car engine for fsae

[gopi]

Hi,we people of 12 members from a reputed university are partisipating in fsae 2011.As per the specifications we need an engine with max.displacement of 610 cc.can anybody suggest a best engine ? please share the discussion and reply me as soon as possible.Email me at:gopi_5000@yahoo.in

[Adambomb]

No. Read the stickies (topics in bold at the top). Also the "teams from India" thread.

[poe21]

just sleeve a honda b16 1.8 liter engine. that should make loads of power and be light too.

[DART-CG]

Take the old Mercedes V10 6.0L, rip of the twin turbos and 9 cylinders and you have a displacement of 600cc.
Now take a big bore kit and get this cylinder up to 610cc! Worth the effort, trust me!
Good power to weight ratio, too http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cmon! How hard is it to use the "search" button?

[t21jj]

A) No we will not tell you.

B) Use the find button at the top of the screen this topic has been discussed MANY times before.

[Drew Price]

You are all starting to sound like Grant Mahler....


http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Best,
Drew

[Zac]

Clearly the solution is to manufacture a custom crankshaft for a 350 Ci. Chevy that will reduce the displacement to FSAE specs.

[Bemo]

I think the best solution is to build a V12 out of 12 50cc singles.

You just have to design a crankshaft and a crankcase. The crankcase should be made of carbon, so it will be quite lightweight.

If you can only find 2-stroke 50cc engines, that's no problem. Convince the scrutineers that your spark plugs only fire every second revolution. Like that you simulate a four-stroke engine.
It will cost some points in fuel economy, that you blow out as much fuel out of your exhaust as you are burning in your engine, but who cares.

With an extra spark plug in your exhaust you will have the most spectacular car at comp.

[BuckeyeEngines]

what ever engine you use make sure to put Nitrous on it. Don't forget that eibach, NOS, Skunk and other Parts brands stickers will give 20 HP each.

[Whis]

I have found the best engine for FSAE. Attaching a gearbox is somewhat hard but...

http://osengines.com/engines/osmg1320.html

Its flat for a low CG, comes pre-tuned (ish) and the best part is that is runs nitrometh, so you'll get even more power out it. And with 3.2 cubic inches of displacement you'll need it. Better yet though is that it is low power, so a first year team will have no problem driving it.

One last thing. Make sure you turn the exhausts around. Or make new ones.

[Whis]

Oh man...! I had a great post about using an OS model airplane engine and its gotta go through the 'Can I post Gods'.

Shoots.

[barba_p]

This is little degresion, but...
I think Fsae should allow 2 stroke engines, maybe with reduced displacement, or maybe diffrent restrictor.
Maybe then some team would opt for designing theri own engine.

[Hector]

It's been done with a four-stroke, Google "Western Washington FSAE Viking XXX" and it's the first link to come up.

I'd post the link except it can take days to get approved.

It never competed because it required an external starting mechanism (quick-jack like you see a lot of Jr. Dragsters, etc run) while the rules require it to be self-starting.

[Scrappy]

....and the Wattard engine.

[AxelRipper]

this should be easy since im assuming you're in asia somewhere... get 2 of the honda 250cc I-6 bike engines, and put them together in a V formation... BAM! 500cc v-12 that can rev to ~18,000 rpm's!

[Tech Guy]

Hector,
For the record, my memory says that because the rule was not specific at that time, the SAE ruled that the WWWU car would be allowed to run EXCEPT in the Endurance Event. Everybody wanted to see and hear it run, However, it did not. My understanding is that the team was not able to get it to run properly at the competition, and traced the problem to a fuel supply issue when they got back home.

[Adambomb]

Originally posted by barba_p:
This is little degresion, but...
I think Fsae should allow 2 stroke engines, maybe with reduced displacement, or maybe diffrent restrictor.
Maybe then some team would opt for designing theri own engine.

We've talked about this too. Think it would be pretty cool if you could have 2 strokes up to maybe 350 cc, perhaps different restrictor requirements too. Also diesels, why not? Maybe let them go up to 750 cc or a liter.

As for building custom engines, a 2 stroke would be considerably easier. Hmm...2-stroke V8, and with the extra time/money you have by not doing a valvetrain you could even give it electric start...

[Pete Marsh]

Why would you need different engine rules? The two stroke can't get any more air, its no different to allowing turbos etc. And the diesel restrictor could be adjusted, in the same way as it is for E85, to allow the same energy content.

You could even go to the point of equivelent energy content of hydrogen and allow that to. This would even be possible for fuel cells, allowing that technology to compete with I.C.

Pete

[Kirby]

Pete: See Class 1A rules for FSUK.

There should be another custom engine at FSAE-A in 2010.

[jrickert]

No. I'm growing tired of people like you and these forums.

[Chapo]

I think the idea of a specified energy flow and then open engine regulations is a fantastic idea. Personally I think this is the way F1 should be going, open engine regulations based around a specified energy flow would encourage lots of innovation and could then have it transplanted to the auto industry. Seeing this kind of regulation in FSAE would also allow the introduction of electric cars as well as alternate fuels. This would encourage people to look for a more efficient engine type, but also a more efficient energy storage medium. Thats my 2c on that.

@kirby: Any chance of getting some details into what you will be introducing this year?

[The_Man]

The problem then would be: How to regulate the energy flow? Specially if the source energy is in different forms.

[Kirby]

Originally posted by Chapo:
I think the idea of a specified energy flow and then open engine regulations is a fantastic idea. Personally I think this is the way F1 should be going, open engine regulations based around a specified energy flow would encourage lots of innovation and could then have it transplanted to the auto industry. Seeing this kind of regulation in FSAE would also allow the introduction of electric cars as well as alternate fuels. This would encourage people to look for a more efficient engine type, but also a more efficient energy storage medium. Thats my 2c on that.

@kirby: Any chance of getting some details into what you will be introducing this year?

Not my team (or my old one, as far as I'm aware). I'm not out to ruin surprises. I'll let the team in question comment if they feel like it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


As for your comments about energy flow. Similar concepts are covered in Class 1A of FS-UK. Including a wide range of fuels and propulsion systems (conventional, hybrid, pure electric etc), furthermore they get rid of the costing rules and replace it with "sustainability" event. Fuel economy is measured in emissions.

Here is a quick excerpt addressing the different energies of fuels:

The restrictor must have a maximum diameter of:
- Gasoline fueled cars – 12.9 mm (0.508 inch)
- E-85 fueled cars – 12.3 mm (0.483 inch)
- Diesel fueled cars – no inlet restrictor required
- LPG fuelled cars – 13.4 mm (0.527 inch)
- CNG fuelled cars – 13.8 mm (0.543 inch)
- Hydrogen fuelled cars – no inlet restrictor required


I know they mentioned a potential electric competition at FSAE-A in the future. But I'd really like to see Class 1A or a derivative introduced, I think a lot of teams here would be very interested in this rule set.

[RollingCamel]

You may want to have forum rules just as Guy Croft's to keep the quality posts up...

http://www.guy-croft.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1194

[Chapo]

I was thinking something along the lines of having to declare what fuel you were using and as such be able to calculate a maximum allowable mass flow rate, ie move your restrictor to the fuel side of things, then you could remove the restrictor from the intake http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (multiple throttle bodies bring it on).
This would be policed in the same way that the actual engine capacity is currently randomly checked on a certain amount of cars.
Same thing with electronics, you have a predefined voltage, so the maximum current that you may have has to be limited in some way, im not a zoob, but im sure there is some kind of trick device out there that will limit max current (im thinking more complicated than a circuit breaker), but the moral is that everyone can have the same <b>potential</b> power and the more efficient your engine the more of it you can use, a 60% eff electric vs a 15% petrol? It adds a whole new level to encourage innovation.
Having said that, I could see it becoming too complicated and people making choices with out doing any research into it. Its something that I would like to see introduced, but the Class 1A sounds like a good start.

[Ash47]

Originally posted by Kirby:

Not my team (or my old one, as far as I'm aware). I'm not out to ruin surprises. I'll let the team in question comment if they feel like it. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif




I have a design deadline for a 500cc V-Twin scheduled for tomorrow. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I have a running deadline for the 1st of May, so I have everything crossed that it will be working otherwise it's back to the single again this year.

[Kirby]

Originally posted by Ash47:
I have a design deadline for a 500cc V-Twin scheduled for tomorrow. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I have a running deadline for the 1st of May, so I have everything crossed that it will be working otherwise it's back to the single again this year.

Now that its out in the open, got any teaser images/renders?

[Spinto]

I have a couple of new in the crate Aprilia SXV motors for sale if any is interested.

[EPMAl]

Spinto, where are you located and how much are you asking for the SXV's. Do you have pictures? Are those engines 2009 or 2008?

[Macros]

Talk about thread derailment.

[barba_p]

Why are you perverting my idea?
I didn't wanted any energy flow restrictions. I only wanted to simplfify things for teams, and offer more diversity, and you made it complicated and pointless.
ONe more suggestion, use engine displacement rules like moto supersport class
4 cylnder 600cc
3 cylnder 675cc
2 cylnder 750cc
and my own idea
1 cylnder 850cc
2 stroke 400cc

[VFR750R]

That'd be cool to use a bored out banshee engine...

[barba_p]

bump
I will not let great ideas be ignored:

4 stroke:
-4 cylnder 600cc
-3 cylnder 675cc
-2 cylnder 750cc
-1 cylnder 850cc
2 stroke: any configuration 400cc

[exFSAE]

Originally posted by barba_p:
bump
I will not let great ideas be ignored:

4 stroke:
-4 cylnder 600cc
-3 cylnder 675cc
-2 cylnder 750cc
-1 cylnder 850cc
2 stroke: any configuration 400cc

Explain again why this would be a great idea, and how it would be simplifying things for teams?

[dazz]

Originally posted by VFR750R:
That'd be cool to use a bored out banshee engine...

I'd love to see 2 strokes back. With EFI they have potential to be quite economical. Only real issue I can see is that another standardised fuel would need to be supplied, & what oil/fuel ratio would it be, and what oil? I think that around 40:1 would be good, given that EFI would reduce the amount used at low RPM which is what typically oils up carb 2 strokes. Exhaust valve technology that is now commonplace in 2 strokes, was not availble back when they were outlawed from FSAE. I could see things like electronic control of the exhaust valve (like the yamaha DT200), this combined with EFI opens up a whole new world of engine development opportunities. 2 strokes don't have to have peaky and difficult to control power curves.

But I am biased, I own an RM250 set up with recreational registration and I'm not planning on switching to a 4-stroke anytime soon...

[RenM]

Originally posted by barba_p:
bump
I will not let great ideas be ignored:

4 stroke:
-4 cylnder 600cc
-3 cylnder 675cc
-2 cylnder 750cc
-1 cylnder 850cc
2 stroke: any configuration 400cc

you do know that the maximum power is cut of by the restrictor and that a 850cc 1 cylinder wont develop more power then a 600cc....

[Adambomb]

Originally posted by RenM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barba_p:
bump
I will not let great ideas be ignored:

4 stroke:
-4 cylnder 600cc
-3 cylnder 675cc
-2 cylnder 750cc
-1 cylnder 850cc
2 stroke: any configuration 400cc

you do know that the maximum power is cut of by the restrictor and that a 850cc 1 cylinder wont develop more power then a 600cc.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1, I don't see a particular reason for different displacement based on the number of cylinders.

Although there is something to 2 strokes. I'm thinking a GDI system such as the Optimax or E-Tec would be interesting. Also with those, oiling is internal, eliminating the requirement for mixed gas (not to mention cleaning up the exhaust).

[dazz]

Originally posted by RenM:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barba_p:
bump
I will not let great ideas be ignored:

4 stroke:
-4 cylnder 600cc
-3 cylnder 675cc
-2 cylnder 750cc
-1 cylnder 850cc
2 stroke: any configuration 400cc

you do know that the maximum power is cut of by the restrictor and that a 850cc 1 cylinder wont develop more power then a 600cc.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that, why is there a limit on engine displacement at all? Like you said, power is limited by the restrictor, and it would open engine choice up a huge amount.

[barba_p]

2 exFSAE: -it woukd only siplyify things compared to energy flow restrictions, on other things it would be same as current engines.

This goes both to exFSAE & RenM:
I know that restrictor limits power of engines
but 4 cylnders are around 90HP and 1 cylnder have 60HP that is because their unrestricted versions are not much stronger
Probably increased displacement would make them much more competitive and we would see more of them on competitions

Also maybe then we would see some Triumf engines 3cylnder 675cc(interesting for teams from UK) or Ducati 2 cylnders 750cc
One more thing, teams like Joaneum Graz/Delft, who have opted for 1 cylnder, must use engines with 450cc (which puts them in even more disadvantegeus position) or 650cc that they have to destroke.

[Adambomb]

I've heard of teams making 70+ HP with NA singles. UAS Graz made 86 with their blown single. Couple this with an automatic 75 lb or so weight difference and the difference in power really starts to become negligible. And the main reason for the power difference isn't due to displacement or factory power output...

As far as trying to get more teams to run singles or twins, have you been paying attention over the last couple years? A lot of top teams are ditching their fours left and right. That and aero seem to be the two biggest trends at the moment.

[dazz]

Originally posted by Adambomb:
+1, I don't see a particular reason for different displacement based on the number of cylinders.

Although there is something to 2 strokes. I'm thinking a GDI system such as the Optimax or E-Tec would be interesting. Also with those, oiling is internal, eliminating the requirement for mixed gas (not to mention cleaning up the exhaust).

These engines still use oil. I'm not sure how the Mercury does it, but the Evinrude eliminates the need for pre-mix fuel by having a separate oil tank that feeds oil to all the critical bearings inside the crank case, this oil will then serve as cylinder lubricant before making its way to the combustion chamber. I found a picture of the tank and oil pump setup for the 50hp ETEC, on the lauderdale marina dot com website. They have a really good online fiche available for Evinrude, Johnson, Mercury & Yamaha.

I think there is potential for this technology to be used effectively in roadbikes. The smokey, dirty stigma associated with 2strokes would probably be the biggest hurdle to overcome. Evinrude even go so far as to claim that their 2strokes use LESS oil than 4strokes because there is no engine oil that needs to be changed every xx hours. Bikes would still need gearbox oil, but the change intervals would be much longer, not having to deal with the contamination and heat issues from lubing a 4stroke engine.

[Adambomb]

Hmm, apparently I was confused on this. Had an internship at Mercury, but never played with the internals of an Opti (although I did get to play with one for a weekend http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). The thing never smoked, and we filled it with straight premium, although it is true, the rings have to be lubed somehow! Quick bit of searching leads me to believe it probably uses a similar setup to the E-Tec. Most likely never smoked due to newer oils being more "smokeless."

I remember emissions being a big part of the marketing per engine model. Around the time the supercharged 4-stroke Verados were coming out emissions were starting to become a factor with the "dirty" conventional 2-strokes (which from what I gather have now been completely phased out). Apparently the Opti's still meet emissions standards, which says something.

I've always thought it would be cool to use an Opti in either a bike or formula-style car. How about these for specs: 3.0L 2-stroke V6, 300 HP, something like 450 ft-lbs of torque (and a perfectly flat torque curve up to something like 6000 rpm), in a package that weighs under 200 lbs.

[dazz]

Originally posted by Adambomb:
I've always thought it would be cool to use an Opti in either a bike or formula-style car. How about these for specs: 3.0L 2-stroke V6, 300 HP, something like 450 ft-lbs of torque (and a perfectly flat torque curve up to something like 6000 rpm), in a package that weighs under 200 lbs.

I'm in! Although if you want to go completely crazy, the go would be to use the crank from your mercury, build a custom case and bolt on 6 CR500 barrels (staggered so they fit), convert to EFI and attach linear actuators to the power valves, then go nuts with the swirling mass of expansion chambers needed. All that and you'd be looking at 400+ hp (and probably time in a mental asylum for attempting such a creation) but imagine the sound it would make http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Adambomb]

Oh yeah, I'm sure there's an absolute ton of power to be made in pipes alone; outboard motor exhaust is an abomination. Hmm...I think I've found my next big post-SAE project (next in the long line of current projects).

Hmm, if you're going that route, I wonder what evil noises a 2-stroke V8 would make? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Adambomb]

And on that note, I think we've finally answered the OP's question:

A custom 4 liter 2-stroke V8 built with a Mercury Optimax bottom end and CR500 jugs, converted to EFI. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Now it's just up to you to convince the organizers that it would be a good idea to allow such an abomination of nature. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Chapo]

@barbra
I know you never suggested energy flow restrictions, that was my idea and I'm proud to claim it :P I was floating this idea because it would allow all different types of fuels to be used on a level playing field. It wasn't meant to be a simpler way of doing things, but at the same time it isn't exactly complicated, it would need some initial work but then it would just be a hand down system for a few years while something more efficient was developed in parallel.
I still think it could have potential, but then again I'm biased to think that.

