FREAKYSTUFF
|
| posted on 10/10/03 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
ZX12R Vs BUSA
I decided from the start i wanted to put a hayabusa in my indy but i just read a comment about the ZX12R being a busa beater.
So now i'm not sure which to use....
cheers
Russ
|
|
|
|
|
MK Goldrush
|
| posted on 10/10/03 at 11:07 PM |
|
|
Picky picky picky
Russ - I suggest you pay a visit to MK (if that's your flava!) and have a ride in a Blade-Indy before going all the hog! The Blade engine may
help you keep your licence a few days longer (maybe?  ) and seems to be generally accepted as being the most reliable.
Be interested to know by U2U where you live exactly... may be nearer than you think...
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 11/10/03 at 05:40 PM |
|
|
Far fewer people have experience of the ZX12 than the Busa and there are so many parts available fo the Busa that any level of tuning from a mild
warming up to a full bore Holeshot turbo conversion giving 450bhp is just a matter of choosing what to do.
I don't think either engine will be significantly more powerful than the other in base form, it's just a matter of what you can do to each
of them.
I'd go for the Busa (as I did !) as it's a proven engine, people know it's realiable and will make good power, plenty of tuning/mod
bits and there are plenty of experts who know it well. Also maybe easier to get hold of than ZX12.
|
|
|
FREAKYSTUFF
|
| posted on 11/10/03 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
the thing which put me off about the busa was £3000 where as the ZX was only £1600.. it just means i can only buy the basic MK kit but at least it
will be busa powered . it will just take me a bit longer to build...
What sort of 0-60 times have you recorded. and what diff did you use in your rush
cheers
Russ
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 11/10/03 at 07:57 PM |
|
|
zx12's are not short of grunt, in the RGB series which allows NO tuning then the 12 is everybit as good as the busa for less bucks, if your
gonna tune later then yea, zx12 bits may be harder to find
|
|
|
FREAKYSTUFF
|
| posted on 11/10/03 at 09:03 PM |
|
|
a lot less money......
What i need is the fastest engine i can find (in standard form)....
i went in a MK with a blackbird lump in it which seemed quicker than the blade..
so i want somthing quicker than a b/bird.
BUSA + very light indy = acceleration that will make you poo.....
|
|
|
progers
|
| posted on 12/10/03 at 10:19 AM |
|
|
Other choices to a Busa/ZX12
Hi,
If you want max performance you don't necessarily get the most effective bang for your buck by going for a Busa, even though for many it is the
ultimate choice.
Don't forget a Busa needs to be dry sumped (£1000 on top of a £3000 engine) and it weighs an extra 20-30kgs more than alternative 1000cc
superbike engines. The dry sumping also adds 10kgs or so to weight (all that extra oil).
So the point I'm getting at is the you want power to weight ratio as much as just outright power. The advantage of a Busa over say an R1 engine
is about 20hp. If you can save 50kgs on your build this power deficit is wiped out. You are already 30kgs lighter from day one so a little money spent
on careful building could easily net you another 20+kgs.
I have had a ride in a 400kgs R1 engined Striker and it easily kept up with a Westfield Megabusa. I reckon you can build a 425kg Indy with and R1
engine (typically run 160bhp when rejetted, mine is running around 165bhp) that will give you a power to weight ratio of 375bhp/tonne. This will get
you a sub 4 second 0-60. This is the same as a Busa engined Indy weighing in at 475kgs and 180bhp.
The only positive for a Busa is the big aftermarket tuning available. It still costs big bucks though. Also, if you can afford to use a Busa (and tune
it) why not put in a better chassis ? The difference in cost between an MK and something like a Striker/Fury/Pheonix is less than the difference
between a Busa and Blade/R1.
I'm not negative about the MK chassis, its great value for money but if you want to be the quickest around corners as well as a stright line
there are better alternatives (at a cost). Food for thought
Just my t'upence worth
Paul
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 12/10/03 at 11:42 AM |
|
|
Yup - my thoughts exactly - if I had the £££ it would be a Fury with an R1 first b4 I spent the money on a Busa. It's not all about straight
line power .....
|
|
|
FREAKYSTUFF
|
| posted on 12/10/03 at 12:46 PM |
|
|
I can see what you mean....
ok so if you had £4500 to spend on getting you started, forget the donor car thats sorted..
all i'm bothered about is getting the right engine for the job and a kit (if that goes over £4500 then my wife does not need to know). if you
know what i mean....
sub 4 sec sounds goooooood..
????????????
Russ
[Edited on 12/10/03 by FREAKYSTUFF]
|
|
|
bike_power
|
| posted on 12/10/03 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
I bought the Busa engine as I'd like to add a turbo later. I'm not sure the dry sump thing is true, a small number of Busa engines went
bang a while ago but I gather that a number of them would have been either thrashed badly, not maintained or came from a dodgy source in the first
place. Dax have a demo car plus Duncan's sprint car, both running turbo's and Duncan on slicks and no problem with the wet sump.
The starter gear is a bit weak but there is a cheap-ish solution that TTS/any tuner can supply/fit.
I've got a 3.14 diff but for sprins a 3.38 would be good. I think you'll need a LSD
|
|
|
ProjectLMP
|
| posted on 12/10/03 at 02:50 PM |
|
|
As I understand it the Hayabusa and ZX12 are pretty close in performance in stock form. The ZX12 is more highly tuned from the factory than the busa.
As a result it is easier to get more power from the busa with bolt ons. Plus there are a lot more options.
Unless you are building a serious track car you can get away with a baffled sump on the busa. I would also fit an uprated oil pump as this is a know
weak area in the busa.
I agree with the argument regarding fitting an R1 and reducing the weight to a minimum. However, you have to ask the question "Do I want to go
really fast or just accelerate really fast?". Above a certain speed, power to weight has little effect on how fast you will keep accelerating.
At this point you are fighting wind restistance and the only thing that will make you faster is either lower drag or more HP. Seeing as the locost has
the aerodynamics of a barn door that speed will be pretty low.
Home of the Astronomicalcost Mid engined LMP project
|
|
|
FREAKYSTUFF
|
| posted on 12/10/03 at 05:36 PM |
|
|
All i really want is acceleration
not bothered at all about top end speed. 100 mph (Sorry i mean 60mph officer)....
i had heard that you can get away with wet sump if its baffled, i gather this the same for the ZX12....
and cos this is all new to me, these diff ratio's wats the best to go for the not so fast top end.. i was going to use the standard one out of a
XR4X4 cos there LSD's....idea's
[Edited on 12/10/03 by FREAKYSTUFF]
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 13/10/03 at 09:04 AM |
|
|
The difference between my blade Locost and a Megabusa at the end Kemmel straight at Spa (the up-hill 1km drag after Eau Rouge) is only about 10mph. I
think that at around 130mph you hit the barn door with Seven aerodynamics anyway, and need lots more horsepower/torque to go much quicker (the R500
Caterham only does about 140-145), so I wouldnt worry about it too much. I agree with Paul, a 400kg R1 car is every bit as quick as a 470kg busa, all
the way up to 120mph+ from what Ive seen.
Chris
|
|
|
FREAKYSTUFF
|
| posted on 13/10/03 at 01:53 PM |
|
|
wat sort of differances are we talking between the R1 and the ZX12....
if i go for the ZX it would save me about £1400 over the busa. wat would the next thing i need to do to get the weight down...
Russ
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 13/10/03 at 02:42 PM |
|
|
A friend who RR'd his ZX12 ST Locost got 146 BHP at the wheels. In comparison, on the same dyno on the same day, another friend got 159 BHP out
of his Megabusa. From that I'd have said that the ZX12 wasnt quite running on song that day, but nothing was found to be wrong and its since
done 12.4s standing quarter at about 115mph, so not too shabby!
In comparison, a good R1 will give you 140 BHP at the wheels.
Chris
|
|
|
FREAKYSTUFF
|
 posted on 13/10/03 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
As u've probably gathered i dont know that much about bike engines..i want to make sure i get the right one from the start.
Wat about if i was going to build it as a quater mile car would the acceleration depend on what diff i will use.
I had a look at a few prices of R1's most of them were about £1100.. ish.. wat do u think of blackbird engines...
Yes i know i ask alot of questions
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 13/10/03 at 05:42 PM |
|
|
LOL.
Gearing will change things slightly, but not to a significant degree in my experience, at least not from the seat of the pants feeling, tho
possibly a few tenths to 100 or so maybe.... I changed mine from a 3.89 to a 3.54 diff, along with larger tyres on the back to up the top speed
by about 15mph, and it didnt make any noticable difference to acceleration.
Blackbird should be OK for on-road use, but dont expect to take it anywhere near a track without a dry sump as it will go bang. Overall the R1 is just
as powerful, just as cheap, lighter, and seemingly more reliable than a 'bird, so I wouldnt go for a 'bird unless it was an absolute
bargain.
|
|
|
FREAKYSTUFF
|
| posted on 13/10/03 at 07:05 PM |
|
|
Right i think i'm sorted..........
BUSA ..No, money better spent on other mods
Blackbird..No, dont want every track day to cost me £1600.
ZX12R... Mmmmmmm ish
R1....probably will, sounds like the way to go, use a bit of the 2G's i'll save and tune it....
chris, do u use a standard diff
cheers
Russ
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 14/10/03 at 11:03 AM |
|
|
Yep standard 3.54 diff in a live axle, although I will be getting an LSD when funds allow, cos it spins up the inside wheel like mad on track.
|
|
|
