Haybusa BEC, reliable, costly...?
Discussion
I have had a few BEC, and am in the midst of fitting another to a catrham. Looking at the facts i turned down the busa lump.....i actually bought one as it was a decent engine low miles, then done some research and flogged it. They are heavy and not all that powerfull, the figures are usually in there favour but the reality is different and their usually down on quoted bhp/lbft. You can read 170-180...but there about 165 ishn when people have taken the time to dyno them, this is a standard engine im talking about.
Being the hayabusa and having the big fast bike appeal there has been lots of tuning done to them and a wide range of products available.....making it aparently the obvious choice. But when you look at where bike engines are tuned and raced its not the big bikes, its 1000cc superbike stuff, so for me the CBR1000RR is the engine to use, its 30kg lighter approximatly as well which makes a big difference in a 400 ish kg car, and produces 175 regularly on the dyno as standard.
Turbo vs Supercharger......look at the physics, a turbo produces more power for less boost than a supercharger, in a high revving bike engine lag wont be an issue, bareing in mind less boost is less heat and therefore more efficient, hence the current trend in F1 car technology biased toward turbo charging.
Being the hayabusa and having the big fast bike appeal there has been lots of tuning done to them and a wide range of products available.....making it aparently the obvious choice. But when you look at where bike engines are tuned and raced its not the big bikes, its 1000cc superbike stuff, so for me the CBR1000RR is the engine to use, its 30kg lighter approximatly as well which makes a big difference in a 400 ish kg car, and produces 175 regularly on the dyno as standard.
Turbo vs Supercharger......look at the physics, a turbo produces more power for less boost than a supercharger, in a high revving bike engine lag wont be an issue, bareing in mind less boost is less heat and therefore more efficient, hence the current trend in F1 car technology biased toward turbo charging.
sam919 said:
Turbo vs Supercharger......look at the physics, a turbo produces more power for less boost than a supercharger, in a high revving bike engine lag wont be an issue, bareing in mind less boost is less heat and therefore more efficient, hence the current trend in F1 car technology biased toward turbo charging.
And what physics would that be then? How is it possible for a Turbo to produce more power for less boost...the engine doesn't care where the boost is coming from. A supercharger requires power from the engine to run (from the belt drive) but that isn't what you have stated. My Supercharged Zetec produces 397BHP on 1.2 Bar of boost, you would struggle to get a Turbo Zetec to do the same power on the same boost level.Youve answered your own question, belt driven = power loss. Its all been covered by people that have far superior knowledge than me or you, enjoy the below with some real world figures with regard to how much boost is required for each tc and sc application relative to power loss for each.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Your statement is incorrect and your logic is completely flawed. Turbos do not produce more power with less boost. All things being equal a Turbo and a Supercharger will produce the same power with the same boost. It is to be expected that a Supercharger uses engine power to drive it but that isn't the same as your statement.
Why don't you set up a company then to rival big cc and produce superchargers that are more efficient than turbos, you'll make a lot of money.
Thanks for your opinion, but I'll stick to what I now know, which I'm afraid mucker isn't flawed.
And as per your above post all things aren't equal, there both different methods of producing compressed air and have massively different way of doing it.
Thanks for your opinion, but I'll stick to what I now know, which I'm afraid mucker isn't flawed.
And as per your above post all things aren't equal, there both different methods of producing compressed air and have massively different way of doing it.
Edited by sam919 on Saturday 3rd May 19:38
I am not getting confused.....you said this
If you said that Turbochargers where more efficient than Superchargers due to the way they driven (exhaust gases v belt) then you may have a valid point.
sam919 said:
Turbo vs Supercharger......look at the physics, a turbo produces more power for less boost than a supercharger, in a high revving bike engine lag wont be an issue, bareing in mind less boost is less heat and therefore more efficient, hence the current trend in F1 car technology biased toward turbo charging.
And this is simple not true....You say look at the 'Physics' in some sort of Pseudo Science way. You make no mention of efficiency until your response.If you said that Turbochargers where more efficient than Superchargers due to the way they driven (exhaust gases v belt) then you may have a valid point.
Edited by jeffw on Saturday 3rd May 21:52
You won't get your magical 500bhp per ton from your Hayabusa without forced induction. 400 maybe if your chassis is seriously light, but not 500. It's a great engine and if you find a decent car at a good price buy it and enjoy. But as stated, it's a big engine and needs a decent dry sump system which adds weight or it will go bang. Just bare in mind the game has moved on now and there are better BECs, but you won't find many yet on the second hand market. I have been in a very well sorted MegaBusa, and while it was definitely a bit quicker than my R1 in a straight line, as a road car it would make no odds point to point unless you were Sebastien Loeb or had a death wish. Most any BECs will go down a piece of road faster than you can....
I have also had a go in Duncan Cowper's turbo Busa Rush, that thing peels the skin off your face, but to force induction a BEC is expensive to say the least. I know of people who have spent £10k doing it properly, they are quicker but raise other weaknesses.
If you do want to go FI for a road car, I wouldn't touch a turbo over a supercharger given the choice, the few turbo kits I have been in were too explosive delivery-wise for me . Great if you want to drag race, but the delicacy on the throttle mid bend was worryingly absent... Duncan's car is an exception probably to this rule as it has been developed properly like few others have.
Whatever you get enjoy, but don't dismiss other BECs if its a road car you want. Not many road cars could get away even from my old 893 fireblade Fury, the crazy lightweightclaws back chunks under braking and cornering.
I have also had a go in Duncan Cowper's turbo Busa Rush, that thing peels the skin off your face, but to force induction a BEC is expensive to say the least. I know of people who have spent £10k doing it properly, they are quicker but raise other weaknesses.
If you do want to go FI for a road car, I wouldn't touch a turbo over a supercharger given the choice, the few turbo kits I have been in were too explosive delivery-wise for me . Great if you want to drag race, but the delicacy on the throttle mid bend was worryingly absent... Duncan's car is an exception probably to this rule as it has been developed properly like few others have.
Whatever you get enjoy, but don't dismiss other BECs if its a road car you want. Not many road cars could get away even from my old 893 fireblade Fury, the crazy lightweightclaws back chunks under braking and cornering.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff