SuzukiHayabusa.org
TECHNICAL => ALL MOTOR TALK => Topic started by: jorma on July 07, 2005, 09:01:04 PM
-
If money were not a consideration (within reason, no billet cranks or ceramic rods), how much HP could a stock displacement crank out and what would you do to get there? Port, titanium valves, big C/R, dry sump, Motec ECU, big cam numbers....if you're going to dream - dream big!
-
210-220 Head Work, Cams, Compression, Fuel, and $ is all it takes. Oh and someone to put all that together and be able to back up the claims (priceless!)
-
yep but it wouldn't last
-
In my little world constrained by reality, it's hard to get much more than low 190's out of a 1300 without resorting to dyno and fuel tricks. I should add, though, that is based upon testing around 1000 ft above sea level. This is mentioned because I do not believe correction factors correctly explain engine results particularly when elevation differences is a variable.
-
Johnnnycheese,
What do you think would fail or be the weak link?
-
Probably your wallet. :wink:
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Johnnnycheese,
What do you think would fail or be the weak link?
Testing it in public on an honest dyno. :wink:
-
With a good exhaust, cams, filter, box mod, stacks, powe commander and a good map you can get mid 170's to low 180's. With some race gas I would guess around low to upper 180's, with head work maybe low 190's. I'm no expert though, just taking a guess.
-
Johnnnycheese,
What do you think would fail or be the weak link?
Testing it in public on an honest dyno. :wink:
Nice! :lmao:
-
Jorma
No disrepect intended.
-
Jorma
No disrepect intended.
Ditto.........I could not resist.
-
Dyno claims--- priceless DF
-
Ceramic rods...??
J
PS, low budget 1347cc made 199hp on Cali pump gas and 205 with non ox fuel..
-
With a good exhaust, cams, filter, box mod, stacks, powe commander and a good map you can get mid 170's to low 180's. With some race gas I would guess around low to upper 180's, with head work maybe low 190's. I'm no expert though, just taking a guess.
Got a buddy with an 01, Yosh pipe, Yosh cam on intake, stock intake on the exhaust, small box with all shorts, fresh valve job w/ no port work, stock block piston never been out w/ 16000 miles, 179hp @ 99 ftlbs.
-
My bike with BDE Gen III, BMC Race, Small box mod, all shorts, Webb int/exh cams makes 179/103 with no head work on a low dyno.
-
The most I've seen is about 180
-
Here is a link to old Dragbike.Com article in which Kevin Hunt from KWS is featured putting together a very decent street, stock bore Hayabusa which delivers 186HP.
http://www.dragbike.com/news/04-00/042700a.htm
-
Here is one that are made by Atom racing in Sweden a few years ago. Stock bore and a home made exhaust....
http://www.kiruna.se/~mgrape/bighajja1300.htm
-
the origional post was what if money was no issue. so with that what could one make, not a street motor but a all out stock bore stock stroke motor? does any body know what a competetive 1298 4 valve pro stock motor made before people realized the advantage of a 1500 cc 2 valver?
-
Here is one that are made by Atom racing in Sweden a few years ago. Stock bore and a home made exhaust....
http://www.kiruna.se/~mgrape/bighajja1300.htm
Wow, "home made" exhaust must of had a Serious "kanooter" valve and DR. Turbo... :D
-
Here is a link to old Dragbike.Com article in which Kevin Hunt from KWS is featured putting together a very decent street, stock bore Hayabusa which delivers 186HP.
http://www.dragbike.com/news/04-00/042700a.htm
The only thing I'd disagree with in the article is you can remove the head and time the cams with the engine in the frame.
-
Mike, it is interesting that both you and Kevin got 186HP out of very similar set-ups. But you did it with smaller cams which more than likely says something about your heads..........they work.
-
yep but it wouldn't last
Why not explain.
-
Ceramic rods...??
J
PS, low budget 1347cc made 199hp on Cali pump gas and 205 with non ox fuel..
