Does ANYONE have any idea.....

Does ANYONE have any idea.....

Author
Discussion

Steviejay01

Original Poster:

160 posts

267 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all
About performance details of caterhams/Dax's and Tigers built with different engines.

I'm wading through all kind of adverts


R6 Tiger
R1 Tiger
2L pinto 160bhp Dax
Megabusa's
1.6L Caterhams
1.4L Caterhams
Twin Engined ones
blaaa
blaaa

So can anyone throw any light on say 0-60 figures, I mean how fast is a 600CC R6 engine gonna make a caterham style car??

Just give me VERY rough figures for performance you think it has (or eve better if you own one tell me!!)
I guess a bike engine R6 600CC 120bhp would be nippy seeing as how light the unit is??
I just want average kinda figures for how quick they should be:

TOP END
AND 0-60

Dont want summut thats gonna run out of puff at 90mph!!

Please enlighten me.
I'm interested to hear your views on this.

Thanks in advance, I just need to know before I buy.

RichardD

3,608 posts

252 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all


I may be able to give some numbers. Have far too many old Autocar issues hanging around at home....

Seven type aerodynamics are not good. I think the Caterham 7 HPE (old 2.0 version) was something like a drag of 0.6 - not far off twice a production car!! They managed 125mph with 175bhp. The Cavalier of the day would do 135mph with 150bhp as I remember....

The 1.4 Rover engined Caterham was I think a 6.something 0-60 (since the gearing was a bit tall)..

This was personally why I gave up on a pure 7 and went for a Sylva Fury.

Without a full windscreen the drag is reduced a lot, the R400 Caterham (200bhp?) manages 140.

From memory guessing at the 0-60 for the Megabusa @ 3.9 secs.

www.zcars.org.uk/ - have bike engined Tigers.

Don't know of 600cc engines in a kitcar, seem a bit small to me - not enough torque? How much more does a GSXR-1000 bike weigh than a GSXR-600? Weight difference must be negligable?

The Pinto is a heavy engine, a current favourite is the all alloy Duratec (heard of 270bhp for a 2.3 version).

As a general rule power from more c.c. is better for the road, but a light higher revving engine is better on the track due to superior balance.

Steviejay01

Original Poster:

160 posts

267 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all
Thanks Rich, thats great!
Anyone else got any experience with these?

anonymous-user

61 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all
You'll get a higher top speed out of a car engined 7 than a BEC. This is mainly because the bikes tend to be geared for acceleration and to multiply the torque up to useable levels.

From memory, with anything from a 900 - 1300cc BEC, you can be looking at some storming 0-60 times of around the 4 second mark, but many of them won't go much higher than 120mph ish and even at motorway cruising speeds they'll be screaming along in top gear.

I'd agree that a 600cc BEC would probably be a bit underpowered.

dern

14,055 posts

286 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all
I can't believe a 600cc bike engine would work in one of these cars. I got pee'd off with my zx6r bike because it was gutless with a 600 in it. I'd go for a blade or bigger engine and get some more torque. It makes a world of difference on a bike.

Mark

Steviejay01

Original Poster:

160 posts

267 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all
Tiger do a "Tiger R6" there is one for sale at the moment, thought it might be a little small to move a car!!

There is also a nice R1 one in there too.....looks very nice!!

Not to worried about top end 110mph is plenty, its the 0-100 I want!

Cabby

3,942 posts

271 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all
Steviejay01 said:
Tiger do a "Tiger R6" there is one for sale at the moment, thought it might be a little small to move a car!!

There is also a nice R1 one in there too.....looks very nice!!

Not to worried about top end 110mph is plenty, its the 0-100 I want!



The Tiger R6 has a 2.0l Zetec from a Mondeo. The B6 is bike engined. Usualy with a ZX9 and now with the GSX-R engine I believe.

The R6 running a 2.0l zetec should give about 175bhp out the box on twin 45's and hit a 0-60 of about 4.5-5 secs. Top speed would be between 125 and 135 depending on gearing and not having a screen.

Paul

docevi1

10,430 posts

255 months

Tuesday 8th June 2004
quotequote all
I have a copy of Evo here from last month where they group tested various different versions of Caterhams. IIRC there was 7 on offer ranging from standard Pinto to the R500...

Steviejay01

Original Poster:

160 posts

267 months

Wednesday 9th June 2004
quotequote all
Oh yea I see what you mean about the Tiger 6, it says its a 2L in the advert...sorry....should read it better!!!
Oooops.

feet

135 posts

247 months

Saturday 12th June 2004
quotequote all
quote - "The R6 running a 2.0l zetec should give about 175bhp out the box on twin 45's."

175bhp is optimistic for a 2.0l zetec with standard cams and standard head, I've heard the figure quoted alot, but the Webcon 45 setup seems to show more like 160hp on an honest rolling road.

Performance for any lightweight seven with a bike-engine, or throttlebodied 1.8 k-series / 2.0 duratec, can realistically be expected to be under 4 seconds - given the right gearing and tyres. Top speeds quoted above seem realistic enough, it would be rare to see a seven above 150mph.

KITT

5,342 posts

248 months

Saturday 12th June 2004
quotequote all
feet said:
175bhp is optimistic for a 2.0l zetec with standard cams and standard head, I've heard the figure quoted alot, but the Webcon 45 setup seems to show more like 160hp on an honest rolling road

Less than that really. My mate's got a Tiger Six which now has a 2lt Zetec running the standard Web"con" setup on twin 45s and it's putting out 140Bhp (at the crank) which is some way short of the 165Bhp Web"con" quote!

pitsnow

91 posts

245 months

Saturday 12th June 2004
quotequote all
If you want acceleration, go down the Rover V8 route. They have plenty of torque for the weight of the engine.
To simplify the whole story, the torque is the force that makes your car accelerate. The more, the better. BHP is needed to push your car to higher top speeds.
In my humble experience, it’s far easier to be quick around a racetrack in an engine with lots of torque. There is no such thing as wrong gear. Just hit the throttle and off you go.
it needs a better driver to be quick in a high revving bike or small size car engine.
If acceleration is your goal, you are definitely looking for a Dax Rush, Westfield or any other 7 type car with a Rover V8 engine.

Ex-Biker

1,315 posts

254 months

Saturday 12th June 2004
quotequote all
If:
pitsnow said:
. . . To simplify the whole story, the torque is the force that makes your car accelerate. The more, the better. BHP is needed to push your car to higher top speeds. . .


why buy a BEC with around 140bhp, a top speed of 125mph and 70-80 lb/ft of torque? (figures are estimates and general)


Surely in this case (and any other) the power to weight ratio is a major factor?

anonymous-user

61 months

Saturday 12th June 2004
quotequote all
It's because you really need to look at the torque at the driven wheels.

In the case of a bike engine, they normally have close ration boxes and then you wack on something like a sierra or freelander diff which is a completely different ratio to what you get with the chain and sprocket when it's on a bike.

The net result is that you end up with a lot more torque at the wheels than the pure figures suggest. Because there's that much more rev range, you can alter the gearing to match.

The other advantage of a bike engine is of course its featherweight.

feet

135 posts

247 months

Saturday 12th June 2004
quotequote all
Yeah. Rover v8 gives damn quick acceleration also. Basically, anything all aluminuim - bike engine or not. What about the ford aluminium 3L v6 duratec - I've seen that in a couple of Westfields. More torqure, bhp, economy and less weight than the rover v8. (Check the Dutch dealers link on Westfields website for info on that one). Any all-alloy mildly tuned engine should be blistering.

Funderbunk

27 posts

247 months

Sunday 13th June 2004
quotequote all
Along these same veins, how does a Mazda rotary stack up? I know they're rather compact, but do they deliver the goods?

anonymous-user

61 months

Sunday 13th June 2004
quotequote all
Low torque, high power, high revs, light weight, small size, high fuel consumption.

Would depend upon gearing, but you'd have to go somewhere between normal CEC and BEC gearing.

HiRich

3,337 posts

269 months

Monday 14th June 2004
quotequote all
Stevie,
As others have suggested, this is a very tricky area to understand.
First, given the brick-like aerodynamics of a Seven, the chassis spec has a significant effect - in particular, an aero screen spec makes a huge difference. So published figures could mean squat.

First, you need to confirm your usage - track/comp-only, or roadwork. BECs are 'hard work' if you are doing motorway work, and that would lead you to a lazier car-engine.

Some things that you should consider:
Power-weight
A pretty useful guide for acceleration (remember to include your bodyweight).
Absolute weight
A lower weight offers real benefits in handling and braking. Do not ignore this, even though the effect is unquantifiable without lap times.
Gearing
- How many gears?
- What revs are pulled in top at 70mph?
For roadwork, look for 4-5k. Any higher, and you will find motorway work tiring. Ask the manufacturer - if they can't answer it quickly and openly, walk away immediately.

Steviejay01

Original Poster:

160 posts

267 months

Monday 14th June 2004
quotequote all
Nice one people I think its gonna me mostly Road Use, very little track time I think.