100bhp per litre

[fergus]

Rover K series, in for example, Caterham R400.

1.8 litres. around 200hp, around 160lb ft.

next.

[havoc]

fergus said:

Rover K series, in for example, Caterham R400.

1.8 litres. around 200hp, around 160lb ft.

next.

True...but is it drivable at low revs, because the VHPD head K-series lumps I've heard/experienced were, ah, 'truculent' below about 4,000rpm.

Oh...and how expensive and how frequently does it need servicing?

[fergus]

[redacted]

[havoc]

Cheers fergus, interesting. Certainly liked the feel and sound of the 1.6 133(?) bhp one in the Roadsport I drove.

[Matthew-TMM]

havoc said:

Just to resurrect this thread as I missed it before Xmas...

stevesingo said:

A good production engine should have at least 100BHP/Lt and at least 80Lb/ft per lit produced below 6000rpm.

Steve

I can't think of ANY car engine that achieves that. All of the >100bhp/litre n/a car engines produce peak power at OVER 7,000rpm, and there are hardly of those any that produce over 80lb/ft per litre (hell, how many n/a engines ANYWHERE produce over 80lb/ft per litre?!?*).

Such an engine would probably cost £15k or more to build, and as a result the car would sell in miniscule numbers or at a substantial loss.

www.amerspeed.com/scgi-bin/showultimaengines.cgi

The 406ci 720hp engine produces (according to my calcs) 108bhp/litre at 6700rpm and 94.7lb.ft/litre at 4400rpm. Heading for $27k to buy though.

[eliot]

Problem with these engines is that they hate driving slow in traffic, because they run so much overlap on the cam.
Better off with a less radical cam and then forced induction because you have a tame pussy cat around town then all hell lets loose when you floor it.

[love machine]

eliot said:

Problem with these engines is that they hate driving slow in traffic, because they run so much overlap on the cam.
Better off with a less radical cam and then forced induction because you have a tame pussy cat around town then all hell lets loose when you floor it.

Or run both not such bad manners at low RPM apart from a bit of fire out of the zorst, then the cam/boost combo makes huge power. Again, not good for fuel economy at all. Considering on a 1300 engine of standard spec to a 300/300 cam and carb/head mods to suit uses about 200% more fuel, add a blower and it gets serious.

[havoc]

Matthew-TMM said:

havoc said:

stevesingo said:

A good production engine should have at least 100BHP/Lt and at least 80Lb/ft per lit produced below 6000rpm.

Steve

Such an engine would probably cost £15k or more to build, and as a result the car would sell in miniscule numbers or at a substantial loss.

www.amerspeed.com/scgi-bin/showultimaengines.cgi

The 406ci 720hp engine produces (according to my calcs) 108bhp/litre at 6700rpm and 94.7lb.ft/litre at 4400rpm. Heading for $27k to buy though.

Damn, I'm good!

More seriously, the only two engines so far that have been put forwards are expensive, heavily-fettled variants of mainstream lumps whose only application so far is in 'track-day-style' cars which don't have to worry about EU and US emissions laws because they're such low-volume. Both bloody good engines though...

[fergus]

the S14 Evo III lump from the E30M3 in 'sport evo' guise comes close.

the current E60 M5 lump with the 'sport' button turned on?

[stevesingo]

Engines with 100bhp & 80lb/ft per litre...

E46 M3 338bhp 269lb/ft, 3246cc

Caterham 260CSR 260bhp 200lb/ft 2261cc

TVR Sagaris 406bhp 349lb/ft 3996cc

Ferrari 430 483bhp 343lb/ft 4308cc

Porsche 997 GT3 409bhp 298lb/ft 3600cc

Clio 197 197bhp 159lb/ft 1997 (near enough)

OK, I admit that, with the exception of the Clio, they all pretty exotic It is notable that the Clio is the most modern and is a run of the mill shopping trolly which will place no great demands on the owner or driver. We can hope that this is something we can look forward to in the future.

Steve

There are also plenty of others that are pretty close to the 100/80.

[jont999]

The JDM version of the B16a in my civic is

# 1992-1995 JDM Honda Civic SiR/SiRII (EG6/EG9)

* Displacement: 1595 cm³
* Compression: 10.4:1
* Power: 168 hp @ 7800 rpm & 116 ft·lbf @ 7300 rpm...not bad for a car that's over 13 years old!

[havoc]

stevesingo said:

Engines with 100bhp & 80lb/ft per litre...

E46 M3 338bhp 269lb/ft, 3246cc

Caterham 260CSR 260bhp 200lb/ft 2261cc

TVR Sagaris 406bhp 349lb/ft 3996cc

Ferrari 430 483bhp 343lb/ft 4308cc

Porsche 997 GT3 409bhp 298lb/ft 3600cc

Clio 197 197bhp 159lb/ft 1997 (near enough)

OK, I admit that, with the exception of the Clio, they all pretty exotic It is notable that the Clio is the most modern and is a run of the mill shopping trolly which will place no great demands on the owner or driver. We can hope that this is something we can look forward to in the future.

