Hayabusa powered Caterham
Discussion
Many thanks for the reply.
Yes, I realise that apart from a very small number of Caterham Blackbirds then there are no bike engine powered Caterham's from the factory, but there are a small number out there which have been converted with bike engines, including Hayabusa engines, mainly running Sprints and Hillclimbs and although a bit of a long shot I am hoping that someone may know if anyone is thinking of selling ?
Yes, I realise that apart from a very small number of Caterham Blackbirds then there are no bike engine powered Caterham's from the factory, but there are a small number out there which have been converted with bike engines, including Hayabusa engines, mainly running Sprints and Hillclimbs and although a bit of a long shot I am hoping that someone may know if anyone is thinking of selling ?
Hi Mark
I've just replied to your email. Please do send me details of your car as I'm very keen to acquire one.
Hi Tom 7 - if your friend does want to sell one please let me know or point me at the advert please. There are none in the classifieds at present. The orange one for sale a little while ago has sold and they do not appear very often.
Many thanks to all
Steve
I've just replied to your email. Please do send me details of your car as I'm very keen to acquire one.
Hi Tom 7 - if your friend does want to sell one please let me know or point me at the advert please. There are none in the classifieds at present. The orange one for sale a little while ago has sold and they do not appear very often.
Many thanks to all
Steve
k20erham said:
Hi 220BHP is mega for a bike, but for a 7 or any other car it's torque you need, plus the bike clutches and gearboxes are just not up to it, I'm sure it will be mental to drive but hard work to keep it on the boil, but good luck with the sale
an r500 did nothing below 4k and was great on the road so why do you think a busa engine won't be?a mate had a Dax rush with a busa turbo which was excellent except that grip was a problem.
it's wheel torque you're concerned with and this is also to do with gearing and in BECs typically they fit 3.1 - 3.2 diffs to address this issue.
7s do low mileage generally and at £3k for a complete low mileage engine + close ratio sequential box you can chuck them out after 20k miles.
also, 'keeping it on the boil' might be a concern for granny doing her shopping but unlikely to be much of a concern for a caterham driver.
In my experience a busa engine is perfect for a 7 apart from the lack of a reverse (aftermarket options are mostly crap)
Agree totally with what you say, BUT if it's a genuine 220bhp motor tuned etc it's going to have 120 ft lbs of torque???, and if as you suggest it's had the right diff ratio put in then true it may work well..... on a hill climb or short track, at 70MPH it will be revving it's knuts off, they are great to have a blast for 15 mins, I've worked on too many bike engined cars, they are a PITA to own and use a lot 
It's a standard 1340cc Gen 2 that's been mapped, setup and rolling roaded by RLM Racing. They know their stuff when it comes to Hayabusas, since they've been doing most of the Radicals for years and now the MK Indy 200 Cups.
It produces 110 ft lbs wheel torque. Like most people, I thought bike engines wouldn't produce enough torque for a car - until I actually drove one. It's nonsense, a fallacy, and completely overdone by the uninitiated. Bike engine design principles are very similar to F1 engines (very shallow pistons, short stroke, oversquare, ability to rev to 11,000+rpm) and no-one in F1 complains about a lack of torque. :-) My Caterham Hayabusa pulls cleanly from low down in 6th gear and happily tootles around Town. You may need 400 ft lbs torque in an M3 that weighs nearly 2 tons, but not in a Caterham that weighs 469kgs.
When you run the calculations the Haybusa car has a very similar torque-to-weight ratio as a 420R (0.121 vs 0.106 ft lbs/lb respectively - although this is possibly understated, since my Haubusa car's figure is wheel torque whereas Caterham only state engine torque for their cars). Again, no-one complains about a lack of torque in 420R Caterhams(!)
As for the gearboxes/clutches not being up to it... again, not true. The Gen2 Hayabusa has much stronger dogs than the 1st gen (which was already stronger than most other bike dog boxes).
My car has a 3.12 diff.
When I take people out on pax laps in my car the most-often heard response is "Holy Mother of God!!!!" and "SH***T, that is awesome!!!", not 'Oh, it's lacking a bit of torque isn't it?"
And I speak from a point of some experience with Caterhams... I've owned 4 of them (a Sigma, two K Series, and this Hayabusa) and still have 3 of them, and have driven several R300, R400 and Duratecs.
It produces 110 ft lbs wheel torque. Like most people, I thought bike engines wouldn't produce enough torque for a car - until I actually drove one. It's nonsense, a fallacy, and completely overdone by the uninitiated. Bike engine design principles are very similar to F1 engines (very shallow pistons, short stroke, oversquare, ability to rev to 11,000+rpm) and no-one in F1 complains about a lack of torque. :-) My Caterham Hayabusa pulls cleanly from low down in 6th gear and happily tootles around Town. You may need 400 ft lbs torque in an M3 that weighs nearly 2 tons, but not in a Caterham that weighs 469kgs.
When you run the calculations the Haybusa car has a very similar torque-to-weight ratio as a 420R (0.121 vs 0.106 ft lbs/lb respectively - although this is possibly understated, since my Haubusa car's figure is wheel torque whereas Caterham only state engine torque for their cars). Again, no-one complains about a lack of torque in 420R Caterhams(!)
As for the gearboxes/clutches not being up to it... again, not true. The Gen2 Hayabusa has much stronger dogs than the 1st gen (which was already stronger than most other bike dog boxes).
My car has a 3.12 diff.
When I take people out on pax laps in my car the most-often heard response is "Holy Mother of God!!!!" and "SH***T, that is awesome!!!", not 'Oh, it's lacking a bit of torque isn't it?"
And I speak from a point of some experience with Caterhams... I've owned 4 of them (a Sigma, two K Series, and this Hayabusa) and still have 3 of them, and have driven several R300, R400 and Duratecs.
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 08:59
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:04
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:04
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:05
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:10
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:10
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:11
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:52
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:53
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 09:58
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 10:08
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 10:17
The "torque problem" mainly comes with engines that have poor torque until a certain revs so you if you are in the lower rev range, you have to get it to the higher rev range to get the acceleration the car is capable of. Also it can be exacerbated when the non WoT behavior of the engine is poor.
And finally the seq box can be a real pain in a road car when it only really works changing up clutchless under WoT.
My BDG only works between 8k and 9k. It certainly has a "torque problem". But on track that's fine, it is possible to keep it in the rev range.
Typically higher rev capable road cars can be challenging to keep the revs up there to work in the changing conditions of road driving.
The Busa 7 under debate may well not have any of those issues and be lovely on the road. It could be a torque less shunty pain in the backside in mixed conditions, but from what the poster says it probably isn't.
And finally the seq box can be a real pain in a road car when it only really works changing up clutchless under WoT.
My BDG only works between 8k and 9k. It certainly has a "torque problem". But on track that's fine, it is possible to keep it in the rev range.
Typically higher rev capable road cars can be challenging to keep the revs up there to work in the changing conditions of road driving.
The Busa 7 under debate may well not have any of those issues and be lovely on the road. It could be a torque less shunty pain in the backside in mixed conditions, but from what the poster says it probably isn't.
You're right - it doesn't have any of those issues(!)
It's very tractable across all rev ranges, pulls cleanly from low down and the 6 speed sequential is frankly, a delight to use. It certainly isn't a pain to drive as you describe nor does it 'only work when changing up with WoT.
In fact, it's a more user friendly box than than Type 9 5 speed in my 1.6 K Series SuperSport, and I'd say the equal of the Caterham 6 speed in my 1.8 K Series SuperSport.
It's very tractable across all rev ranges, pulls cleanly from low down and the 6 speed sequential is frankly, a delight to use. It certainly isn't a pain to drive as you describe nor does it 'only work when changing up with WoT.
In fact, it's a more user friendly box than than Type 9 5 speed in my 1.6 K Series SuperSport, and I'd say the equal of the Caterham 6 speed in my 1.8 K Series SuperSport.
Edited by Digger90 on Sunday 5th March 14:23
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff