RE: BBR Super 200 MX-5 upgrades
Discussion
cib24 said:
Decent points about potentially inflated figures being quoted. The one thing the 458 Speciale and the MX-5 2.0L have in common are that they both use a 14:1 compression ratio! lol.
Still, 225bhp isn't that crazy from a 2.0L engine N/A. The Honda S2000 made 240bhp from the factory and the K20 engines have been pushed to as much as 300bhp N/A with wild enough cams and heads.
Power is a function of torque and rpm. An 1 litre 80lbft engine can make 200hp if you rev it high enough.Still, 225bhp isn't that crazy from a 2.0L engine N/A. The Honda S2000 made 240bhp from the factory and the K20 engines have been pushed to as much as 300bhp N/A with wild enough cams and heads.
edpratt said:
Doesn't seem too unlikely...
188lb.ft = 255ish n.m
For a 2Ltr engine that's an MEP of roughly 16bar.
Certainly doable for a tuned 4stroke petrol engine.
188lb.ft = 255ish n.m
For a 2Ltr engine that's an MEP of roughly 16bar.
Certainly doable for a tuned 4stroke petrol engine.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Prof Blair and Assiciates might give you an indication as to how likely it is for a full unlimited budget race engine to break 16bar BMEP and you can decide how likely a production engine with an exhaust, air filter and remap could achieve the same.http://www.profblairandassociates.com/pdfs/Back_to...
stevesingo said:
Prof Blair and Assiciates might give you an indication as to how likely it is for a full unlimited budget race engine to break 16bar BMEP and you can decide how likely a production engine with an exhaust, air filter and remap could achieve the same.
http://www.profblairandassociates.com/pdfs/Back_to...
What's you're interest? Every time a BBR thread pops up you question their figures http://www.profblairandassociates.com/pdfs/Back_to...
Not that I'm saying you're wrong or right mind you!
LaurasOtherHalf said:
What's you're interest? Every time a BBR thread pops up you question their figures
Not that I'm saying you're wrong or right mind you!
I just find it somewhat irksome that the truth is stretched to the limit of physics by companies trying to make a buck out of the paying public.Not that I'm saying you're wrong or right mind you!
It may not be deliberate. Their rolling road is hardly OEM validation spec, and any flywheel figures taken from a rolling road are meaningless anyway. In saying that, don't take people for idiots either, because BBR know that and so should people on this site.
I'd have a little more respect it they just produced an at the wheel before and after graph. Likewise Abingdon MGB thing.
abarber said:
Mafioso said:
What? Completely disagree. It lacks torque and needs to be revved to get the best out of it.
Try it next to a GT86. It's just about the opposite in terms of power delivery. The 1.5 is much more fun and willing to rev out.
A tweaked 2ltr could be very nice.
The S2000 fails in that respect because of it's party trick, potentially troublesome if you get caught just off cam while accelerating.
I'd rather take the 1.5 with a little fettling to enhance its character (and a little power) than a 2L that lacked that fizzy delivery.
The old mk1s were better in 1.6 guise than the 1.8s for similar reasons.
Honeywell said:
I can easily believe their dyno. This is a very modern engine, designed to an unusually high spec, tuned by a particularly thorough third party engineering firm.
To put their claims into perspective, they indicate a higher volumetric efficiency than the last of the naturally aspirated F1 engines achieved. Edited by kambites on Thursday 1st September 10:40
kambites said:
Honeywell said:
I can easily believe their dyno. This is a very modern engine, designed to an unusually high spec, tuned by a particularly thorough third party engineering firm.
To put their claims into perspective, they indicate a higher volumetric efficiency than the last of the naturally aspirated F1 engines achieved. Edited by kambites on Thursday 1st September 10:40
peter450 said:
The 190 package looks good. Don't know why Mazda keep leaving it for the aftermarket clearly there's demand for a more powerful MX5
I imagine it's something to do with the Japanese car culture, because modding cars is so normal there Mazda probably just think 'This is the car we want to make, if someone wants more power or less roll they can do it themselves'. I love that attitide, I think almost any Japanese car I own will be modified to some degree, unless I'm ever lucky enough to own an LFA...
Honeywell said:
Not sure that F1 V8's are relevant.
Bmw were getting over 100bhp per liter out of M engines decades ago.
The Mazda engine in non-factory/warranty tune is probably as claimed by BBR
Power/litre isn't being disputed here, it's the torque figures.Bmw were getting over 100bhp per liter out of M engines decades ago.
The Mazda engine in non-factory/warranty tune is probably as claimed by BBR
As stated above, the torque they're quoting is practically impossible.
That said, it seems like a well-priced package of mods to take you up over 200bhp, the standard car was spritely enough, I'd love to try this!
CABC said:
indeed. the 86 is rewarding in that respect. it needs to kept above 4k on a spirited run, not something the current generation of hatch drivers is used to. 'cos sports car!
The S2000 fails in that respect because of it's party trick, potentially troublesome if you get caught just off cam while accelerating.
I'd rather take the 1.5 with a little fettling to enhance its character (and a little power) than a 2L that lacked that fizzy delivery.
The old mk1s were better in 1.6 guise than the 1.8s for similar reasons.
I'd also take the 1.5 for its peaky revvy nature, and I think it's 25kg lighter too. The S2000 fails in that respect because of it's party trick, potentially troublesome if you get caught just off cam while accelerating.
I'd rather take the 1.5 with a little fettling to enhance its character (and a little power) than a 2L that lacked that fizzy delivery.
The old mk1s were better in 1.6 guise than the 1.8s for similar reasons.
BBR Super 160 upgrade would be plenty and they make the rev limit 7700 rpm. Should be great fun.
Honeywell said:
Not sure that F1 V8's are relevant.
Bmw were getting over 100bhp per liter out of M engines decades ago.
The Mazda engine in non-factory/warranty tune is probably as claimed by BBR
As previously stated a 1lt engine can make 200hp, no issues with that it just needs revs to do so. Power is function and torque and rpm.Bmw were getting over 100bhp per liter out of M engines decades ago.
The Mazda engine in non-factory/warranty tune is probably as claimed by BBR
torque x rpm / 5252 = Power
80lbft x 13130rpm / 5252= 200hp.
Spin the equation around
power / rpm x 5252 = torque
So take a 2.4lt NA F1 engine, which let's be honest here had a virtually unlimited budget in development, to make a peak 750hp at 18000rpm and to have it's performance over a narrow rpm band with an upper limit which dictates peak torque will be nigh on the same rpm as peak power.
750 / 18000 x 5252 = 218 lbft
218/2.4= 91 lbft/lt
Our friends at BBR are claiming that an engine developed for the road to have a wide torque band (typically 80% 0f max torque over 80% of operating rev range) with mass production, a long life span, pump fuels and emission targets all in mind can produce 91.5lbft/lt with the addition of an induction kit, cams, exhaust and a remap?
Just think about that and contemplate the plausibility of the claim!
Edited for typo
Edited by stevesingo on Thursday 1st September 23:31
stevesingo said:
As previously stated a 1lt engine can make 200hp, no issues with that it just needs revs to do so. Power is function and torque and rpm.
torque x rpm / 5252 = Power
80lbft x 13130rpm / 5252= 200hp.
Spin the equation around
power / rpm x 5252 = torque
So take a 2.4lt NA F1 engine, which let's be honest here had a virtually unlimited budget in development, to make a peak 750hp at 18000rpm and to have it's performance over a narrow rpm band with an upper limit which dictates peak torque will be nigh on the same rpm as peak power.
800 / 1000 x 5252 = 218 lbft
218/2.4= 91 lbft/lt
Our friends at BBR are claiming that an engine developed for the road to have a wide torque band (typically 80% 0f max torque over 80% of operating rev range) with mass production, a long life span, pump fuels and emission targets all in mind can produce 91.5lbft/lt with the addition of an induction kit, cams, exhaust and a remap?
Just think about that and contemplate the plausibility of the claim!
Thanks for putting that is an easily readable format.torque x rpm / 5252 = Power
80lbft x 13130rpm / 5252= 200hp.
Spin the equation around
power / rpm x 5252 = torque
So take a 2.4lt NA F1 engine, which let's be honest here had a virtually unlimited budget in development, to make a peak 750hp at 18000rpm and to have it's performance over a narrow rpm band with an upper limit which dictates peak torque will be nigh on the same rpm as peak power.
800 / 1000 x 5252 = 218 lbft
218/2.4= 91 lbft/lt
Our friends at BBR are claiming that an engine developed for the road to have a wide torque band (typically 80% 0f max torque over 80% of operating rev range) with mass production, a long life span, pump fuels and emission targets all in mind can produce 91.5lbft/lt with the addition of an induction kit, cams, exhaust and a remap?
Just think about that and contemplate the plausibility of the claim!
There are several tuners who feature on PH who on experience just do not make the figures.
Can't see why any figures published on PH can't be independently checked, yes I know RR varies, but we use Dyno Dynamics ones set to shoot out mode which are available all around the country and at least provides some consistency, I am aware of the argument that none are perfect.
SkyActive G technology is not your bog standard four cylinder petrol engine by any means:
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/11/the-skys-t...
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/11/the-skys-t...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff