RE: Caterham's supercharged jubilee!
Discussion
dannylt said:
...Hartley-V8 is the best of both - standard Hayabusa heads, but as compact as the RST. Not many around though.
I can't recall the numbers, but the guy who does the RST noted some pretty impressive reliability stats on their first few engines. And I believe the engine's to be used in a number of high profile cars...seem to recall a race series being mentioned too but could be wrong.Of course none of this beats empirical data from races. But having seen the sheer quality of what goes inside an RST-V8 I would not be surprised to see all expectations of it surpassed in terms of reliability.
If you're based in the SE, it's worth paying them a visit just to see what they're up to. I got an impression not dissimilar to when I visited Pagani (albeit just on engines).
the only trouble with the V8 conversions is the revs and the gearboxes required plus the packaging of the engine bay and total weight.
The addition of the supercharger, cooler and plumbing is not too bad at about 18 Kg.And the duratec still only revs to 7600 so the gearbox has a fighting chance.
I nearly supercharged mu K series - before I sold up and wnet duratec .
Supercharging a 2L duratec to a nice modest 300bhp is appealing as you wont have the extra weighht and instalation complexity of the 2.3 L engine.
The addition of the supercharger, cooler and plumbing is not too bad at about 18 Kg.And the duratec still only revs to 7600 so the gearbox has a fighting chance.
I nearly supercharged mu K series - before I sold up and wnet duratec .
Supercharging a 2L duratec to a nice modest 300bhp is appealing as you wont have the extra weighht and instalation complexity of the 2.3 L engine.
Dave J said:
the only trouble with the V8 conversions is the revs and the gearboxes required plus the packaging of the engine bay and total weight.
The RST-V8 weighs less than a K-series in the same state of dress...and you can supercharge it if you really want (though I'm pretty sure it would then need bonnet mods - it doesn't have to have these without).The main issue they had with packaging, I believe, is the steering. Think an F3 steering box is used - whatever it comes from, it's very neat.
Revs to 10.4k I think. Believe the one fitted to the S3 they did has a Quaife box...?
And few things sound quite as glorious as a flat plane crank V8 at full tilt
Well, I'm STILL looking forward to my weedy 200bhp R400 arriving next month! And I'm not convinced that - with the suspension sorted and the right tyres - I'm going to be looking at the back of too many cars on track for long! If my prev. Caterhams are anything to go by I reckon good suspension set up will be like gaining 50bhp anyway!
Dave J said:
Supercharging a 2L duratec to a nice modest 300bhp is appealing as you wont have the extra weighht and instalation complexity of the 2.3 L engine.
Dave, are you really suggesting that fitting a supercharger is lighter and simpler than fitting an externally identical engine that's 11mm taller?sfaulds said:
Dave J said:
Supercharging a 2L duratec to a nice modest 300bhp is appealing as you wont have the extra weighht and instalation complexity of the 2.3 L engine.
Dave, are you really suggesting that fitting a supercharger is lighter and simpler than fitting an externally identical engine that's 11mm taller?
sfaulds
no , what I meant was that there is more space around a 2L (that runs without the drysump system, where as a 2.3 would have considerably less ground clearance with a wet sump under the sump pan )to fit the plumbing etc for the supercharger.
the weight saving with a 2L engine vs 2.3 appeals too.
The 18Kg was a half guestimate after I looked into the sprintex (as I recall) supercharger and cast plenhum , pipes and intercooler. The sprintex charger is a heavy little buggar like an alternator.
If I was to do it now then I would use a fabricated ally plenhum onto the throttle bodies
The problem is where do you fit the intercooler and oil cooler and water radiator in a std chassis .........
no , what I meant was that there is more space around a 2L (that runs without the drysump system, where as a 2.3 would have considerably less ground clearance with a wet sump under the sump pan )to fit the plumbing etc for the supercharger.
the weight saving with a 2L engine vs 2.3 appeals too.
The 18Kg was a half guestimate after I looked into the sprintex (as I recall) supercharger and cast plenhum , pipes and intercooler. The sprintex charger is a heavy little buggar like an alternator.
If I was to do it now then I would use a fabricated ally plenhum onto the throttle bodies
The problem is where do you fit the intercooler and oil cooler and water radiator in a std chassis .........
rubystone said:
Pugsey said:
I reckon good suspension set up will be like gaining 50bhp anyway!