Probably meant Ceramic Bearings
-
Here is one that are made by Atom racing in Sweden a few years ago. Stock bore and a home made exhaust....
http://www.kiruna.se/~mgrape/bighajja1300.htm
Yngve, I know from other correspondence that there are one or two guys in Sweden that really know their stuff. With respect to the Atom engine, does it have an epoxied head and will the home made exhaust fit within the stock plastic?
-
the origional post was what if money was no issue. so with that what could one make, not a street motor but a all out stock bore stock stroke motor? does any body know what a competetive 1298 4 valve pro stock motor made before people realized the advantage of a 1500 cc 2 valver?
I am not familiar with all of the thinking that went into restricting NHRA ProStock bikes to two valves per cylinder, but I tend to believe it has something to do with leveling the playing field, politics or restricting speeds than it does with any inherent advantage of a two valve design over a four valve design. I would argue that a four valve design is capable of making more power than a two valve design.
-
Hey Dark the point i was trying to get across is alot of people dont seem to think that a stock bore/stroke busa motor will make much more than 200 horse and many dont seem to think one will make that much. But for quite awhile NHRA prostockers were 1298cc 4 valve motors that made more than 200 horse. Difference is 66mm stroke vs 63 with the Busa having a much better head than a gs1100 or 1150. probably better than anything in that era period. So why do people have such a hard time with believing that giving the attention to detail and r&d of a prostock motor that a stock bore and stroke motor couldnt make 225-240 hp?
-
Thomas, I now understand what you are saying. One of the big guns would have to invest the talent, time and resources to make the Busa spin to 14,000 RPM and generate 104 ft#'s of torque to produce 275 HP which would be fairly proportional to the results obtained with a 1.5 liter producing 320 HP.
-
While we're on the topic what would it take to get a Busa motor to spin to 14K and live. I've got a piece of paper with my crank saying it was balanced to spin to 14k sustained, but what about everything hooked to it. The valvetrain would be my guess for the weakest link(s). Sure there are some great springs out there, but how many of them have been tested at those speeds and for how long. I spoke to someone on the topic of valvesprings (for a ZX9) and heard some interesting things, which I haven't tried to prove yet. Apparantly anything but springs sourced from a select few Japaneese suppliers are crap. They fatigue and break under high rpms and ultimately destroy the engine. Well that's only one part of it. What about weight I would think the entire valvetrain would have to go on a diet. Then with the entire assembly "balanced" including rods/pistons, maybe the motor will turn 14K and we already know that with the right setup these motors are already making power way past redline.
-
Absolute, I think valve train weight would need to be reduced along with the weight of all reciprocating components. The current bore/stroke ratio would need to be changed......bigger bore and less stroke... to reduce mean piston speed and provide room for larger valves.
-
I would cryo age most of the reciprocating components too.
-
Now if I could just get my hands on one of the hand full of short stroke billet cranks made in the UK for formula 1 sidecar racing!
-
Now if I could just get my hands on one of the hand full of short stroke billet cranks made in the UK for formula 1 sidecar racing!
It would be easier to get your hands on Pam Anderson's tits. :wink:
-
They're not what they used to be.....and I don't mean the cranks.
-
They're not what they used to be.....and I don't mean the cranks.
:lmao:
The Honda 600RR spins, I think, to 15,000 RPM. The material below features some of the technology featured in the engine.
Lightweight, New 'Slipper' Pistons
Minimising reciprocating weight and mass were also important goals in design of the new CBR600RR's engine in the quest for both higher rpms and higher power while maintaining top reliability. The engine's new skirtless forged 'slipper' pistons are significantly shorter and 15g lighter than the pistons currently used by the CBR600F and F/S. Each piston's set of advanced, lightweight and-at 0.8mm thickness for the top ring-ultra-thin rings boast superior resistance to power-robbing flutter at high velocities, and to blowby when high piston speeds meet high compression-characteristics augmented by the Honda-developed PMC (Powdered Metal Composite) aluminium/ceramic cylinder sleeves in which these pistons slide. For further minimised reciprocal weight, the pistons are mounted to the ends of their connecting rods by way of shorter, smaller diameter, and 8g lighter tool steel wrist pins.
'Nutless' Connecting Rods
Connecting rods also play a big part in helping to achieve peak power-producing engine speeds, and excessive weight or mass here slows response and acceleration while introducing vibration and stress that can adversely affect operation at higher rpms. The new CBR600RR's connecting rods feature a lighter 'Nutless' design first pioneered on the VTR1000F and VTR1000 SP-2, which use standard threaded bolts screwed directly into tapped holes in the body of the rod, instead of the conventional nut and bolt combination used in most rods to hold their endcaps in place. Requiring only one tool to assemble, the new design is 12g lighter than the conventional bolt and nut combination, for a total weight savings of approximately 35g per cylinder, or 140g overall. This significant reduction in reciprocating weight makes a major contribution to reducing the engine's mechanical load to help the new CBR600RR achieve a much more aggressively sharp feeling of responsive acceleration.
The RR's new connecting rods have also been carburised for an ultra-hard outer surface that ensures an optimal balance of strength and durability over the course of riding and racing extremes.
The end result of all these improvements is a quicker-revving engine that produces strong power throughout its wide rev range and almost instantaneous bursts of blistering acceleration.
-
'Nutless' Connecting Rods
quote] He He...You said nutless.
-
maybe this should be in another Post , but here goes
DOES anyone have experience with the Busa motor reving past say 11,500rpm and under what conditions / applications.
I remember Motorhead mentioned sometime ago on this forum that he revved them harder 12K or maybe 13K even?
Its when you do the calcs for piston velocities and acceleration rates then translate these numbers to loads on pistons it becomes scary wrt what is acknowledged as "safe"
I also wonder if cryo work on cranks, pistons and rods is beneficial or more fashionable.??
-
Now if I could just get my hands on one of the hand full of short stroke billet cranks made in the UK for formula 1 sidecar racing!
I know of one thats 58mm stroke. Newer been run because the rules changed...
If U really need one I can problaby get it cheep(ish).
-
I also have 186 H.P. out of a stock bore bike using the factory stock bore oem piston's, i choose the stock pistons because they are lighter and better.
I port my own head's and had a 3 angle serdi valve job done with valve springs from japan, crank was lightned and balanced and I balanced my rod's and piston's, as for cams,I am running the yosh cam's bmc filter and my own modded box, after market fuel pump and regulater.
This bike runs 201.5 + MPH in 9/10's, with the new cam #s i have it will run 203+ in the 9/10's
all of the Busas i have done with head work and the yosh cams with myself as pilot run 199MPh - 200 MPH in 9/10's.
-
My friends 99 bike made 186 at the back wheel with this spec:
Yoshi cams.
Skimmed/ported head. (better off skimming the block not head!)
Stock pistons.
Yoshi Tri-oval system.
Full airbox mod.
All short stacks.
PCII with custom map.
It ran through a speed trap at 201 mph.
Could probably find another 4 to 5 brake by modding the ECU to extent the RPM ceiling 500 revs or so and re-dialling the cams to move the power up a bit.
-
Mine was still making power @ redline. An extended ECU plus a Sumo would have put me in the low 190's. My cam timimg was 105/106- .007 off the head. After riding the bike for over a month now it works great as a daily rider. My goal was to get max HP without pulling the cylinder. Decking generally works better than head milling- that's a given. My motor never left the frame. :wink:
-
Mike, for a given deck height why would surfacing the cylinder deck yield any advantages? I would see it as a tool to achieve a target deck height while surfacing the head will yield a slightly higher CR.
-
Mike, for a given deck height why would surfacing the cylinder deck yield any advantages? I would see it as a tool to achieve a target deck height while surfacing the head will yield a slightly higher CR.
Apparently on the Busa motor skimming the head shrouds the valves.
-
Mine was still making power @ redline.
Yup the Yoshi cams do carry the power, I can't find the 186bhp graph but this is one of the runs where it made 184. As you say the power is being carried right up to the limiter.
(http://www.Busa.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HHPOWER.jpg)[/img]
-
If you can shorten the deck to get the .040 or .039 I'd always go that route first. The CR will increase BUT the question is really good as the smaller chamber will burn better for sure and get the CR up faster. I'd like to ask does anyone round the chamber edges after milling (or decking) to help with the "squeeze" during compression cycle. I'll tell what I do after some feedback.
-
Mine was still making power @ redline.
Yup the Yoshi cams do carry the power, I can't find the 186bhp graph but this is one of the runs where it made 184. As you say the power is being carried right up to the limiter.
(http://www.Busa.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HHPOWER.jpg)[/img]
I'd say that was flat @ 9,750. You have that blip @7,500 though with the peak torque. What were the cam #'s.
-
Mike, for a given deck height why would surfacing the cylinder deck yield any advantages? I would see it as a tool to achieve a target deck height while surfacing the head will yield a slightly higher CR.
Apparently on the Busa motor skimming the head shrouds the valves.
I guess it depends on the porting and valve job. I really don't think .007 will shroud enough to hurt a stock bore especially in regard to helping compression. Once again I would like to hear what people do with the chamber edge.
-
the origional post was what if money was no issue. so with that what could one make, not a street motor but a all out stock bore stock stroke motor? does any body know what a competetive 1298 4 valve pro stock motor made before people realized the advantage of a 1500 cc 2 valver?
Maybe I can shed some light on this issue that since I worked for two NHRA Pro Stock motorcycle teams from 1987 to 1989. Most, if not all racers that used Suzuki 4-valve motors used either 1261 or 1321 cc displacement at the time. There was a weight penalty for the larger displacement; so most engine builders/riders went quicker with the 1261 versus the 1321. However, both engine sizes were on the dyno extensively. The 1261 dynod in the low to mid 220s depending on builder and the 1321 were in the low 240s. This is with 66 mm stroke and compression high enough to run diesel…
Wolf
-
I have always been a fan of motorcycle engine technology. When Honda began testing and applying 4 valve technology to GP bikes in the late 50's/early 60's the British laughed as they knew through extensive testing that 2 valve heads always flowed better. Thing was the British never explored the limits of flame front travel etc at really high RPM's. Honda discovered that one could sustain flame front beyond 20,000 and the only thing that could support that- not to that limit but with available technology- was a 4 valve head. Steep valve angles, air cooled egines , materials etc didn't allow such RPM's on larger bores. Nevertheless the 250-6 revved to something like 15,000 RPM's stillmaking power. The point is 2 valve heads will support tremendous HP through airflow just at a lower redline. Vortex heads-which rule 4 cylinder Pro Stock- support this fact. It is also easier to get a higher CR with a 2 valve head as the chamber can be smaller too. Can anybody add to this?
-
It is also easier to get a higher CR with a 2 valve head as the chamber can be smaller too.
To the contrary, it was harder to achieve very high compression ratios on the 2-valve Kawasaki Pro Stock engines at the time. This was due to the valve angle in the head and a large, almost hemi like combustion chamber. It was much easier to achieve desired compression ratios with Suzuki’s shallow “pentroof “ combustion chamber. That was one of the reason most of the field at the time used Suzuki 4-valve engine. The late Dave Schultz was the only one that was (somewhat) competitive with his Byron built 2-valve Kawasaki. NHRA changed the rules a few years after I left the sport and it became advantageous to use 2-valve heads. However neither the GS 1000 or Kawasaki’s heads supported the airflow needed for a 1500 cc engine. Hence the Vortex large port, large valve heads. I do not know how the valve angle and combustion size on those heads compared to the stock 2-valve heads. They might be shallower and lend themselves better to high compression
As far as 20k rpm, we will see that in Formula 1 next year since they are changing the engine rules from 3.0 liter V-10s to 2.4 liter V-8s. They are already exceeding that rpm on test engines… Currently, the V-10 revs to just over 19k and lasts (mostly) two complete race weekends.
Wolf
-
The point is 2 valve heads will support tremendous HP through airflow just at a lower redline. Vortex heads-which rule 4 cylinder Pro Stock
Vortex heads rule 4 cylinder Pro Stock because of 1500cc vs 1327 on the 4 valve. If the 4 valve were allowed 1500 you would see 300+ hp out of 4 cylinder and 6,8 et..
-
To the contrary, it was harder to achieve very high compression ratios on the 2-valve Kawasaki Pro Stock engines at the time. This was due to the valve angle in the head and a large, almost hemi like combustion chamber. It was much easier to achieve desired compression ratios with Suzuki’s shallow “pentroof “ combustion chamber. That was one of the reason most of the field at the time used Suzuki 4-valve engine. /quote]
I would only add that combustion turbulence inherent in the compact pentroof design allows for yet further increases in CR's.
-
It is also easier to get a higher CR with a 2 valve head as the chamber can be smaller too.
To the contrary, it was harder to achieve very high compression ratios on the 2-valve Kawasaki Pro Stock engines at the time. This was due to the valve angle in the head and a large, almost hemi like combustion chamber. It was much easier to achieve desired compression ratios with Suzuki’s shallow “pentroof “ combustion chamber. That was one of the reason most of the field at the time used Suzuki 4-valve engine. The late Dave Schultz was the only one that was (somewhat) competitive with his Byron built 2-valve Kawasaki. NHRA changed the rules a few years after I left the sport and it became advantageous to use 2-valve heads. However neither the GS 1000 or Kawasaki’s heads supported the airflow needed for a 1500 cc engine. Hence the Vortex large port, large valve heads. I do not know how the valve angle and combustion size on those heads compared to the stock 2-valve heads. They might be shallower and lend themselves better to high compression
As far as 20k rpm, we will see that in Formula 1 next year since they are changing the engine rules from 3.0 liter V-10s to 2.4 liter V-8s. They are already exceeding that rpm on test engines… Currently, the V-10 revs to just over 19k and lasts (mostly) two complete race weekends.
Wolf
I totally agree with you on the OEM 2 valve heads and CR difficulties. I know one person who raced a CB-SOHC in the early 70's and had to resort to things like positive deck height of .200 with a counterbore in the head to get the CR he wanted. This also caused problems with valve reliefs which broke through the top ring groove. They called it a custom gas port. Valve to vlave clearence was about .025 and only worked because of Ti valves:wink: My point, which I should have stated better and not after 2 Chimay Ales, would be a 2 valve engine has the potential for a smaller chamber and would flow enough if you can get the valve angle down. As far as the 20,000RPM, I'm sure they are way beyond that. I just think it is interesting Honda was testing such limitsand making 2 cylinder 50cc engines that revved to 19,700RPM almost 50 years ago.
-
The point is 2 valve heads will support tremendous HP through airflow just at a lower redline. Vortex heads-which rule 4 cylinder Pro Stock
Vortex heads rule 4 cylinder Pro Stock because of 1500cc vs 1327 on the 4 valve. If the 4 valve were allowed 1500 you would see 300+ hp out of 4 cylinder and 6,8 et..
Well, the rules are the rules. I doubt if you'd see 300+ HP if you slapped an FJ head on. :wink:
-
My point, which I should have stated better and not after 2 Chimay Ales, would be a 2 valve engine has the potential for a smaller chamber and would flow enough if you can get the valve angle down. As far as the 20,000RPM, I'm sure they are way beyond that.
Blue Chimay is my favorite...........and I believe it has the highest alcohol content. :wink:
-
My point, which I should have stated better and not after 2 Chimay Ales, would be a 2 valve engine has the potential for a smaller chamber and would flow enough if you can get the valve angle down. As far as the 20,000RPM, I'm sure they are way beyond that.
Blue Chimay is my favorite...........and I believe it has the highest alcohol content. :wink:
Grande Reserve my friend...I guess we have something in common. :wink:
-
[/quote] I know one person who raced a CB-SOHC in the early 70's and had to resort to things like positive deck height of .200 with a counterbore in the head to get the CR he wanted. [/quote]
Based on your location, I have a feeling that was my former boss Rick. He used to race CB 750 before the GS1100.
Wolf
-
I know one person who raced a CB-SOHC in the early 70's and had to resort to things like positive deck height of .200 with a counterbore in the head to get the CR he wanted. [/quote]
Based on your location, I have a feeling that was my former boss Rick. He used to race CB 750 before the GS1100.
Wolf[/quote] Bingo. You must know Dana Johnson(a very good friend of mine).
-
I know one person who raced a CB-SOHC in the early 70's and had to resort to things like positive deck height of .200 with a counterbore in the head to get the CR he wanted.
Based on your location, I have a feeling that was my former boss Rick. He used to race CB 750 before the GS1100.
Wolf[/quote] Bingo. You must know Dana Johnson(a very good friend of mine).[/quote]
Dana is a good friend of mine and has been very helpful with Gerry's Bonneville projects. You must know Stanley as well?
Wolf
-
Was looking at Bonneville records. Someone called Rick Yacoucci went 220mph in 2001 in the 1350cc class. Presumably it was a Busa and close to 1300cc. Obviously making good HP. Anyone know details?
-
I know one person who raced a CB-SOHC in the early 70's and had to resort to things like positive deck height of .200 with a counterbore in the head to get the CR he wanted.
Based on your location, I have a feeling that was my former boss Rick. He used to race CB 750 before the GS1100.
Wolf
Bingo. You must know Dana Johnson(a very good friend of mine).[/quote]
Dana is a good friend of mine and has been very helpful with Gerry's Bonneville projects. You must know Stanley as well?
Wolf[/quote] I've met Stanley several times but I haven't had to use his services as I have mostly done work with plain bearing cranks. He did refuse to modify an FJ basket for me though :? Anyway you and I know many of the same fella's. I have Zint @ Lindskog do most of my balancing stuff. Do you know Dave Gilbert by any chance???
-
I've met Stanley several times but I haven't had to use his services as I have mostly done work with plain bearing cranks. He did refuse to modify an FJ basket for me though :? Anyway you and I know many of the same fella's. I have Zint @ Lindskog do most of my balancing stuff. Do you know Dave Gilbert by any chance???
Stanley is a funny fellow. I know both Zint and Dave as well. Where you around HMP in 1987-1989? I worked for both Rick and George Bryce during those years.
Wolf
-
Was looking at Bonneville records. Someone called Rick Yacoucci went 220mph in 2001 in the 1350cc class. Presumably it was a Busa and close to 1300cc. Obviously making good HP. Anyone know details?
This is a different Rick. His company has built several Bonneville bike for a guy named Gerry. Among them a 1989 turbo nitrous GSXR 1100 that set a record of 214+ MPH despite wastegate problems. That was the worlds fastest Suzuki for the better part of a decade. As it turns out, it was also one of the last bikes I worked on before I started my military career.
Wolf
-
I've met Stanley several times but I haven't had to use his services as I have mostly done work with plain bearing cranks. He did refuse to modify an FJ basket for me though :? Anyway you and I know many of the same fella's. I have Zint @ Lindskog do most of my balancing stuff. Do you know Dave Gilbert by any chance???
Stanley is a funny fellow. I know both Zint and Dave as well. Where you around HMP in 1987-1989? I worked for both Rick and George Bryce during those years.
Wolf
Nice way of putting it :wink: I was still in RI during that time...I just missed you. Shoot me a PM with your name - I'm seeing Dana and Dave tomorrow and I'll say hello for you sir. :wink: You near Biddeford in Maine or real north?