Question for engine gurus

[rwolcott23]

How much power do you think could be generated by a 660cc unrestricted turbo sport bike engine? I'mm just curious.

Thanks,
Bob

[rwolcott23]

How much power do you think could be generated by a 660cc unrestricted turbo sport bike engine? I'mm just curious.

Thanks,
Bob

[Marshall Grice]

you try searching? (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/648600998/m/14310477431)

[VFR750R]

How much power and displacement stock and how much boost?

[Beatle]

This question goes hand in hand with "how long do you want it to last".

[Kurt Bilinski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Beatle:
This question goes hand in hand with "how long do you want it to last". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, probably something like: power = K/t, where t time, lol.

[Kirk Feldkamp]

Well, for your DSR project think of it this way...

Generally and ideally speaking, at ~15psi you're going to roughly double your power over stock. A 600 makes roughly 100hp stock... so it follows that at 1bar boost you'll make something like 200hp. The time, money, and manpower that you will spend spend to get back to a stock 1L power level (ok, with cams and pipes) FAR exceeded the 1L engine route. Furthermore, in order to make the engine last at that power and load level you're in for rods, pistons, and likely some transmission work. All things being equal, the weight of the turbo 600 is probably slightly (5-10 pounds) more than a straight up 1000 (and perhaps more depending on intercooling). When (not if) you blow a motor, you're in for another huge nut of $$$ for the special 600 parts just to get running again. Pop a 1000? Order another one off eBay or from the boneyard and you're back in business.

Is there a potential power advantage to going turbo 600 in DSR? Sure. Is it practical? Quite the opposite. Even if you wanted to go BIGGER on boost, you're limited somewhat on the available compressor sizes in that range. 200hp at 2:1 pressure ratio is about right for a GT2554R... but at soon as you want to pump the boost you run out of available map. Think about what I just said too... that's a GT25 on a 0.6L engine. You would already be into lag-city unless you're a good engough driver to always keep the engine in the powerband. This engine would be pretty damn peaky. Going up to a GT2860R (or beyond) for more compressor range will only make the thing more laggy. A pro driver might be able to hack it, but the average DSR driver would hate that engine package.

Sure there are antilag 'tricks' to increase response, but practically speaking, a turbo 600 in DSR isn't very practical. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[VFR750R]

Some additional food for thought. 1000cc engines have bigger clutches, bigger cranks, as turbotwig said bigger transmissions, more cooling capacity and flow, ect.

If 200hp is the goal, you're going to have to spend money, so you might as well start with a GSX-R750, sleeve it to 660cc and turbo that. You'd have to replace the pistons anyways and the 750 and 1000 GSX-R's share more of these beefier parts. You'd be better off with a longer stroke/smaller bore for longevity as well. Obviously not a simple deal but I'd do it.

[rwolcott23]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFR750R:
Some additional food for thought. 1000cc engines have bigger clutches, bigger cranks, as turbotwig said bigger transmissions, more cooling capacity and flow, ect.

If 200hp is the goal, you're going to have to spend money, so you might as well start with a GSX-R750, sleeve it to 660cc and turbo that. You'd have to replace the pistons anyways and the 750 and 1000 GSX-R's share more of these beefier parts. You'd be better off with a longer stroke/smaller bore for longevity as well. Obviously not a simple deal but I'd do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 1000cc route makes sense on several fronts. How much effort do you think it would take to get the 1000cc to 200hp via a tuned intake, etc...? This is assuming that I have dyno access, etc... I am considering getting on e for the project.

Thanks,
Bob

[Kirk Feldkamp]

VFR is going along the correct path on this one... on an intersting and somewhat related sidenote... the top J-Class (500cc-750cc) streamliners and lakesters don't actually use standard 750 motors. The only way they can get the engines to hold together is to build a "750" inside a busa motor. No joke!

As to Bob's last question... the top engine builders in DSR (Arnie Loyning, George Dean, etc.) are making right around 190hp with the liter motors. That's a very well tuned 1000 at this point.

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turbotwig:
Is there a potential power advantage to going turbo 600 in DSR? Sure. Is it practical? Quite the opposite. Even if you wanted to go BIGGER on boost, you're limited somewhat on the available compressor sizes in that range. 200hp at 2:1 pressure ratio is about right for a GT2554R... but at soon as you want to pump the boost you run out of available map. Think about what I just said too... that's a GT25 on a 0.6L engine. You would already be into lag-city unless you're a good engough driver to always keep the engine in the powerband. This engine would be pretty damn peaky. Going up to a GT2860R (or beyond) for more compressor range will only make the thing more laggy.
http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do agree with all your aspects but the limited view of garret turbos (short mass flow band with high pressures, typically) doesn't seem to be the most ideal manufacturer for such a set up...I'd be interested in the running a borg warner extended tip as they seem to have a broader cfm range...I guess you could say there efficiency islands are a lot more "horizontal".

to be fair though, I'm use to looking at the larger turbos of the lines...so the smaller lines might not follow such trends.

[Kirk Feldkamp]

I suppose you could take it as a general Garrett IAM product offering recommendation. That's all I know! I'm going to suggest that you're probably not going to find very many high PR capable turbos in this range. Most production turbos (and therefore aftermarket turbos) in this range are intended for small gasoline engines, and therefore can't usually handle a ton of boost and still satisfy the manufacturer's reliability and driveability goals. As a result, the manufacturer biases the wheel design toward higher low-PR efficiency at the application's mass flow rather than adding a bunch of altitude margin (ie a high PR capable compressor).

The GT2554R is about right for a 600 at the power goal implied, although it's going to run off the map at some point (to the top or right) that's not too far beyond the power goal. I would also argue that this is going to be a case where high PR is needed... it's a very small engine making that kind of power compared to what the turbos are 'normally' matched toward. Running to 12000+ rpm is kind of both a blessing and a curse.

[VFR750R]

I read an article once on a GSX-R1000 buildup where KWS puts in their own cams, ports head, new pistons to 1070, remove counterbalancer and rebalance engine, pipe, powercomander and presto 202RWHP. Even at 1000cc that'd be around 188HP which is about 30 more than stock.

http://www.kwsmotorsports.com/200hp.htm

That'll give you an idea what's required and how much. Obviously you won't be getting the overbore, but you should still get 1000cc pistons.

Additionally you should make your own 4-2-1 exhaust, most likely any exhaust you bought wouldn't fit in the car anyway. Hinson clutch basket and barnett carbon fiber plates aren't a
bad idea, but i'd try to smoke the stock ones before I spent the money. This is all based on stock intake, I'm sure a couple hp is available here. If you were to make your own intake runners I'd tune them for even more torque even if you gave up 5 or 10 hp.

[BenB]

I'm definitely not an engine guru, but speaking of a 4-2-1 exhaust configuration...What is the advantage of going 4-2-1 over 4-1? I notice most of the FSAE cars are 4-2-1, but most F1 cars are doing 4-1 (One side of the dual exhaust on the new V8 engines)

[VFR750R]

This is a controversial subject, but traditionally a 4-2-1 does give a wider powerband then a 4-1. I argue that a 4-1 may give you higher peak power but you can tune a 4-2-1 to give you a higher average power even if you operate in a fairly small rpm range. Additionally, secondaries and merges are great tuning tools that can be changed at the track or on the dyno with relative ease, rather then primary lengths.

F1 have other tools available to them to make the powerband wider and with 7 speeds they're operating range in RPM is smaller then a lot of motorsports. Ever see the steps in the headers compared to other racing series...HUGE, and that helps broaden the power too.

I've even heard cases of Indy cars running better with 4-2-1 exhausts a few years back, although I don't know what Honda puts on all of them now.

Even cup restrictor plate engines run 4-2-1 and they have less rpm sweep then IRL cars.

[Jersey Tom]

Ive noticed those big steps in the primaries. Was kinda curious about those. They don't seem all that massive, but do they effectively give another pressure waving tuning point to broaden things out?

And talk about short effective primary length! Damn!

[repeatoffender]

how about a two stroke style manifold?

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jersey Tom:
They don't seem all that massive, but do they effectively give another pressure waving tuning point to broaden things out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm curious about it too...any benefits of it past the normal gains from stepping a manifold?

[VFR750R]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Homemade WRX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jersey Tom:
They don't seem all that massive, but do they effectively give another pressure waving tuning point to broaden things out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm curious about it too...any benefits of it past the normal gains from stepping a manifold? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I'm aware, but it's a tool I don't see used on FSAE cars, although I'm sure someone has tried it. I have seen 600cc minisprint headers with it, so somebody thinks it has a benefit. I'd imagine there is something worth chasing in a 1000cc 4 as well.