So as soon as you take delivery from Caterham, get it to someone who knows how to set up the suspension, 'cos you're absolutely right.
- with apologies to anyone from Caterham who may be reading this! Then a quick 1,000 miles and another check over before going on track. Going to sort 'dry', 'wet' and 'road' settings. I guess there probably isn't much existing data for the new R400 yet?data for the Duratec R400 is very similar to the K series .
The instalation with wet sump is only about 6 > 8 Kg heavier than a drysumped K series. Or mine was anyway ...
250/275 front springs
200/215 rears (if your running slicks)
175 if your on 888's or simliar
Nitron dampers set on 10 from hard front and rear
soft bar front and rear
15mm rake front / rear
camber to suit tyres used
The instalation with wet sump is only about 6 > 8 Kg heavier than a drysumped K series. Or mine was anyway ...
250/275 front springs
200/215 rears (if your running slicks)
175 if your on 888's or simliar
Nitron dampers set on 10 from hard front and rear
soft bar front and rear
15mm rake front / rear
camber to suit tyres used
Hmmmm
I have doubts over the marketting claim of 14% stiffer.
I fail to see how the front of the chassis is stiffer without any engine bay diagonals . Previously the chassis was braced from the bulkhead to the front suspension pickup point with one diagonal bar . This tube was also thicker than the other front chassis links. Now there is a big gap near the engine mounts / exhaust cutout with no cross bracing .
Unless the tubes used on the new chassis are thicker ?.
I'm going to caged(or whatever they are now called) soon to see the chassis being made so I'll ask the questions.
I have doubts over the marketting claim of 14% stiffer.
I fail to see how the front of the chassis is stiffer without any engine bay diagonals . Previously the chassis was braced from the bulkhead to the front suspension pickup point with one diagonal bar . This tube was also thicker than the other front chassis links. Now there is a big gap near the engine mounts / exhaust cutout with no cross bracing .
Unless the tubes used on the new chassis are thicker ?.
I'm going to caged(or whatever they are now called) soon to see the chassis being made so I'll ask the questions.
Dave J said:
Hmmmm
I have doubts over the marketting claim of 14% stiffer.
I fail to see how the front of the chassis is stiffer without any engine bay diagonals . Previously the chassis was braced from the bulkhead to the front suspension pickup point with one diagonal bar . This tube was also thicker than the other front chassis links. Now there is a big gap near the engine mounts / exhaust cutout with no cross bracing .
Unless the tubes used on the new chassis are thicker ?.
I'm going to caged(or whatever they are now called) soon to see the chassis being made so I'll ask the questions.
But the nice salesman told me - so it must be true!I have doubts over the marketting claim of 14% stiffer.
I fail to see how the front of the chassis is stiffer without any engine bay diagonals . Previously the chassis was braced from the bulkhead to the front suspension pickup point with one diagonal bar . This tube was also thicker than the other front chassis links. Now there is a big gap near the engine mounts / exhaust cutout with no cross bracing .
Unless the tubes used on the new chassis are thicker ?.
I'm going to caged(or whatever they are now called) soon to see the chassis being made so I'll ask the questions.
Dave
Still don't understand this argument, the 2.3l is taller not deeper (if that makes any sense) so the only difference in dimensions is that the cam cover is 11mm higher, just fit the low line cam cover (£300) and you have as much space underneath and each side as the 2.0l surely?
and yes the 2.3l is marginally heavier but most of that's in the crank which you can have lightened.
Regarding s/c I think the x330 uses a Rotrex and had a combined intercoller, water and oil radiator - not that I've actually seen it, just what I'm lead to believe.
Give it a year and you'll be able to buy the complete after market upgrade package from one of the suppliers....
I'm in denial, just like I was running a 1900cc k series instead of going duratec 2 years ago 
I promised my wife that I wouldnt strip this engine for 3 seasons. But I didnt mention not buying another one
.The most sensible option is to build another engine of 2.1cc with a charger and then simply swop[ it over one weekend and tell her I've fitted a plenhum to keep the noise down
Hmmmmmmmm
must get back to moi poies instead of these dirty thoughts
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff