Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doctor Gollum]

https://youtu.be/GqFxKGVdbEo

That should give the VXR a run for its money in the torque steer stakes

[BazaJT]

In a similar vein Remy Gardner[a Moto2 GP rider] has fitted a 1969 Volvo[model not specified]that had 90bhp from the factory with an Evo 3 engine,different gearbox/rear axle/brakes etc and it now runs 400bhp.Give him his due he has taught himself fabrication,welding and computer aided design to follow his hot rodding hobby.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

https://youtu.be/UftETsSi4cs

I rather like the idea of a bike engine in a small car.

Nick W will tell you that bike engines don't produce enough power or torque.......although I'm pretty sure a 1340cc 4 cylinder Hayabusa lump produces more power and torque than a twin cylinder 499cc Fiat engine from 1957.

[Nick W]

https://youtu.be/UftETsSi4cs

I rather like the idea of a bike engine in a small car.

Nick W will tell you that bike engines don't produce enough power or torque.......although I'm pretty sure a 1340cc 4 cylinder Hayabusa lump produces more power and torque than a twin cylinder 499cc Fiat engine from 1957.

It's not just the amount, but where the power and torque are produced. A 1.0l engine that makes 100hp by revving to 12,000rpm with not much except noise under 4000 and drives a 24" diameter tyre through a six speed gearbox attached to a 200kg vehicle is not necessarily suited to a car that weighs 4 times that. 6 times if it's a modern car

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

https://youtu.be/UftETsSi4cs

I rather like the idea of a bike engine in a small car.

Nick W will tell you that bike engines don't produce enough power or torque.......although I'm pretty sure a 1340cc 4 cylinder Hayabusa lump produces more power and torque than a twin cylinder 499cc Fiat engine from 1957.

It's not just the amount, but where the power and torque are produced. A 1.0l engine that makes 100hp by revving to 12,000rpm with not much except noise under 4000 and drives a 24" diameter tyre through a six speed gearbox attached to a 200kg vehicle is not necessarily suited to a car that weighs 4 times that. 6 times if it's a modern car

Where in the rev range does a Hayabusa produce less power and torque than a Fiat 500?

Yeah..yeah...I know. Not exactly a fair comparison.

[Nick W]

https://youtu.be/UftETsSi4cs

I rather like the idea of a bike engine in a small car.

Nick W will tell you that bike engines don't produce enough power or torque.......although I'm pretty sure a 1340cc 4 cylinder Hayabusa lump produces more power and torque than a twin cylinder 499cc Fiat engine from 1957.

It's not just the amount, but where the power and torque are produced. A 1.0l engine that makes 100hp by revving to 12,000rpm with not much except noise under 4000 and drives a 24" diameter tyre through a six speed gearbox attached to a 200kg vehicle is not necessarily suited to a car that weighs 4 times that. 6 times if it's a modern car

Where in the rev range does a Hayabusa produce less power and torque than a Fiat 500?

Yeah..yeah...I know. Not exactly a fair comparison.

Don't get me wrong, a bike engine in the right car(like a basic Caterham) is a laugh. For as long as the owner lets you borrow it


Have you ever tried something like a 1.7 Puma? That's a high revving, short geared, small car that's fun until you turn off the country road and makes you wish you'd bought a 'normal' car.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

https://youtu.be/UftETsSi4cs

I rather like the idea of a bike engine in a small car.

Nick W will tell you that bike engines don't produce enough power or torque.......although I'm pretty sure a 1340cc 4 cylinder Hayabusa lump produces more power and torque than a twin cylinder 499cc Fiat engine from 1957.

It's not just the amount, but where the power and torque are produced. A 1.0l engine that makes 100hp by revving to 12,000rpm with not much except noise under 4000 and drives a 24" diameter tyre through a six speed gearbox attached to a 200kg vehicle is not necessarily suited to a car that weighs 4 times that. 6 times if it's a modern car

Where in the rev range does a Hayabusa produce less power and torque than a Fiat 500?

Yeah..yeah...I know. Not exactly a fair comparison.

Don't get me wrong, a bike engine in the right car(like a basic Caterham) is a laugh. For as long as the owner lets you borrow it


Have you ever tried something like a 1.7 Puma? That's a high revving, short geared, small car that's fun until you turn off the country road and makes you wish you'd bought a 'normal' car.