+1 to the thread derailment.

[HoggyN]

Hmm, if you're going that route, I wonder what evil noises a 2-stroke V8 would make?

They sound quite nice. I used to be involved with them in a former life.

YouTube has some examples

[barba_p]

@ Adambomb: UAS Graz did make 86 with 450 single but it had supercharger, year before they had 93 hp with 650 single with reduced displacement and supercharger
I don't see top teams ditching therir fours left and right.
For me top team are Sttutgart and Western Australia

If supersport rules are too much advanced, Fsae should at least considered increasing displacement for 1 cylnder engines.

[Adambomb]

Right...

What about UTA, KU, UW Madison, OU, Penn State (just a few off the top of my head, I'm certain I missed some...not to mention our team), who were all running 4 cyl. in 2007 but ran singles or twins in 2009? What about RMIT's victory in Michigan with a single in 2006? What about TU Delft? What about the fact that 3/4 of the design finalists in MI in 2009 were singles?

[RenM]

Originally posted by Adambomb:
Right...

What about UTA, KU, UW Madison, OU, Penn State (just a few off the top of my head, I'm certain I missed some...not to mention our team), who were all running 4 cyl. in 2007 but ran singles or twins in 2009? What about RMIT's victory in Michigan with a single in 2006? What about TU Delft? What about the fact that 3/4 of the design finalists in MI in 2009 were singles?
have those teams that switched been any successful?
The last 12 competitions have been won by cars
with 4 cylinder engines.
And the fact that 3/4 of the design finalists in MI were singles doesn't mean anything because you don't reach a design final because of your engine concept, but your teams ability to explain it to the judges. And remember: the design winner was a 4 cylinder car...

And another thing to note: UAS Graz have a good engine, but their concept is imho wrong for fsae. Even though they have less power and drive consistently slower then the top 4 cylinder teams they used a lot more fuel...

[barba_p]

Thank You RenM.
I agree

[bob.paasch]

Originally posted by RenM:
The last 12 competitions have been won by cars
with 4 cylinder engines.


Formula Student Austria was won by a single, out placing the team (but not the car) that won Michigan.

[Adambomb]

Originally posted by RenM:

have those teams that switched been any successful?
The last 12 competitions have been won by cars
with 4 cylinder engines.
And the fact that 3/4 of the design finalists in MI were singles doesn't mean anything because you don't reach a design final because of your engine concept, but your teams ability to explain it to the judges. And remember: the design winner was a 4 cylinder car...

And another thing to note: UAS Graz have a good engine, but their concept is imho wrong for fsae. Even though they have less power and drive consistently slower then the top 4 cylinder teams they used a lot more fuel...

Well...
UW Madison won MI in '07, UTA and Penn State, despite not winning overall in some time, still have solid, well-developed programs, as well as KU and OU who are consistently very solid. And I'd really be shocked if a 4 cyl team were to ever get under 300 lbs.

I know I can speak for us (even though our best finish to date was 7th at MI in '06, along with a string of top 20 finishes) that switching to a single did set us back developmentally...if I were to tack a number on it I'd say 3-5 years...it was like starting with an entirely new design. There are still some teething issues, but I still strongly feel that the package has potential.

The point is there are a lot of solid teams out there that are already making that switch, that is a fact. Singles have proven competitive with less displacement. But it is still quite early to say...all the teams that have been switching to singles are just now getting things sorted out.

And this doesn't change the issue at hand: The inherent drawbacks of a single will not be fixed by increasing displacement.

[barba_p]

Adambomb, increasing displacement of 1 cylinder would not fix their inherit drawbacks, but it would make them more competitive, considering currently availible 4 cylnder and 1 cylnder engines.
4 cylnders get to pumping limit at cca 12k rpm and singles don't get up to that, increased volume would make that pumping limit lower.