Steve

There are also plenty of others that are pretty close to the 100/80.

Agreed. Surprised about the Clio...I'm quite impressed! And it DOES bode well for future n/asp performance engines...I'd love to see what the next NSX/S2000 carries! All the other engines bar CSR lump probably fall into my "5-figure cost/price" comment though, I'd expect. And out of the first three, two have proven rather fragile, while the middle one has a lightweight car to pull around so less stresses I would imagine.


Close to 100/80...true, just did some digging...most recent performance Honda lumps have been (DC2 ITR lump 187bhp / 133lb/ft from 1797cc...only a few lb/ft off* and launched in 1996!!! CTR, ATR and S2000 engines also thereabouts (S2000 engine is late-150s), albeit the non-iVTECs have peaky torque 'peaks', but near-90% plateaus from 2,000rpm up to well-over 7,000rpm.



* Well, 74lb/ft per litre, but a little better than same-era Boxsters and non-M BMWs, for those that claim VTECs lack torque!!! That said, 70lb/ft per litre seems a pretty easy figure to achieve - half the current n/a hot-hatches, all BM, Merc and Jag 6-pots, tuned K-series (e.g. VVC) and all Porkers manage 70+. 1.8i MX5 and MR2 don't quite, surprisingly, and even more surprisingly NO performance application of the Rover(Buick) V8 manages it!!! That one I had to double-check!!!

[andygtt]

How about the Mclaren F1 6.1L and 680bhp in LM guise.
Maybe a bit exotic though.

[Undertay King]

I know its not technically the point of the thread but latest diesels (albeit with turbos) are getting there..

BMW 335d 286PS 3.0litre twin-turbo.

And there's no complaining about lack of torque there!

[stevesingo]

havoc said:

And out of the first three, two have proven rather fragile, while the middle one has a lightweight car to pull around so less stresses I would imagine.

Yeah, I wouldn't be putting money on a Sagaris seeing 100k or it making the quoted figures for that matter. Probably still over the benchmark though. I think the E46 M3 issue has been resolved, they are now fitting the big end bearings the correct way round!

havoc said:

Well, 74lb/ft per litre, but a little better than same-era Boxsters and non-M BMWs, for those that claim VTECs lack torque!!!

As an ex CTR owner I would say that the engine is a little thin on torque. Producing 90% of the peak torque over a wide range is great if your peak is a high one. Oh yeah, and why do they leave the change over point as high as 5900rpm, It would be better around 4500. At least you can use more of the engine more of the time and still cruise at 85 out of the VTEC. But that's another debate....

Steve

P.S I'm happy with my E30 M3 Sport Evo's 96bhp 72lb/ft litre (Maybe a little more with the Motec) for the time being

[aeropilot]

gary_tholl said:

Cosworth was doing it 25-30 years ago with the BD series. Mine is 1.6L and ~220hp,

More like 25-35 years....
Aah the glorious sound of a BDA/G/X......

[scuffers]

stevesingo said:

havoc said:

Well, 74lb/ft per litre, but a little better than same-era Boxsters and non-M BMWs, for those that claim VTECs lack torque!!!

As an ex CTR owner I would say that the engine is a little thin on torque. Producing 90% of the peak torque over a wide range is great if your peak is a high one. Oh yeah, and why do they leave the change over point as high as 5900rpm, It would be better around 4500. At least you can use more of the engine more of the time and still cruise at 85 out of the VTEC. But that's another debate....

Steve

this is a usful site if you want to compare stuff like this:
www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplot/id%3D314%26sort%3Drec%26but_sea%3Dqs%26sea_simple%3Dlink/Lotus-Elise-Link-Up--VanSTEN.htm
(just to dispel the no torque quotes...)

[stevesingo]

That doesn't look anything like any stock Honda K20 power graph I've seen.

This one is more typical..

www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplot/id%3D348%26sort%3Drec%26but_sea%3Dqs%26sea_simple%3DK20/Acura-RSX.htm

Or this one...

www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplot/id%3D146%26sort%3Dpow%26but_sea%3Dqs%26sea_simple%3DK20%26frcd%3D41/Lotus-Elise.htm

Or...

www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplot/id%3D137%26sort%3Dpow%26but_sea%3Dqs%26sea_simple%3DK20%26frcd%3D41/Honda-Accura.htm

Steve

[Rootes]

just for a chuckle this shows the result of a Imp Club rolling road day - some managed 100bhp/litre

www.theimpclub.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3996

Si

Edited by rootes on Monday 1st January 11:48

[that daddy]

Rootes,that imp was my first car,that engine what a little gem well advanced screamer for its day.Jont999 now that civic Vtec lump what a little engineering masterpiece, and unlike the K series rover RELIABLE.........and look at how old it is,europe there still trying to play catch/up he,he.