Many older cars were absurdly short geared.

I've just finished reading a 1973 road test of the series 1 Jaguar XJ12. All 5.34 litres of it.

In top gear (3rd, as it was auto only )only 22.9 MPH/1000 rpm. Even a 1 litre supermini is probably more 'leggy' than that in 2021.

Car cost £3781.

0-60MPH....7.4.

11.4 MPG.

Optional extra.......electric windows £57.50 and a laminated windscreen at £15.01.......and this was the height of luxury in 1973.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Bike engine kit cars are horrible on the road, they really do have no low down torque so the start stop and pulling away is painful. Once moving its a different story.

So where does a Hayabusa engine have less torque than a Fiat 500, below a few 1000 rpm which is where you need it for daily use

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Bike engine kit cars are horrible on the road, they really do have no low down torque so the start stop and pulling away is painful. Once moving its a different story.

So where does a Hayabusa engine have less torque than a Fiat 500, below a few 1000 rpm which is where you need it for daily use

Are you sure, mark?

Even at 'tickover revs' I'm sure a 1340 cc bike engine has far more torque than than a Fiat 500 designed and built in the fifties.

[Marks DTM Calib]

They don't, older engines are down on power but no so torque

Bike engines have little torque but rev high to give power and make them small and lighter, (bhp= (torque x rpm)/5252

Hayabusa torque curve:



Note shockingly shit at low rpm

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

They don't, older engines are down on power but no so torque

Bike engines have little torque but rev high to give power and make them small and lighter, (bhp= (torque x rpm)/5252

Hayabusa torque curve:



Note shockingly shit at low rpm

Best figures I can find for the 500 is 18 BHP and a maximum of 24 foot pounds of torque at 3500 RPM.

It looks from the graph that the Hayabusa has 35 foot pounds at 2000 RPM and 70 foot pounds by 2500 RPM going on to almost 100 foot pounds at peak.

Above 3000 RPM the torque curse is pretty flat.

It seems the 500 needed a Hayabusa engine from the start.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Well for a start the graph is Newton Meters so you need to convert it to foot pounds

So as you can see, 30Nm at 2000rpm, halve that and you get a piss poor 20 ft ld and its dropping off a cliff so at idle and just above its close to nothing. 

The 500 would give 24 from pretty much idle through to not many rpm

[Nick W]

Well for a start the graph is Newton Meters so you need to convert it to foot pounds

So as you can see, 30Nm at 2000rpm, halve that and you get a piss poor 20 ft ld and its dropping off a cliff so at idle and just above its close to nothing. 

The 500 would give 24 from pretty much idle through to not many rpm

Which illustrates my point that the engines are intended to be used in very different ways. Also consider that the bike engine is not intended to run at low revs for long, but to rev through into its power(torque really) band. Just like a car engine that has been adapted to run a generator or pump needs unadaptingI( ) back if used in  a car.

Bike engines aren't built to lug large weights either, which can be seen in the component design.

[STEMO]

Well for a start the graph is Newton Meters so you need to convert it to foot pounds

So as you can see, 30Nm at 2000rpm, halve that and you get a piss poor 20 ft ld and its dropping off a cliff so at idle and just above its close to nothing. 

The 500 would give 24 from pretty much idle through to not many rpm

Which illustrates my point that the engines are intended to be used in very different ways. Also consider that the bike engine is not intended to run at low revs for long, but to rev through into its power(torque really) band. Just like a car engine that has been adapted to run a generator or pump needs unadaptingI( ) back if used in  a car.

Bike engines aren't built to lug large weights either, which can be seen in the component design.

Jaime used to have one 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Well for a start the graph is Newton Meters so you need to convert it to foot pounds

So as you can see, 30Nm at 2000rpm, halve that and you get a piss poor 20 ft ld and its dropping off a cliff so at idle and just above its close to nothing. 

The 500 would give 24 from pretty much idle through to not many rpm

No....that particular Busa made 98.4 FT LB......not nancy boy newton metres.

This one made 101.2 FT LB.......the Kawasaki even more.


text