Engine choice for 1000cc supercharged 250bhp.
Discussion
If choosing a 1000 cc car engine to supercharge, apart from the bottom end strength would it be better to choose a 3 or 4 cylinder ? I am hoping to get in the region of 250bhp for short bursts of no more than 30seconds.
For a given amount of power the 3 would rev less but the 4 would have more valves to let the gas in and out.
I prefer Supercharging over a turbo as it is easer to map with an after market ecu. One thought is to choose an engine that already has a turbo, remove it and fit a bigger charger.
For a given amount of power the 3 would rev less but the 4 would have more valves to let the gas in and out.
I prefer Supercharging over a turbo as it is easer to map with an after market ecu. One thought is to choose an engine that already has a turbo, remove it and fit a bigger charger.
steve-V8s said:
I prefer Supercharging over a turbo as it is easer to map with an after market ecu. One thought is to choose an engine that already has a turbo, remove it and fit a bigger charger.
I'd question that. There's no particular reason a supercharger should be any easier to map than a turbo. If you have significant boost then depending on the type of supercharger you might have to deal with supercharger blow-through problems and it might be less efficient than a turbo.GreenV8S said:
I'd question that. There's no particular reason a supercharger should be any easier to map than a turbo. If you have significant boost then depending on the type of supercharger you might have to deal with supercharger blow-through problems and it might be less efficient than a turbo.
The thinking is that the charger boost is directly and repeatably linked to engine rpm so mapping the charger is more like mapping an engine that breathes very well, where turbo speed lags rpm and is not completely repeatable, also the map sections where it is coming onto boost have to be closed up to deal with the sudden increase in air. Only repeating what the man who made the ecu said.
steve-V8s said:
One thought is to choose an engine that already has a turbo, remove it and fit a bigger charger.
Ford have produced a one-off 200bhp version of their 1.0 EcoBoost triple, as an example.https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/ford/formula-...
steve-V8s said:
If choosing a 1000 cc car engine to supercharge, apart from the bottom end strength would it be better to choose a 3 or 4 cylinder ? I am hoping to get in the region of 250bhp for short bursts of no more than 30seconds.
For a given amount of power the 3 would rev less but the 4 would have more valves to let the gas in and out.
I prefer Supercharging over a turbo as it is easer to map with an after market ecu. One thought is to choose an engine that already has a turbo, remove it and fit a bigger charger.
One is as easy to map as another. Daft to say otherwise.For a given amount of power the 3 would rev less but the 4 would have more valves to let the gas in and out.
I prefer Supercharging over a turbo as it is easer to map with an after market ecu. One thought is to choose an engine that already has a turbo, remove it and fit a bigger charger.
If you're stuck with 1000cc...for whatever reason....choose one that is lightest ? Number of cylinders is irrelevant if actual engine design is good.
As for revs...without stating usage or application, who cares what it revs to ? What revs do you need to use whatever this is for ?
And what is your budget ?
And what restrictions are there on engine choice....motorbike engine would be an obvious choice cost/power etc.
Other than that...availability of engine maybe matters, again coming back to cost.
BenjiS said:
Get the engine from a Kawasaki H2R bike. It’s already 310bhp from a supercharged 1000cc.
Will cost about 50 grand mind.
In line with this there are several 1000c bikes that make around 200bhp from the factory so getting an 50bhp should be doable with a supercharger or turbo and these engines are both light and compact which could be useful if space/packaging is an issue.Will cost about 50 grand mind.
The engine would be for hill climbing and sprinting in the up to 1400cc modified class.
Considering building something using one of the current city cars. If using forced induction the capacity is X1.4 hence the 1000cc requirement. As it would predominately be up against old minis which tend to be just over 500kg and run around 180bhp it is going to be a challenge to make anything modern competitive. All recent stuff is very heavy in comparison so will need a considerable power advantage. Engine swaps are not permitted so a bike engine is out, most of the obvious choices have 3 pot lumps. Engine modifications are permitted provided it is the original block.
Considering building something using one of the current city cars. If using forced induction the capacity is X1.4 hence the 1000cc requirement. As it would predominately be up against old minis which tend to be just over 500kg and run around 180bhp it is going to be a challenge to make anything modern competitive. All recent stuff is very heavy in comparison so will need a considerable power advantage. Engine swaps are not permitted so a bike engine is out, most of the obvious choices have 3 pot lumps. Engine modifications are permitted provided it is the original block.
If you want max possible power you want 4 cylinders! This is because the total valve area will be larger with a short stroke 4 cyl engine of a given cubic capacity.
If you aren't regulation limited, then a turbo 1l 4 cyl bike engine is going to be un-beatable in terms of bhp/£ !
If you need to use a car engine, then pick a turbo 1.6 or 1.4 4 cyl and de-stroke it down to 1l
If you aren't regulation limited, then a turbo 1l 4 cyl bike engine is going to be un-beatable in terms of bhp/£ !
If you need to use a car engine, then pick a turbo 1.6 or 1.4 4 cyl and de-stroke it down to 1l
steve-V8s said:
The engine would be for hill climbing and sprinting in the up to 1400cc modified class.
I'd say the car was more important than the engine tbh, and so something that can actually put down 250+ bhp is going to be needed! fwd or rwd? Something like a de-stroked, turbo mr2 has got to be what you're looking for imo!(no reason you shouldn't be seeing the best part of 300bhp from a modern 1l turbo without too much work / cost running on high grade fuel and perhaps with some pre-cooling for the aftercooling system.... )
I’d go with something like a destroked 1.3 swift gti engine. Or there’s likely a more common more modern choice these days. Get it revving nice and high....sort of like half way between motorbike power delivery and car engine power delivery. And make sure you use a rotrex charger which boosts more the higher you rev so you don’t have a big torque lump that gets the wheels spinning for no reason, and sounds like naturally aspirated on steroids, and rewards you for using your gears and revs
steve-V8s said:
The engine would be for hill climbing and sprinting in the up to 1400cc modified class.
Considering building something using one of the current city cars. If using forced induction the capacity is X1.4 hence the 1000cc requirement. As it would predominately be up against old minis which tend to be just over 500kg and run around 180bhp it is going to be a challenge to make anything modern competitive. All recent stuff is very heavy in comparison so will need a considerable power advantage. Engine swaps are not permitted so a bike engine is out, most of the obvious choices have 3 pot lumps. Engine modifications are permitted provided it is the original block.
Start swapping engines and you're into Libre. Considering building something using one of the current city cars. If using forced induction the capacity is X1.4 hence the 1000cc requirement. As it would predominately be up against old minis which tend to be just over 500kg and run around 180bhp it is going to be a challenge to make anything modern competitive. All recent stuff is very heavy in comparison so will need a considerable power advantage. Engine swaps are not permitted so a bike engine is out, most of the obvious choices have 3 pot lumps. Engine modifications are permitted provided it is the original block.
And for some classes did they not change the multiplication to 1.7x ?
I recall a few years ago someone advertising a small 4wd Daihatsu or something, one of the little Jap 600cc city type sporty cars...might have been 4wd too that had been used for a low class in hillclimbs. And it did very well.
Something like that could have a lot of potential and stay within a lot of rules
Or again with some work...something like that could have potential and stay under a lot of rules.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Suzuki-Cappuccino/26436...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Suzuki-Cappuccino/26436...
I keep looking at the cappuccino, it particularly appeals because it has proper suspension and is rwd. All of the ones I have looked at are or have been very rusty. The other conundrum is fitting a cage. The silhouette has to remain unchanged so the cage would have to fit inside the hard top and have the required clearance above helmet height. They are so tiny it is difficult to see where the driver would fit.
The multiplier is still 1.4 in modified but 1.7 in road going. At 660cc however that is still fine obviously.
The multiplier is still 1.4 in modified but 1.7 in road going. At 660cc however that is still fine obviously.
otolith said:
Max_Torque said:
1) cheap!
2) small
3) RWD
4) Mid engined
5) reasonably modern 4valve engine
and did i mention
6) CHEAP !!!
Can't imagine it would be cheap option though.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff