|
|
|
May 27, 2009 10:49:39 GMT
|
|
Bare Imp block is around 10 Kg. When I'm at home next I'll weigh it.
EDIT - not that I'm suggesting it, of course - it's difficult and expensive to get 100bhp. More is possible, but again is very expensive.
|
| |
Last Edit: May 27, 2009 11:19:30 GMT by jrevillug
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 11:55:28 GMT
|
When I rebuilt mine I had the bottom end all complete with internals with the exception of the sump and it weighed about 10kg's less than a bare Kent crossfolw block! somehow I doubt that, a bare block weighs 40kgs, a complete bottom end would never weigh 30kg unless it was made from carbon fibre  I have a picture somewhere of the two engines on the scales, i'll see if i can dig it out from my old computer...just to prove you wrong. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 12:09:04 GMT
|
somehow I doubt that, a bare block weighs 40kgs, a complete bottom end would never weigh 30kg unless it was made from carbon fibre I don't know about the TU, but the Imp engine does - and that's 1960s technology. Block (presumably inc. pistons and rods): 14 Kg Crank: 10 Kg Flywheel: 7 Kg All together: 31 Kg Okay, so I found the list online, but I trust the source. I haven't measured one myself, though. A friend of mine used to have an Imp...and a clan crusader for that matter, and he was telling me that the TU engine is just a bit lighter than the Imp engine. Apparently he knew a guy who swapped the engine in his imp for a TU engine for that reason and because he could get more reliable power from it. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 12:35:33 GMT
|
|
Lighter? I didn't know that. Sort of changes things, really.
Now, where's me angle grinder?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 12:51:52 GMT
|
|
Going back to the k-series, one other advantage is they are VERY well balanced OEM. It may be that all modern engines are pretty good these days, but when I rebuilt the rally car engine (1.4 k), there was 1g or less difference between each complete piston/conrod assembly inc bolts.I remember being rather.disappointed because there weren't lots of after market gains to be had [lol]
However, it should mean they are good for more that the OEM 6800 redline with an aftermarket ECU.
It might be worth searching for the Dave Andrews website. He's got shedloads of info on tuning K's. It will give you a good idea of what is achievable for what cost.
|
| |
|
|
kee
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,991
|
|
May 27, 2009 14:24:03 GMT
|
yeah i read a lot of that dave andrews site a bit back, interested but i seem to remember him suggesting 200bhp was a maximum reliable output. what kind of power do those TU engines put out and how tuneable are they? if they really are that light i'd be interested ;D and popup, yeah i believe the pinto is very heavy, hence the boat anchor nickname, and i daren't imagine an iron v6 lol. a x/flow is heavy for me as my arms are approximately the same size as one of its conrods  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 16:29:03 GMT
|
what kind of power do those TU engines put out and how tuneable are they? if they really are that light i'd be interested ;D The best 1360cc all alloy ones were 85bhp in standard form but 100bhp can be easily found from just a 4branch manifold (the standard one is properly curse word) and some good carbs (i suggest bike carbs as i'm using them on mine with good results) If you keep the standard 8valve head then i would say that the max power that can be achived is around the 150bhp mark. Some engine builders however have chopped a 16valve head on and gotten up to the 190bhp mark, which is damm good from a 1360cc engine whichever way you look at it. I'm rebuilding my engine soon and i'm aiming for 120bhp with this being to proposed spec: 8v cylinder head, std valve sizes, gas flowed ports 284 Dr Schrick cam with vernier pulley 4 branch manifold, standard mid section and rear box 40mm bike carbs on custom manifold XSI domed pistons with valve pockets, balanced Standard rods, balanced standard crank assembly, balanced DTA mappable ignition |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 18:20:03 GMT
|
Some engine builders however have chopped a 16valve head on and gotten up to the 190bhp mark, which is damm good from a 1360cc engine whichever way you look at it. Sorry to sound a sceptic, but 190bhp from a 1.4 has got to be as peaky as the Alps! It might be fine on the track but would be horrid to live with on the road. There's an article in this month's PPC about a Westfield with a Fireblade engine. Between 150 and 180 bhp OEM depending on model, but revs to 12k!! And at the expense of a massively complex inlet/airbox with a second set of injectors. They had to change the airbox arrangement and it cost them 20bhp! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 20:16:33 GMT
|
Some engine builders however have chopped a 16valve head on and gotten up to the 190bhp mark, which is damm good from a 1360cc engine whichever way you look at it. Sorry to sound a sceptic, but 190bhp from a 1.4 has got to be as peaky as the Alps! It might be fine on the track but would be horrid to live with on the road. There's an article in this month's PPC about a Westfield with a Fireblade engine. Between 150 and 180 bhp OEM depending on model, but revs to 12k!! And at the expense of a massively complex inlet/airbox with a second set of injectors. They had to change the airbox arrangement and it cost them 20bhp! Quite right, as far as i know they're being used a sprint engines, so it's flat out all the way. |
| |
|
|
kee
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,991
|
|
May 27, 2009 21:23:30 GMT
|
|
hmm, think i'll leave that then and stick with a more user friendly sigma engine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
v8ian
Posted a lot
Posts: 3,832
|
|
May 27, 2009 21:29:16 GMT
|
|
Dihatsu Charade whizzy turbo 3 cyl thing,
PUG 106 GTI16v thats a stonkin little engine.
|
| |
Atmo V8 Power . No slicks , No gas + No bits missing . Doing it in style.
Austin A35van, very different------- but still doing it in style, going to be a funmoble
|
|
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 21:34:08 GMT
|
PUG 106 GTI16v thats a stonkin little engine. Iron block though, heavy as sin |
| |
|
|
