Lars
|
| posted on 25/9/02 at 08:22 PM |
|
|
engines
My main aim is to build a car with a very quick 0-60 time, i was therefore gonna fit a 2.9 v6 engine.
But reading through some of the posts the vauxhall engine seems quite nice as well, and i read somewhere else that apparently the rover t-series is
quite powerfull.
Can any one tell me which engine would be most appropriate.
cheers
ps: don't want to fit a bike engine, so there's no need to suggest it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunc
|
| posted on 25/9/02 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
A Nissan 200SX is the way to go for a quick 0-60 time. 16v 1.8i turbo in a 1400kg car gives a 0 to 60 of 6.8 seconds and thats in standard trim. 2.9
v6 in sierra takes about 8.5 seconds to get to 60, good for towing caravans though. Only kidding, I have a 2.9 and a 2.8 sierra and a 200sx and the
200sx is way quicker, definately the way to go if you don't want bike engine. I'm just waiting on a mot failure cause I don't want to cut up my
pride and joy just yet.
|
|
|
Lars
|
| posted on 25/9/02 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
that sounds good, what cars can i find one of these in? and will it fit a standard chassis?
other people got any opinions on engines?
|
|
|
locost7-online.com
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 06:42 AM |
|
|
If i had a choice, a cossie turbo is for me, i put one in a customers Dax.. wow! 330bhp awsome, another option is the early 2.0 vauhall 16v, can get
upto 240bhp, strong and quick.
www.locost7-online.com
www.rollingroadtune.co.uk
|
|
|
JohnFol
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 08:16 AM |
|
|
I am presuming you want to race people at the lights and win, so forget the 0-60.
An example:
Car A - 0-59 in 1 second and 59-60 in 9 seconds
Car B - 0-1 in 9 second and 1-60 in 1 second.
Which car would you want to be in?
Better to look at quarter mile figures, or torque.
For example I have a diesel. (Now stop laughing.) The petrol equivalent (in terms of model and power) has a 0-60 quoted as 0.1 second faster than
mine. However I have the faster car. Even EVO mag recons it would match the higher powered petrol models. Why? 236 lb ft torque at under 2000 revs.
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
yes but your not gonna be burning away from the lights at 2000 rpm are you. you wont be any less than 3500 or even 4000 for very long.
half of its to do with gear ratios anyway. a quick 0-60 doesnt mean a quick 60-100. so a 1/4 time value may be of no use. of course your right saying
that a stat may not whats it seems but all the magazines and manufacturers wouldnt spec 0-60 if it didnt mean anything.
|
|
|
Lars
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 05:15 PM |
|
|
anyone know what car i can find a 200sx in and if it comes with a rwd box.
|
|
|
Macca
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
200 sx IS the car,not the name of the engine and yes they are rwd as standard.
Col.
|
|
|
Lars
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 07:53 PM |
|
|
well i look silly now.
anyway, any other engines people would recommend
|
|
|
Lars
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
does anyone know if the engine of the 200sx fits into a book chassis?
|
|
|
Macca
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
For what its worth, I've finally narrowed my options down to either a bike engine or a turdo'd rotary (mazda), once I know which one to go for I've
only got to decide which chassis, irs or axle. And should I buy or make one. Somethings are just so straight forward!
Col.
|
|
|
Smoke Two Joints
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
are there any other rear wheel drive nissans with the same engine?
|
|
|
Macca
|
| posted on 26/9/02 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
They did do a 1.8 8v sohc and a 1.8 16v dohc in the nissan silvia.The dohc was a little rare and I think may of come in near the end of the production
run before being replaced by the 200 sx. I'm only guessing that its the same engine though.
Col.
|
|
|
JohnFol
|
| posted on 27/9/02 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
Findlay234 , manufacturers quote 0-60 times for comparison, in the same way they do economy figures. However the 0-60 doesn't translate to how fast a
car is, just how long it takes to get to 60.
1/4 mile times are more meaningful as it takes into account gearing, power and torque over a range of speeds. This does translate to how fast a car
feels.
I was a bit misleading about diesels. They do have low down torque, but the point I failed to make is the torque is much higher that in a petrol
engine. Given the same bhp as a petrol car, the diesel will win, purely because torque is a measure of the engines ability to do the work.
Lars, sorry for going a bit off topic. I suggest you think about what is important. Speed and acceleration both off the line and mid-range, or a 0-60
time. This does include gearing, torque and I would presume some level of handling since you may come across the odd corner!
PS I heard a quote when the XR3i came out that basically said it's faster accelerating off the line than a Formula 1 car.
|
|
|
dashin_dave
|
| posted on 27/9/02 at 12:02 PM |
|
|
CA18DET was in the nissan silvia and then 200sx. i've seen a few really cheap silvias around so they arnt hard to source. i dont know if you'd be
able to get one, but an FJ20ET out of an 80's gazelle would potentially be even better... they are bulletproof and can make better power than a
ca18.
an sr20 from a later model 200sx or a sunny gtir would be another good one, the sunny one a better engine coz of quad throttle bodies, but a fiddle
coz its effectively a fwd setup, needing another gearbox ect.
another good but probably hard to find cheapie would be a toyota 1g-gte, or if you can find one, a rotary.
|
|
|
Dunc
|
| posted on 1/10/02 at 09:12 AM |
|
|
Check out my pics, Donor2.jpg. CA18DET shown without fan, belts, cam sensor and turbo hoses. I'll give my spare engine a quick measurement tonight
for height etc.
|
|
|
MrFluffy
|
| posted on 1/10/02 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
Theres a nissan silvia on ebay.co.uk at the moment...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1772433986
£150 so far...
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 1/10/02 at 04:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Given the same bhp as a petrol car, the diesel will win, purely because torque is a measure of the engines ability to do the work.
This does rather make it sound as if torque and power are two different things. Perhaps it would be more useful to quote some rpm's and some
torque/power figures so that we can follow your argument better.
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 1/10/02 at 06:45 PM |
|
|
one measure of how torque is good for accelleration is shown on an automatic.
Basically a torque converter, as well as being a kinda clutch, is exactly what it says on the tin. It converts the torque into a higher torque on take
off.
A lot of automatics will cheerfully chirp the tyres on take off due to the improved low end torque at low revs.
The american hire cars i have had have been particularly good at initial take off with a chirp, then go all sluggish on you cos they weigh a lot and
are built for cruising.
atb
steve
|
|
|
JohnFol
|
| posted on 2/10/02 at 08:26 AM |
|
|
Imagine pulling a car along with a rope. Top speed is limited to how fast you can run, but it may take some time to get to that top speed.
Now get 10 mates to help you pull. Top speed is still limited to how fast you can run, but you'll get to that speed much faster.
Power output at top speed is identical as it's calculated by the mass and velocity, but 1 clearly gives better acceleration.
This I agree is a slightly dodgy analogy, but it does demonstrate that power does not mean acceleration without putting it in the context of how easy
it is to develop that power.
Consider the TDi and petrol Golf GTI's . Both are 150 bhp and have 236 lbft / 155 lbft respectively. Same top speed, however . . .
. . . the petrol has 155 of your mates pulling on the imaginary rope, and the diesel has 236 mates pulling. Which one will accelerate faster?
If you think I am mad, or just trying to justify why I bought a diesel, have a look at EVO mag, or this link.
[url]http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/front_index.php?cp=1&domain=evo&page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autoexpress.co.uk%2Fdriven%2Fdriven_story.php%3Fid%3D15693[/ur
l]
In short "Don't be fooled by VW's claimed 0-62mph of 8.6sec (say 0-60 in 8.4), which makes it appear slower than the 1.8T and V5 (in our hands
they've managed 0-60s of 7.8 and 7.6sec respectively), because we're certain that they'd both get flamed by the new diesel on any give-and-take
road"
FYI the V5 is 170 bhp.
I'm sure someone can put it better.
|
|
|
dougal
|
| posted on 17/10/02 at 11:45 PM |
|
|
this is true but diesels produce their torque lower down
so for example a 200flbmax@ 3000 rpm diesel and a 100maxflb@6000 rpm petrol both traveling at the same speed would both be accelerating at the same
rate at that instance.
im not saying that anyone is wrong but fair comparisons have to be made
|
|
|
kingr
|
| posted on 18/10/02 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
What you have to bear in mind, is that massive PEAK torque figure does not equal massive performance, and equally massive PEAK BHP figure does not
mean massive performance either, the only way to get a good idea of an engines performance is to look at its torque curve.
As an example, theoretically it would be possible to have a torque curve that was almost flat and very low, except one huge spike, giving you stellar
peak torque figures, but it would go like a dog. You'd put your foot down, it would accelerate extremely slowly, there would be a sharp jolt of
power, followed by equally slow acceleration from then on.
Also, torque is not ability to do work, that's BHP (torque x rpm = force x distance), torque is merely a measurement of how hard the engine can turn
the wheels at a specific RPM, getting back to my point of looking at curves rather than peak figures.
Another point, that has been made before is that peak torque is not often indicative of how fast you can accelerate, because more often than not peak
torque is at very low RPMs, sufficiently low that you're just not going to go there when accelerating as hard as possible
Hope this has been helpful.
Kingr
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 18/10/02 at 06:42 PM |
|
|
engines/diesel/petrol/quick
Well now that the can of worms is out, VW have been racing diesel engines in endurance racing with some sucess. ( longer mileage between fuelstops &
stronger engines.)
However wise sage say :- If you want to go quick then theres no substitute for cubes. To wit: John Dodds home built Roller ( Motive power was Rolls
Royce Merlin). All engines can be made to fit its just a matter of how pretty you want it to look.
As regards quick of the mark at the traffic lights, well first to move would be the electric milk float, then the escort van, then the xr3i (all
things being equal).
First you need to get the final axle ratio sorted, trading between acceleration and top speed, then select your Gearbox (and ratios therein) and then
select your engine. How fast you go depends on howmuch money you throw at the engine to make it light up.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 3/3/03 at 11:19 PM |
|
|
Hi,
I know this thread is a bit old now but having just joined the forum I've only just seen it. I just had to put in my 2 pence worth on the
torque/power debate.
1. Torque(lbf/ft) = BHP*5252/RPM
(ie. They are mathematically linked)
2. A diesel car with 250lbf/ft pf peak torque will most likely have a red line of only, say 4500RPM. A petrol 16V car will have a redline of, say
6500RPM. Therefore assuming an equal number of gears and similar roadspeed to gear ratio's, the diesel will be geared 1.4444 times higher therefore
will only be producing 250/1.4444=173lbf.ft of torque at the wheels (minus the losses of course).
This is where everyone I seem to talk to on this subject seems to miss the point somewhat:
Yes, torque is what we 'feel' but it is torque at the wheels which matters, not torque at the flywheel. Also, if diesel's were faster then why
don't we get diesel F1 cars or diesel rally cars (yes I know there are exceptions but not many)
In a flat-out race, a car with 200BHP and 170lbf/ft of Torque will trounce a car of the same weight with only 150BHP even if it has 1000lbf/ft of
torque! (Maybe a truck engine  )
The simple fact is that to accelerate to any given speed you need to do work. Kinetic Energy = (m*v^2)/2 (m=mass Kg, v=velocity m/s)
Since power is just energy per second, if you need to produce a certain amount of kinetic energy to accelerate to a given speed then more power will
do that faster hence you get a better 0-60 or 0-100 or 30-80 or 1/4 mile or whatever!
It doesn't matter if the power source is petrol, diesel, rubber band or naturally produced methane gas, power is king. Of course you need gearing
which keeps the car in the power 'band' but that is true of diesel and petrol engines equally.
Of course there is some merit in the diesel engine because it does burn any old crud you put in it including chip pan oil so we can use it as a good
waste disposal system. 
Okay, I'm a petrol head and I make no appologies for it...
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Viper
|
| posted on 4/3/03 at 12:11 AM |
|
|
Well put John...i was at thruxton last year and they had a volkswagen cup race the usuel suspects were there VR6 golfs VR6 beetles, the race was one
by a diesel golf....
|
|
|