One more thing i forgot to mention:
4 cylinder 600cc
1 cylinder 850cc
option for multiple restrictor
1 restrictor 20 mm
2 restrictor 14 mm

[Simon Dingle]

Originally posted by barba_p:
option for multiple restrictor
1 restrictor 20 mm
2 restrictor 14 mm

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but (regardless of the fact that two 14mm restrictors will flow at least 5% less air than a single 20mm restrictor) what possible reason could someone have for running two restrictors?

[AxelRipper]

Originally posted by Simon Dingle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barba_p:
option for multiple restrictor
1 restrictor 20 mm
2 restrictor 14 mm

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but (regardless of the fact that two 14mm restrictors will flow at least 5% less air than a single 20mm restrictor) what possible reason could someone have for running two restrictors? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well if you wanted to run 2 separate engines (currently legal per the rules) then you could split the intake rather than one intake and restrictor as per the current rules.

or thats my guess anyways

[ed_pratt]

I'm not sure if I am completely missing the point here but surely an 850 single is going to negate the point of having a single in the first place
i.e. an 850cc single is going to weigh considerably more than the 450cc and 520cc engines currently in use, meaning that you would loose the super-lightweight vehicle concept. In which case, it makes far more sense to go with a multi cylinder engine and make use of the extra power and smoother power delivery???

Ed

[barba_p]

@ ed_pratt: I don't want stop people from using 450cc engines, bu just to give them option to use 650, perhaps with bore kit
Hell, if you want, use 250cc 4 cylnder

@ Simon Dingle: 2 restrictors, (thanks AxelRipper), but also to mention individual throttles for 2 cylinder engines

[RenM]

Originally posted by barba_p:
Adambomb, increasing displacement of 1 cylinder would not fix their inherit drawbacks, but it would make them more competitive, considering currently availible 4 cylnder and 1 cylnder engines.
4 cylnders get to pumping limit at cca 12k rpm and singles don't get up to that, increased volume would make that pumping limit lower.

One more thing i forgot to mention:
4 cylinder 600cc
1 cylinder 850cc
option for multiple restrictor
1 restrictor 20 mm
2 restrictor 14 mm

it wont make them anymore competitive. They don´t develop more power because they cant suck air as constant through the restrictor as multiple cylinder engines can. Changing the displacement wont change anything about that.

And no one who has a slight understanding of engines will change a 20mm restrictor for 2 14mm restrictors.

[barba_p]

no.no.no I will not give up on this topic!
2 14mm restrictors have only 2%smaller crossection, maybe someone would try them, counting on throttle response

[Simon Dingle]

+1 to RenM


Originally posted by barba_p:
2 14mm restrictors have only 2%smaller crossection

Yes sorry, you're right. Not quite sure how I made that mistake.

I would guess that the reason no-one is picking up on your idea is becasue the current rules are both open and fair, allowing for a wide variety of engine concepts to be used and all on a fairly equal level.

[Jimmy01]

Originally posted by barba_p:
no.no.no I will not give up on this topic!
2 14mm restrictors have only 2%smaller crossection, maybe someone would try them, counting on throttle response

You probably should give up.

For starters, unless you can remove boundary effects then you are going to lose more than 2% of max flow rate.

Your restrictor should be feeding your plenum, not a cylinder. Imagine how crap your power curve would be if your restrictor(s) were in your intake runner(s).

[move]

we are using suzuki 400cc motorcycle engine for our UTM Malaysia team due to budget.

[barba_p]

Jimmy01

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129152070011537922.jpg

[DannytheRadomski]

speaking of car engines in FSAE... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S600

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Hahaha. Good luck finding those engines! I've seen a few in my day... but they could all be counted on one hand of an old machinist [<5]. They're also pretty beefcake for what they do, ie the mass specific output is pretty low.

[DannytheRadomski]

i was just posting a car engine that would fit FSAE regulations, but I'm pretty sure newer kei cars have small engines like this. I might be wrong, but I think Smart makes engines small enough.

[Big Bird]

Been there, done that http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RMIT ran a Honda Scamp 600 in 2001, air-cooled and came with an integrated diff and housing. Made for a neat design - but parts were hard to come by. From memory, weight was around 70kg, including diff. Carroll Smith was quite complimentary apparently.

Cheers

[PatClarke]

I remember that Geoff. It sounded like a Harley Davidson.

But a word of caution. RMIT's glory days came afterwards when some common sense and logic determined that weight and horsepower were not the ingredients for success in FSAE.

Pat