ZZR 1400 engine in a Fury?

[robcollingridge]

Anyone done this? Quite like the torque and power figures for this engine.

Rob

[Yazza54]

Not sure if anyones put one in a fury but there are the odd ones in 7s. Crossed my mind too but I decided it wasn't really necessary and I couldn't be arsed. It's a pretty late engine too so won't be a cheap swap.

[Busa_Rush]

Have you tried it in the bike ?

[jason61c]

I've had a go on a bike with one fitted. it was pretty nippy.

Expensive conversion though, thick end of 3ish k when done.

What about a zx10r engine, figures aren't far off and you'd save about £1300 over doing a zx14r conversion.

[Yazza54]

jason61c said:

I've had a go on a bike with one fitted. it was pretty nippy.

Expensive conversion though, thick end of 3ish k when done.

What about a zx10r engine, figures aren't far off and you'd save about £1300 over doing a zx14r conversion.

Won't have the torque though which is the main reason in the first place. I think it'd cost more than 3k to convert from r1 to zx14. You won't get a good zx14 from Yorkshire engines for much under 3k last time I checked.

With the zx10 you could end up with an engine with high peak power but less tractability than the r1. The 5pw r1 is a very good all rounder.


Makes me wonder with kawasakis...they always seem to make total screamers but I never seem to see them doing particularly fantastic in superbike. Infact the latest r1 has actually been designed to have less power than the one previous I think, with the crossplane crank to give smoother power delivery through the range. Peak power isn't everything.

Edited by Yazza54 on Friday 1st April 20:06

Edited by Yazza54 on Friday 1st April 20:08

[Russ Bost]

The ZZR1400 is, pure & simple, the best bike engine by so far it's not even worth glancing at the others, slightly more power, but massively more torque than the 'Busa, plus it delivers max torque @ 7500rpm (which it then almost maintains right thro' the rev range) & max power @ 9500, which again then doesn't drop off quickly right up to around 12,000. I use the engine in the new Furore F1 & it is simply awesome, it drives like a car engine round town, very docile & forgiving, until you get to around 5,000 at which point it starts to push quite hard, get to around 7,000 & suddenly someone is pushing very hard on the back of your seat & the world suddenly switches into hyperspace & licence losing territory of well into 3 figures is on you so fast it's all just a blur. On a cold road (I mean 2 or 3 degrees), but not wet I've had wheelspin in 2nd at around 65 & 3rd at around 85 (obviously not on the public road ) & that's in a mid engined car that weighs around 560kgs, & that was b4 I lowered the gearing!

All that said,I would have said it is massive overkill in something like a Fury as you'll never get the power on the road if it's even remotely cold or damp & you're quite likely to find the nearest ditch very quickly unless you're Lewis Hamilton! With front engine RWD the ZX12 will do a brilliant job for a lot less money! Another important point when comparing the Kwaks with the 'Busa is that they are a lot more amenable to being turned thro' 90 degrees to use in a front engined car & hence far cheaper to install. I believe the same can be said of the ZX10 & the new (post 2008?) CBR1000. All IMHO of course.

[Yazza54]

How is it overkill in a fury but not a furore????

[robcollingridge]

Had to Google 'Furore F1', not heard of it before. Not pretty! Doesn't look as well engineered as the Fury either. I wasn't thinking of an upgrade, that would never cost in. It would have to be a new build.

It was the extra torque, rather than the power that appealed over my Fury R1. I'm sure the Fury could handle the extra torque and power but I wouldn't use a Sierra diff. Something designed for more power/torque would be better.

£3000 for the engine install might sound expensive but it's only another £1500 over my nearly new R1 engine (and all the bits to make it run). Just another £1500 upgrade :-)

How does it compare in terms of weight? I weighed my 5PW R1 engine/gearbox at 60.5Kg. What else needs doing too? Is it just another sump baffle?

How does it compare to the R1 5PW in terms of engine height too? The R1 is a bit of a squeeze under the Fury classic as it is. I'm already running ~70mm ground clearance and wouldn't want to go any lower on the road.

[Kiltie]

Installing a front engined ZZR1400 (90° to the bike configuration), do you "have" to dry sump it.

Pardon my ignorance.

Cheers,

Eric

[Busa_Rush]

robcollingridge said:

It was the extra torque, rather than the power that appealed over my Fury R1. I'm sure the Fury could handle the extra torque and power but I wouldn't use a Sierra diff. Something designed for more power/torque would be better.

My 7" sierra diff with 1.6 driveshafts is handling the supercharged hayabusa torque very well. They're very strong for their size.

