RE: Ecoboost-Powered Radical Revealed
Monday 20th December 2010
Radical is set to reveal the latest version of its hardcore track car/road-legal racer - the SR3 SL - at the Autosport show in January.
Ecoboost-Powered Radical Revealed
Turbocharged Ford engine will power new Radical SR3 SL
According to Radical, the SL will be the company's most advanced sports car ever, and will be powered by a version of Ford's new 2.0-litre, Euro5-compliant Ecoboost engine.
This brand-new turbocharged unit features Twin-Independent Variable Cam Timing and state-of-the-art, high-pressure Direct Injection, and transmits its power to the road via a six-speed sequential gearbox. Radical has also tweaked the motor to provide it with 300bhp as standard.
And if the paddle-shift gearchange, fly-by-wire throttle, and 675kg kerb weight isn't extreme enough for you, Radical will offer a Race Pack, which includes options such as engine calibration map selection (giving 'road, 'wet' and 'racetrack' maps), an FIA-approved fuel cell, a bi-plane rear wing and racing tyre options.
As well as the SR3 SL, Radical will also reveal the SR8 RX with a new 2.7-litre RPX V8 at the Autosport show from 13-16 January.
Discussion
rhinochopig said:
No thanks - NA or SC engine please.
Why? Any 2.0 N/A engine will be VERY highly strung at these power levels, and the power band will be very narrow. Not good for a track day car that will be able to be driven on the road! As for driverability (including lag with turbocharged engines), direct injection allows much higher comp. to be run with boost. This helps to eliminate most of the lag that you would normal feel in a turbo car.I have a feeling they may have just stolen Caterhams thunder somewhat...
From what I've heard, this new EcoBoost engine is really really good. High power very easily with no need for expensive rebuilds and very linear non turbo like power delivery due to a small trick turbo that works very well at low RPM. Don't be too worried that it may feel wooly. I blieve it's really really good.
From what I've heard, this new EcoBoost engine is really really good. High power very easily with no need for expensive rebuilds and very linear non turbo like power delivery due to a small trick turbo that works very well at low RPM. Don't be too worried that it may feel wooly. I blieve it's really really good.
t off a shovel spring to mind.chuntington101 said:
rhinochopig said:
No thanks - NA or SC engine please.
Why? Any 2.0 N/A engine will be VERY highly strung at these power levels, and the power band will be very narrow. Not good for a track day car that will be able to be driven on the road! As for driverability (including lag with turbocharged engines), direct injection allows much higher comp. to be run with boost. This helps to eliminate most of the lag that you would normal feel in a turbo car.The other thing to factor in is that a modern N/A 2 litre will give you 220-250bhp without the added weight of a turbo, plumbing, IC, etc., which is also generally mass quite high in the car.
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion - I prefer N/A cars on track for the way they deliver their power. I just don't like the elasticity that a turbo introduces - and my current drive is an Evo RS so I'm not totally anti FI.
rhinochopig said:
chuntington101 said:
rhinochopig said:
No thanks - NA or SC engine please.
Why? Any 2.0 N/A engine will be VERY highly strung at these power levels, and the power band will be very narrow. Not good for a track day car that will be able to be driven on the road! As for driverability (including lag with turbocharged engines), direct injection allows much higher comp. to be run with boost. This helps to eliminate most of the lag that you would normal feel in a turbo car.The other thing to factor in is that a modern N/A 2 litre will give you 220-250bhp without the added weight of a turbo, plumbing, IC, etc., which is also generally mass quite high in the car.
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion - I prefer N/A cars on track for the way they deliver their power. I just don't like the elasticity that a turbo introduces - and my current drive is an Evo RS so I'm not totally anti FI.
I've owned a couple of turbocharged cars and driven a few on track, and I must confess, the turbo does tend to dominate the experience when it comes to sorting out the right lines and acceleration points etc. For me, that is to the detriment of the whole experience. As for the narrow power band of a tuned engine, that's also frustrating at times, but nowhere near as much as turbo lag.Also, I don't know much about the technicalities of engines, but I'm a bit confused how an engine is "eco" because it's got a turbo, if it's always going to run flat out with the turbo on full song? Doesn't the turbo effectively just increase the capacity by forcing more air in per unit time, and an equivalent amount of fuel is required to maintain the fuel/air ratio? I suppose the frictional losses are a bit less?!
Nice to see Radical trying a less stressed engine though, and perhaps one that will require fewer engine rebuilds to race. Comparisons with Sports 2000 cars are inevitable of course...
rhinochopig said:
chuntington101 said:
rhinochopig said:
No thanks - NA or SC engine please.
Why? Any 2.0 N/A engine will be VERY highly strung at these power levels, and the power band will be very narrow. Not good for a track day car that will be able to be driven on the road! As for driverability (including lag with turbocharged engines), direct injection allows much higher comp. to be run with boost. This helps to eliminate most of the lag that you would normal feel in a turbo car.The other thing to factor in is that a modern N/A 2 litre will give you 220-250bhp without the added weight of a turbo, plumbing, IC, etc., which is also generally mass quite high in the car.
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion - I prefer N/A cars on track for the way they deliver their power. I just don't like the elasticity that a turbo introduces - and my current drive is an Evo RS so I'm not totally anti FI.
Andrew[MG] said:
rhinochopig said:
chuntington101 said:
rhinochopig said:
No thanks - NA or SC engine please.
Why? Any 2.0 N/A engine will be VERY highly strung at these power levels, and the power band will be very narrow. Not good for a track day car that will be able to be driven on the road! As for driverability (including lag with turbocharged engines), direct injection allows much higher comp. to be run with boost. This helps to eliminate most of the lag that you would normal feel in a turbo car.The other thing to factor in is that a modern N/A 2 litre will give you 220-250bhp without the added weight of a turbo, plumbing, IC, etc., which is also generally mass quite high in the car.
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion - I prefer N/A cars on track for the way they deliver their power. I just don't like the elasticity that a turbo introduces - and my current drive is an Evo RS so I'm not totally anti FI.
edb49 said:
675kg though, how come a Caterham R500 is 175kg lighter with a 2ltr Ford engine?
The Caterham is a different sort of car. For comparison Sports 2000s weigh about 600kg I think with the 2L n/a Duratec onboard. For a start, a Caterham is physically smaller, so it has less chassis and less bodywork. I'd also guess that the Radical is a bit stronger too, and don't forget that the full race cage on a Caterham race car weighs a good bit more than the standard rollbar that Caterham use for their quoted weights (out of interest, most owners have the FIA rollbar, which weighs a similar amount to a full cage). If you look at the lap times, the Radical is a lot faster for a given bhp, which is down to grip, mainly mechanical but with mild downforce; and that mechanical grip requires bigger and heavier tyres and wheels, which require stronger suspension components etc. Also, the turbo gubbins on the engine must weigh a fair bit. It is an interesting comparison though, and I was slightly surprised to see the weight of this Radical so far above 600kg.RobM77 said:
edb49 said:
675kg though, how come a Caterham R500 is 175kg lighter with a 2ltr Ford engine?
The Caterham is a different sort of car. For comparison Sports 2000s weigh about 600kg I think with the 2L n/a Duratec onboard. For a start, a Caterham is physically smaller, so it has less chassis and less bodywork. I'd also guess that the Radical is a bit stronger too, and don't forget that the full race cage on a Caterham race car weighs a good bit more than the standard rollbar that Caterham use for their quoted weights (out of interest, most owners have the FIA rollbar, which weighs a similar amount to a full cage). If you look at the lap times, the Radical is a lot faster for a given bhp, which is down to grip, mainly mechanical but with mild downforce; and that mechanical grip requires bigger and heavier tyres and wheels, which require stronger suspension components etc. Also, the turbo gubbins on the engine must weigh a fair bit. It is an interesting comparison though, and I was slightly surprised to see the weight of this Radical so far above 600kg.RobM77 said:
I'm a bit confused how an engine is "eco" because it's got a turbo, if it's always going to run flat out with the turbo on full song? Doesn't the turbo effectively just increase the capacity by forcing more air in per unit time, and an equivalent amount of fuel is required to maintain the fuel/air ratio? I suppose the frictional losses are a bit less?!
The "eco" bit is just taken from the engine's name from Ford- obviously in this application it will be far from "eco"! :-)In answer to the other bit of your question, you're right in what the turbo is doing, but when you're off-boost you're flowing a disproportionately small mass of air hence need much less fuel to keep ticking over. So you can have a car with a lot of power that's relatively economical when pottering about.
It's not necessarily quite that simple, but something like that anyway...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff