zxrlocost
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
new r1 engine proven yet
have these been tried tested yet in a BEC
2006 engine
I have the carb model 99
is there anything totally different apart from the wiring and Fuel injection
any info appreciated
is it easier to get a FI through emissions?
ta chris
|
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.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 11:58 AM |
|
|
2004 onwards the engine is much more canted over and less upright, so swapping over wont be a simple task as the engine mounts etc wouldnt be the
same, and nor would the manifold you currently have.
The bootom end (sump etc) looks very similar though, so I would suspect it would behave similar from an oil surge perspective, but Im not sure its the
best bet compared to the other new ~180bhp 1L engines (ZX10R, CBR1000RR etc) as it revs so much and actually has less torque than the 02/03 engine up
to about 8k.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 12:39 PM |
|
|
later engines have a higher compression ratio than the earlier ones. they also rev higher, to 14000 RPM rather than 12000. They have a narrower
range gearbox and so will be more revvy than earlier ones.
I did a simulation of 1998 vs 2004 R1 BEC and found that at road speeds there was almost nothing in it. Maybe for track use the higher power due to
the higher revs would be of some use but then the higher rev limit would make nose regulations that bit harder to pass.
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 02:46 PM |
|
|
the 2004+ engine have a few problems but most can be easily sorted.
1. severe torque hole at 7k, this is due to the revised exup valve, throught it is the bin put a decent exhaust on it an a power commander to sort the
fueling and the torque curve will look exactly the same as an 02-03 bike with the same mods.
2. size, its wider due to the extra canting but lower and slightly shorter its also a couple of kilos lighter.
if you are careful then the engine should have exactly the same delivery as the old engine but it keeps going for 2krpm more and has about 25bhp more.
it has more power than either of the new blade or zx10r (just) but is alot lighter and more compact it isnt as strong as the gsxr1000 but is cheaper
and is less likely to need a dry sump.
the dsr racers plus a couple of sylvas have been using them for a while and they seem to be quite popular.
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
sounds like ill stick with mine then
not that it doesnt find my limits
|
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.
|
yorkshire-engines
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 07:02 PM |
|
|
iv sold 12 of these to bec owners 4 to mk
the motor is ok and as said above there different the wiring is easy to sort out though
and as i keep saying gsxr dont need dry sumping
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 07:12 PM |
|
|
Hi Mal, I know a lot of the sidecar / grasstrack chappies have run them happily transversely, but what about GSXRs in front engined cars when
longitudinally mounted and when used hard on track? Stuart Taylor for one blew a fair few Gixers with various wet sump designs / mods in their race
Phoenix's before resigning themselves to dry sump, so it would be interesting to know what were they doing wrong so others can learn from it if
subsequent experience says otherwise?
cheers
Chris
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 07:47 PM |
|
|
To be fair though, that's only one car and we don't know the speed of the drivers concerned when on a trackday . The ST cars were RGB race
cars so you know they'd have been driven hard and subjcted to at least as much cornering forces as any trackday driver can muster (exept when on
slicks), which suggests that if the GXSR couldnt survive in that environment, either ST were doing something fundamentally wrong with their sump
baffling etc, or the MK car wasnt generating as much cornering forces and would also suffer similar problems if it could circulate as quickly.
If the latter is true, it might mean that the majority of trackdayers wouldnt have a problem as we wouldnt be circulating as quickly, but the RGB
drivers are by no means leagues ahead of a quick trackday driver (as Derek Jones has proven by winning in a class of 20+ cars in only his second ever
race after doing trackdays for a few years), so the margins will be quite tight or non existent if you're in that league.
Chris
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
but the k2 is quite old, stuart taylor's engines were the k3 (they blew up 3 of them with various baffled sumps) and i havent heard of many
k4/k5s in longitudinal cars they may be fine they may not be but £2000 is alot to risk)
if you are planning a serious power engine go for the gixxer because the newer r1s do not like overbores plus high compression (makes the block crack
between the cylinders)
some interesting dyno charts to show the difference between the new and old injection r1
2004
2002
if you take the higher line for both (ie the full exhaust which is more applicable to a bec) then the new engine has more power/torque than the old
from 5500rpm upwards and by the old engines peak the new engine is 20bhp ahead and still climbing.
|
|
|
yorkshire-engines
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
The wet sump system that i and a few others are using is a billet with a swinging pickup which is set to the left (sprocket side) so it follows the
oil surge wherever it goes
these are for sale around £325
and is the type stuart taylor is now using on his 1000rr blade motors
ill try and get a photo on soon
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 30/4/06 at 10:42 PM |
|
|
but its getting to the stage where the gsxr is getting fairly expensive, based on your prices for equivalent engines and the necessary sump the gsxr
is £500 more than the r1 thats alot for and engine which on a dyno seems to be at most a couple of bhp ahead (although it is stronger lower down)
that will buy a half decent port job and the yec racing high compression head gasket. 200bhp r1 or 185-190 for the gsxr. (based on a decent exhaust
and remap for both at a similar cost)
|
|
|
G.Man
|
| posted on 1/5/06 at 05:14 AM |
|
|
The 7k (6k on the earlier bike) flat spot is an emissions/fueling issue, that nearly all bike engines have as standard, its why they all run lean in
that area with a full system on...
As you can see from the post graphs it is relatively easily mapped out..
The biggest difference between the old and new is a small increase in torque, and a big hike in the rev limit...
The old machine was still climbing in BHP at the limiter, wheras the newer machine falls off before the limiter..
The limiter rise is the biggest reason for the increase in bhp as bhp=torquexrpm/5252
Our GSXr1000 was putting out over 180bhp at the rear wheel and was a solid and reliable performer, the swinging pickup sumps are the same used on Busa
drag motors I believe...
I like the CV system used on the R1 throttle bodies, its a lot more reliable than the motorised secondary butterflies on the gixxer which ou should
just remove on a bec...
Opinions are like backsides..
Everyone has one, nobody wants to hear it and only other peoples stink!
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 1/5/06 at 08:21 AM |
|
|
the newer r1 has secondary butterflys but the engine can go dangerously lean if you remove them because the stock ecu doesnt seem, even with a pc3, to
be able to properly sort out fueling. with the upgrades coming out soon the megasquirt will soon be able to run the engine fine (atm its missing
sequential injection and coil on plug ignition drivers) but that looks like a good idea because then you can go to a closed loop setup at lower
throttle and open loop/mapped for higher throttle and it will make it alot easier to pass emissions without neutering the engine
|
|
|
chriscook
|
| posted on 1/5/06 at 08:44 AM |
|
|
the equation is at any single point on the operating curve. So if at at 7500 rpm you have 100lbft of torque then the engine is producing 142bhp. Also
at 5252rpm the torque figure is the same as the bhp figure - if you look at any dyno plot the trogque and power curve should cross at 5252rpm.
|
|
|
G.Man
|
| posted on 1/5/06 at 12:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chris mason
how does the equation work???
bhp= torquexrevs/5252
surely this can't be right!!!!!
Chris
It is correct, its the exact same formula a dyno uses to calculate BHP from the Torque it measures...
Opinions are like backsides..
Everyone has one, nobody wants to hear it and only other peoples stink!
|
|
|
