KTM 525 motor

[Kyle Roggenkamp]

So I've been using the search feature while lurking on these forums, but haven't been able to find much information on this motor.
I'm looking for torque and power numbers, as well as the dry weight of the motor/transmission.

I've heard numbers in the mid 40's for hp and mid 30's for torque, but these seem low...

What teams have run this motor before? Has anyone tried punching the motor out to a 540 or 570?

[benny41]

g'day
we run a 525 ktm at deakin. to be honest im not sure on all the specs of the engine as this is my first year but i do know the other guys have thrown out figures of about 50 hp. good to see another team lookin at the ktm option.
cheers

[Ashley Denmead]

Hi Kyle,

Benny is pretty close to the money, in the past we have had about 45hp and about 37Nm of torque...since then weve done a bit of work so hope to bring these figures up somewhat.

the engine weights 35kg approx

i dont believe you will see any noticable gains from increasing the engine capacity much beyond a 510cc but i could be wrong....we've had some good gains from cam tuning and plenum volume.

good luck!!

Ash

[Kyle Roggenkamp]

^^thanks for the info. That helps a lot.

I'm interested in hearing more about the big bores, but I'm also not convinced that it'll do any good since we probably won't really be able to fill the cylinder anyway because of the restrictor plate...

[rjwoods77]

UB ran one in 97 with a aerocharger on it. Rumor around the shop has it they made 93hp on it but couldnt hold it together for long. I wonder why? Our team when it was doing well in the late 90's was absolutely obsessed with power and had some of the strongest engines out there. I am not suggesting running any kind of forced induction but I really wouldnt worry to much about power. Just get it in there and worry about power later.

[Big Bird]

Just be careful before boring the thing out or going crazy chasing for "lost" horsepower. Those that think the lesser capacity requires some sort of "compensation" (e.g. big bore kits, forced induction) often end up shooting themselves in the foot - lost reliability, lesser fuel economy, abrupt part-throttle response, etc.

450 is enough, so 525 is plenty enough. There are much cheaper and more effective places to go looking for track speed and lap times than re-arranging the engine.

Aside from that - welcome to the single life!

Cheers

[Pete M]

Originally posted by Big Bird:
450 is enough, so 525 is plenty enough. There are much cheaper and more effective places to go looking for track speed and lap times than re-arranging the engine.
Cheers

You mean like adding a variable intake? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Ashley Denmead]

Originally posted by Big Bird:

Aside from that - welcome to the single life!

Cheers

Oh crap....are you still single too geoff??? Maybe we've failed to realise that chicks just don't dig singles?? THAT COULD BE OUR PROBLEM!!! haha

[Kyle Roggenkamp]

Originally posted by Big Bird:
Just be careful before boring the thing out or going crazy chasing for "lost" horsepower. Those that think the lesser capacity requires some sort of "compensation" (e.g. big bore kits, forced induction) often end up shooting themselves in the foot - lost reliability, lesser fuel economy, abrupt part-throttle response, etc.

450 is enough, so 525 is plenty enough. There are much cheaper and more effective places to go looking for track speed and lap times than re-arranging the engine.

Aside from that - welcome to the single life!

Cheers

Thanks for the advice, everything you've said confirms what we've been thinking. We'll probably just stuff the motor in and get testing as soon as possible. This is the second car our team has built, and the first one was a tank (604 lbs), so we're doing what we can to lower our weight.

[Orion ZyGarian]

I dont want to sound like a complete dick or anything...but I'm surprised that here of all places I'm seeing the word "motor" in reference to the internal combustion mechanism! Engineers of all people shoud have it right.. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Kyle Roggenkamp]

Yeah, I've never really spent much time thinking about the literal meaning of the words that I use as slang. I usually just work on conveying the correct message in the most effective and efficient way.

But thanks for calling me out http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, where were we?

[Corey H]

Originally posted by Kyle Roggenkamp:

This is the second car our team has built, and the first one was a tank (604 lbs), so we're doing what we can to lower our weight.

Like Big Bird said, there are plenty and many other effective ways to gain track speed. Weight should be your first concern, our car weighed 404 lbs, no composites, with a 4 cylinder.

[Pete M]

Umm... i personally believe track speed should be your first concern. All other things being equal, a lighter car is faster. It's the first part of that sentence that's the issue though. If you can show that adding something makes the car faster, i certainly wouldn't leave it off to meet an artificial weight target. Or do you believe anti-roll bars are just excess weight? UWA's suspension system hardly looks like the lightest possible system that would meet the rules... so why do they do it?

Weight is definitely something that needs to be carefully managed, or you'll end up with a 300 kg tank. But remember that "weight" isn't an event at comp. 62.5% of the comp measures dynamic performance. Design is 15% of the comp, and weight is hardly the only thing the judges care about.