNx
quote:
Originally posted by bike_power
If you plan modifying it then the busa is the clear top choice. The litre engines will have a lot of trouble making more than 160-170 bhp regardless
of the bull you hear in the pub*, and you will want more power later, on that's for sure
If I was building my car again right now, I'd still use the busa.
* Unless you have mega budget, but as I've been reminded before, this is the *lo*cost forum
erm can you explain the above, because at least one maybe more than one,of the one litre bike's making more than 170bhp at the sprocket
standard...........
The busa motor is lovely, but imhop not worth the money as the engine appears to live off hype and bull*hit, other engines can perform just a good for
less money.
And a busa motor is certainly NOT locost
[Edited on 21/5/07 by CaLviNx]
Busa is locost - you can get a complete package from Malc for what, £2700 or so - that's all you need for 175bhp. That's a genuine 175bhp
at the crank, not some hyped up pub bullshit figure, wind in the ram air pipes, down hill on a good cold day figure you get with some other engines
thast are claiming 170 bhp or even 160bhp.
If you price up the cost of getting a 2.0 car engine to the same power then you'll see it's cheap going with a busa, especially as you
need a 210-220 bhp iron block engine to have similar performance.
If you want to get an R1 or Blade to 175bhp then you'll be taking off the head and changing cams etc, that all adds up to more cost than buying
a busa in the first place. At best it's the same cost but you've then not got anymore mods to do unless you really start spending £10k or
more, major work from a tuner who really understands how to get 200bhp from a 999cc engine and there are very few of those around, and you won't
get them to work for the cost difference between busa and R1.
If you only want to spend £1500 or you *know* that 150bhp will be enough, then fine, a blade or R1 will be a great engine but if you want more later
on the busa really is the cheap option.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 12:47 PM |
|
|
You've forgotten the ZX12 though, which does kick out roughtly the same power/torque and is cheaper than a busa.
The busa is a great engine and having driven a couple they definitely do have an edge over the litre engines, but I have to agree with others, it is
not the cheapest way to get decent performance.
One thing some people also forget is that its 30kgs heavier than an R1 engine so immediately you lose ~50% of that power advantage due to increased
weight, if you do the calcs of say my 2003 R1 with 140bhp at the wheels weighing 430kgs compared to it having 160bhp at the wheels with a busa
weighing 460kgs, there's not as much difference as you'd first think, ~325bhp/ton compared to ~350bhp/ton. Do the same calculations
comparing the R1 with the blade (weighing the same as the R1) with ~115bhp at the wheels and there's a far bigger gap.
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 01:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CaLviNx
Hi
Sadly the above holds NO water, cause i can prove my engine (including internal head work and cams) cost no where near 2.5k and can also prove that
its making a good bit in excess of 175bhp so for me i can prove the busa IS an expensive option.
Oh forgot to add my dyno figure is quoted from the front sprocket not the crank, which is a misleading figure in the real world and can only be used
for bullshitting those who dont know any better, as you have an approx 20bhp loss through the transmission, thus making a busa with 175ish bhp
standard not as appealing as first thought once you take the transmission losses off.... making its an even more expensively over inflated priced
engine that lives mainly on a misleading reputation, albeit a very very good engine option had the numptys not pushed prices up.
[Edited on 21/5/07 by CaLviNx]
The way 175bhp from a busa is measured is the same way any other crank figure is measured, on an engine dyno or rolling road measuring the coast down
losses - I'm not going to get into an argument or even a discussion about measuring engine power because it's been done so many times
before, the 175bhp quoted for a busa is for real and any other measurement technique is of doubtful use other than for internal testing.
How did you get "good bit in excess of 175 bhp" ? Do you have a dyno plot from either an engine or chassis dyno to prove it ? Would be
very interested to see it as it would be one of the very few I've seen that are not bullshit. If you have taken an R1 from 140ish bhp to 175 or
more for less than £1000 than I take my hat off top you and congratulate you because you've done something impressive.
The reputation the busa has is deserved, if you take the time to look inside you'll see that it's far stronger than a blade/R1 which
explains why it can make more power when modified.
The R1 is a great engine if that's what you want, nothing wrong with it, same as blade, ZX10 etc, or are you suggsting that an R1 is just as
able as a busa to be modified and turbocharged ?
[Edited on 21/5/07 by bike_power]
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
You've forgotten the ZX12 though, which does kick out roughtly the same power/torque and is cheaper than a busa.
The busa is a great engine and having driven a couple they definitely do have an edge over the litre engines, but I have to agree with others, it is
not the cheapest way to get decent performance.
One thing some people also forget is that its 30kgs heavier than an R1 engine so immediately you lose ~50% of that power advantage due to increased
weight, if you do the calcs of say my 2003 R1 with 140bhp at the wheels weighing 430kgs compared to it having 160bhp at the wheels with a busa
weighing 460kgs, there's not as much difference as you'd first think, ~325bhp/ton compared to ~350bhp/ton. Do the same calculations
comparing the R1 with the blade (weighing the same as the R1) with ~115bhp at the wheels and there's a far bigger gap.
The ZX12 is a good engine but again it's not as strong, so if you want to turbo charge it you are limited. In stock form it also doesn't
make quite the same power as a busa, there's a chap on wscc boardroom whos had both, he said busa was noticeably quicker than zx12.
The busa also isn't 30Kg heavier than the R1, there's some dodgy weights going around the tinternet, it's no more than about 14Kg
heavier. If it was 30Kg heavier it woud be almost 50% heavier than a R1 and that's obviously not correct.
If you have 140bhp at the wheels what do you have at the crank ? Do you have a dyno plot showing the calculated losses and crank figure ?
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 02:31 PM |
|
|
Agree on the strength, but if you're not turbo-ing its not really an issue.
Ive lifted a busa and an R1 engine and Im pretty sure there's more than 14kgs difference! The busa (much like the Blackbird) has 30% more
capacity and is a semi-touring engine so not built down to anorexic weight like the superbike R1 / blade etc, so I don't think the figures are
that far out. As to the ZX12, yes JeffC said the busa felt a bit quicker but I wonder if both were running optimally, or if he'd say the
opposite if he'd owned the busa first?
From what Ive seen though they are fairly level pegging. A lot of the RGB class A guys are now using ZX12s over busas which must say something (racers
are the last to scrimp on an engine if there's better performance available elsewhere), and a friend with a ZX12 in an STM Locost was
consistently 3-4 tenths quicker over a standing quarter than another mate's Megabusa, despite the Locost weighing a bit more. They were also
rolling roaded on the same day at the same RR and came out within a few bhp of each other. Mine was another 2-3 tenths behind the Busa.
As to my power output, it was actually 138bhp at the wheels with a stock R1 can but others have seen over 140 with better silencers and an optimised
powercommander setup, so ~140 was a round figure I chose as an average. I dont have a printout but I'd suspect ~160bhp at the crank, not
unreasonable to see an 8bhp gain over stock when using a WSBK spec manifold without EXUP, and a less restrictive intake.
|
|
|
desyboy
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 04:25 PM |
|
|
i was led to believe an r1 was 150 bhp at the crank!
|
|
|
progers
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 04:48 PM |
|
|
As standard yes - but with improved intake, a good exhaust manifold (exup binned) and a non restrictive silencer you can easily up that to 160
(jetted/fuel mapped appropriately)
- Paul
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 04:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by desyboy
i was led to believe an r1 was 150 bhp at the crank!
152bhp quoted by Yamaha IIRC, hence my projected 8bhp gain
|
|
|
chunkytfg
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 06:24 PM |
|
|
Just thought i'd add my 2p and fuel the fire so to speak.
A BRAND NEW GSXR1000 K& out the crate will produce 165bhp out the crate and this isnt hearsay as i built the bike from the crate myself and rolled
it up onto the dyno myself.
This was of course performed with a Dynapro dyno which uses genuine maths to calculate the figures and not some badly calibrated hiked up figure like
a dynojet dyno does.
IMO a Busa engine will always be the better option and there is more to driving than out and out HP. What about torque? and for that there is of
course the old addage that 'there is nothing like more cc's'
Okay so the busa engines will weigh more but then they will have the extra grunt to compensate for that and when the time comes for you to tune for
more HP you'll be glad you have the busa lump.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
I dont think you'll find many people disagreeing that the busa is the strongest engine with the best power curve etc, but Im not so sure about
performance for your money.
|
|
|
chunkytfg
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 10:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
I dont think you'll find many people disagreeing that the busa is the strongest engine with the best power curve etc, but Im not so sure about
performance for your money.
Fair enough although i must admit i dont actually know the cost s of the engines yet as i'm still very much in the early planning stages of my
BEC
Also i suppose it depends on the age of the engine aswell. if you compare a busa lump with an early carb R1 lump then the perfromance will be vastly
different with what i would imagine a hefty price diference however an early busa engine verses a late R1 engine will i would hazard a guess at around
the same kind of money and the busa has never been updated since it was launched to give vast HP gains so an early one is a good as a late one IYSWIM?
|
|
|
OX
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 10:36 PM |
|
|
when you drive the busa the difference against the early r1 feels so much stronger and youd think youv got alot more power than just 25 bhp but
driving them next to each other there isnt a great deal of difference .on the road its only at higher speed that i start to pull away from my brother
or overtaking where as i can leave it in top gear and my brother has to knock it down a couple to get past at the same sort of speed. i love the busa
engine and have confidence in it to nail it nearly every where but is that worth the extra 1500. i doubt there would be any difference in the busa
and zx12 compared to the new r1 or gsxr 1000 on the road apart from the way the power is put down and the feel of it all .like chunky says tho ,you
cant beat cc's so maybe the zx12 is the best value for money
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 21/5/07 at 10:41 PM |
|
|
the r1 carb engine is still one of the best engines IMHO the busa really only comes into at higher speeds and from pulling no probs at low revs top
gear (not that the r1 doesnt but the Busa does it even quicker)
and obviously with two people the difference will be less noticeable to the driver
however I loved my R1 carb engine how delivered its power absolutely wicked!!
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
G.Man
|
| posted on 22/5/07 at 07:14 AM |
|
|
When talking value for money, lets not also forget that the Busa requires a 3.38 LSD rather than a 3.62 LSD for the zx12r
In terms of engine internals, there is more available to beef up the Busa easily if you go forced induction, and the zx12r needs a good cradle to stop
crankcase twist which can add some weight..
But you can get bilet cranks, big bore kits, titanium rods, stronger head/crancase studs for the zx12r, and plenty to beef up the clutch and gearing
should you require it.
And you still save £1-2k on the purchase price
Opinions are like backsides..
Everyone has one, nobody wants to hear it and only other peoples stink!
|
|
|
richard thomas
|
| posted on 24/5/07 at 04:54 PM |
|
|
Wouldn't say the 'busa is as expensive as is made out - I bought a perfectly good bike for £3K, took all I wanted including the clocks,
mirrors, battery, horn etc and then sold the remains for over a grand. Which means everything for less than £2K - how much do people spend on clocks
alone....?
|
|
|