[Yazza54]

I've heard sump baffle and slight overfill of oil will do same as the r1, unlike the busa that should be dry sumped.


Looks a tall engine Rob.

[Busa_Rush]

Russ Bost said:

The ZZR1400 is, pure & simple, the best bike engine by so far it's not even worth glancing at the others, slightly more power, but massively more torque than the 'Busa, plus it delivers max torque @ 7500rpm (which it then almost maintains right thro' the rev range) & max power @ 9500, which again then doesn't drop off quickly right up to around 12,000.

More torque than a busa ? They are both the same size engine and the ZZR needs to have the secondary butterflies removed and a power commander or alternative ECU fitted. Checkout these two dyno plots, pulled at random from the t'interweb . . .

http://www.leemotorcycles.co.uk/html/zzr1400.html
http://www.alabamaracingscene.net/forum/showthread...

The busa makes peak torque at 7000 rpm not 7500 like the ZZR and they both hold onto their torque well but the Hayabiusa holds it much better than the ZZR. Hayabusa hence also holds power better than the ZZR but neither will rev to 12,000 rpm

I think they are both great engines, having ridden both bikes but you can't say the ZZR is so much better than the Hayabusa, it's just not true. It's not even "massively" better than the previous Mk 1 Hayabusa engine, just more modern.

[Russ Bost]

You're second link apperas to be to a TURBO Hayabusa??? If there is a link to genuine 'Busa figures could you make it a little more specific?

I attach the following from Wiki (for the 'Busa)

Performance and measurementsPower Torque Weight Tested by
155.9 hp (116 kW) hp @ 9700 rpm 95.5 lb·ft (129.5 N·m) @ 8000 rpm 1999–2000: 249.48 kg (550 lb)
2001–2007: 254.01–255.3 kg (560–563 lb)(wet) Motorcyclist[36][37]
151.1 hp (112.7 kW) @ 9500 rpm 93.4 lb·ft (126.6 N·m) @7000 rpm 550 lb (250 kg)(wet) Motorcycle Consumer News '99[27]
156.6 hp (116.8 kW) @ 9500 rpm 99.6 lb·ft (135.0 N·m) @ 6750 rpm 515 lb (234 kg) (dry) Sport Rider '99[29]
525 lb (238 kg)(dry)
560 lb (250 kg)(wet) Sport Rider '01[29]
162.6 hp (121.3 kW) @ 9750 rpm 97.4 lb·ft (132.1 N·m) @ 7000 rpm 533 lb (242 kg)(dry)
563 lb (255 kg)(wet) Sport Rider '05[29]
1999–2007 model year performance

& the ZZR 1400:-


Kawasaki ZZ-R 1400




Make Model
Kawasaki ZZ-R 1400 (ZX-14)

Year
2006

Engine
Liquid cooled, four stroke, transverse four cylinders, DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder
Capacity
1352
Bore x Stroke 84 x 61mm
Compression Ratio 12.0:1
Induction
Fuel injection
Ignition / Starting
Digital with 4 plug mounted coils / electric
Max Power
187 hp (197 hp ram-air affective) @
Max Torque
113.5lb-ft @ 7500 rpm

If someone can explain how these 2 sets of figures are even remotely comparable I'd love to hear it - to say nothing of the 'Busa needing to be dry sumped if you turn the engine thro' 90 degrees whereas the worst you'd need on the ZZR is an accusump at a quarter of the price! Plus of course the ZZR is far cheaper (tho' perhaps not if I keep plugging it!)

You can compare the ZX12 & the 'Busa, but the ZZR is simply in a different league!

[jason61c]

Yazza54 said:

Won't have the torque though which is the main reason in the first place. I think it'd cost more than 3k to convert from r1 to zx14. You won't get a good zx14 from Yorkshire engines for much under 3k last time I checked.

With the zx10 you could end up with an engine with high peak power but less tractability than the r1. The 5pw r1 is a very good all rounder.


Makes me wonder with kawasakis...they always seem to make total screamers but I never seem to see them doing particularly fantastic in superbike. Infact the latest r1 has actually been designed to have less power than the one previous I think, with the crossplane crank to give smoother power delivery through the range. Peak power isn't everything.

Edited by Yazza54 on Friday 1st April 20:06

Edited by Yazza54 on Friday 1st April 20:08

You can pick up a zx14 for about 2kish, i've seen a few for £2300 although none at the minute.

The zx10 makes more power and torque than a 5pw r1 full stop, actually the same r1 year for year. I've owned 2 r1's and my current zx10r is so smooth and powerful its silly.

They haven't been doing well racing over the past 10 years for a number of reasons, mainly teams are loyal so a few bikes on the grid means slow development. The bikes generally have much more aggressive engines which with a 50p size contact patch makes them hard work on tyres and a rider.

Honda seem to get a great balance between the two.

The crossplane crank works well with a WSB/BSB sized engine budget as its motoGP tech from a few years ago. In a kit car install it just makes less power and torque.

[Busa_Rush]

Russ Bost said:

You're second link apperas to be to a TURBO Hayabusa??? If there is a link to genuine 'Busa figures could you make it a little more specific?

It's not a turbo Hayabusa, it's the 1340cc Hayabusa engine, same capacity as the ZZR1400. No point comparing the old Hayabusa engine with the more expensive and newer ZZR1400. You do a bit of searching, I pulled those out at random, see what you can find.

Both bikes can reach 1/4 mile in just under 10s in the right hands and having ridden both back to back, the Hayabusa is no slower than the ZZR1400 - there's nothing in it. Even the old Hayabusa is only a tenth to 1/4 slower.

The Hayabusa doesn't need a dry sump unless you're running a track car on slicks but then I'd want a dry sump on any car used like that.

[Mr2Mike]

Busa_Rush said:

Checkout these two dyno plots, pulled at random from the t'interweb . . .

http://www.leemotorcycles.co.uk/html/zzr1400.html
http://www.alabamaracingscene.net/forum/showthread...

Not that I'm saying you are wrong (far from it), but two random dyno plots from different rolling roads with different operators etc. are simply not worthy of compare.

[Busa_Rush]

Mr2Mike said:

Busa_Rush said:

Checkout these two dyno plots, pulled at random from the t'interweb . . .

http://www.leemotorcycles.co.uk/html/zzr1400.html
http://www.alabamaracingscene.net/forum/showthread...

Not that I'm saying you are wrong (far from it), but two random dyno plots from different rolling roads with different operators etc. are simply not worthy of compare.

For Pete's sake I'm not trying to suggest that one engine has 2.75 bhp more than the other, simply that they are comparable and the ZZR1400 is not "massively" better than the Hayabusa. Bike dynos are even less reliable than car dynos but they are both fine for getting a rough idea of the shape and approximate size of the curves to show that both engines are comparable.

[Porkie]

Russ Bost said:

I use the engine in the new Furore F1 & it is simply awesome, it drives like a car engine round town, very docile & forgiving, until you get to around 5,000 at which point it starts to push quite hard, get to around 7,000 & suddenly someone is pushing very hard on the back of your seat & the world suddenly switches into hyperspace & licence losing territory of well into 3 figures is on you so fast it's all just a blur. On a cold road (I mean 2 or 3 degrees), but not wet I've had wheelspin in 2nd at around 65 & 3rd at around 85 (obviously not on the public road ) & that's in a mid engined car that weighs around 560kgs, & that was b4 I lowered the gearing!

All that said,I would have said it is massive overkill in something like a Fury as you'll never get the power on the road if it's even remotely cold or damp & you're quite likely to find the nearest ditch very quickly unless you're Lewis Hamilton!.

Hyperspace?? 3 figures in a blur???

How can it be THAT fast with around 200bhp?

Genuine question

[Yazza54]

Porkie said:

Hyperspace?? 3 figures in a blur???

How can it be THAT fast with around 200bhp?

Genuine question

Power to weight....

[Sam_68]

Porkie said:

How can it be THAT fast with around 200bhp?
Genuine question

And a fair question, given that the quoted weight of 560 kilos isn't that light, but:

• Part of the answer lies with the typically very short gearing of BECS. Yes, they'll reach a three figure speed in a blur, but they'll be bouncing off the rev limiter in top soon after and;
• At risk of upsetting the 500bhp/tonne brigade, a 350bhp/tonne lightweight car won't be all that much slower than a 500bhp/tonne lightweight car, for the simple reason that the more powerful car will struggle to put down the power. Truth be told, with lightweight cars and road tyres (...not to mention road tarmac), you're well into the realms of diminishing returns much above 300bhp/tonne with current tyre and suspension technology; the big numbers are more useful for bar-room willy-waving than they are for increasing your rate of progress on public roads.

This is amply demonstrated by the fact that the 520kg/550bhp Caterham Levante's 0-60 time of 2.9 seconds is pretty much identical to the 506kg/263 bhp R500; yep, that's right - doubling the power:weight ratio in an otherwise almost identical car has pretty much no effect whatsover on low-range acceleration...

Anything with 300bhp+/tonne plus and short gearing is going to be quick enough to justify at least a little hyperbole, I think, and of course being mid-engined it will stand a better chance of putting the power down than most front engined/RWD 'Sevens'.