Good Engines for BEC's
Page 1 of 6

Author:  palacajoe [ September 12, 2006, 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Good Engines for BEC's

What's everyones opinions on the best engines for a high-performance BEC? Of course, there's there's the Hayabusa. The BMW 1200? Yamaha R1?

Author:  KB58 [ September 12, 2006, 7:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Depends what your definition of "best" is... which will be different than everyone elses. Me, I vote R1 since it doesn't need a $2000 dry-sump.

Author:  palacajoe [ September 12, 2006, 8:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, I guess there are a lot of variables in the "best" equation, price being a big one.

Why no dry sump? Is the R1 mounted transverse?

Author:  R1 Seven [ September 12, 2006, 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

I am not sure the *exact* reason, but most of the 1 liter and under bike engines do not need a dry sump. They can usually get away with either nothing at all or just a modified baffle in the sump. Most 1 liter or under motors can be had for $1500 or less. Add nearly a K to that for a Hyabusa for example + that (total engine cost) much more for a dry sump setup.

Another + for the R1 is that the output ends up a little closer to the centerline, meaning that it does not need to be set as far over to the driver's side.

Author:  chrisf [ September 13, 2006, 9:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Don't discount the BMW yet. It comes stock with a dry sump and plenty of power. Of course, because it's so new, the BMW builder will be blazing the trail. Still, I think it is a great engine for those in the market for something bigger than 1 liter.

I personally plan on using the 1 liter Yamaha snowmobile engine (RX-1) for my next build. It is essentially an R1, but with a CVT. It's down a bit on power (150) but includes a dry sump system stock. It can also be had with an integrated reverse--something US BEC builders seem to fret about. The most challenging part will be getting the CVT sorted. But I'm still a year or so out from a new project.


Author:  Spaz [ September 13, 2006, 10:55 am ]
Post subject: 

RX1 motor, wow that motor is very nice, too bad you can not use the R1 tranny to hook up to it.

This guys is using it using R1 Fuel injection.


Author:  Dave [ September 13, 2006, 11:41 am ]
Post subject: 

the 2.3L Triumph Rocket engine sounds promising. Buckets of power and torque, shaft drive, etc.

Discussed a bit on the NA List - http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Loc ... sage/36975

Author:  mr.peabody.d [ September 13, 2006, 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

That BMW is that a R series (boxer) or K series (Inline 4)?

Author:  chrisf [ September 13, 2006, 8:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

RX1 motor, wow that motor is very nice, too bad you can not use the R1 tranny to hook up to it.

I don't want the R1 gearbox, I want the CVT from the RX1. Why shift at all?

That's a great site; thanks for sharing that one!


Author:  R1 Seven [ September 13, 2006, 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Why shift? That is half the fun! :P

Honestly, that is my whole reservation about the CVT thing...no shift...engine at one tone until you run out of "gear" on the top end. That is just not right...

I know all the pluses of the CVT...but it still ain't right for a car.

Author:  Spaz [ September 15, 2006, 11:54 am ]
Post subject: 

No shifting, :(

Does anyone know if the dry sump set-up from the RX1 will bolt up to the R1 bike motor, with the drive gears on the other side?

Wait a minute, the R1 motor doesn't "need" a sump, correct?

Author:  KB58 [ September 15, 2006, 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Correct, as far as I know they don't starve in a car application using the stock sump.

Author:  sniece [ July 8, 2007, 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

So I haven't really seen any 750 engined BECs, and had started to consider one for my (future) build. For most of them, I can see the reasoning, 900cc+ has more torque, etc. However, a 10 year old GSXR 750 comes within 7 lb-ft of torque, and beats the hp of a 900RR Fireblade (which seems to be a popular choice) of the same vintage. Other 750cc bikes certainly seem to be down vs. 900s, but the Suzuki seems like a good option. I'm thinking that 750s may be more plentiful (around here anyway, I understand that insurance jumps significantly once you exceed 750cc)

Is there anything else I'm missing here?


Author:  KB58 [ July 8, 2007, 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, the big problem is that these engines are being asked to move something that weighs 3-4x as much as the bike. For that reason you need to try really, really hard to keep weight down. Even then, it's good to have as much torque as you can get, and that means displacement. I keep going back and forth between the R1 and Hayabusa. Yeah it doesn't rev to 13Krpm, but it has a lot more torque, perfect for a "car" application.

The R1 will work great IF you can build a car as far below 1000lbs as you can make it. That's not easy, though this is a very opinionated issue anyway. Not everyone wants to accelerate like crazy... though I'd expect that any BEC builder would!

Author:  impishsprite [ July 9, 2007, 10:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

Don't discount some of the Touring engines such as the FJR1300 or Kawasaki Concours. These motors are tuned to haul around 1000-1200lb GVW. They might not rocket you as fast or rev as high, but they very easily could make a more daily friendly BEC, not to mention they are both shaft drive.

Currently I have a Buell XB9 engine on hand that has double the torque of the stock 1098 A series AH/MG engine and nearly double the horsepower. Its aircooled with a drysump oil system stock. If it wasn't for the fact I was trying to put it back into a two wheeled platform, I could seriously see building it into a mid-engine platform for a Mini or a Spridget (AH Sprite/MG Midget). Even making/running fan ducting wouldn't be that difficult. I wouldn't see the other side of 100mph realistically, but for city driving and autox, it might just be the ticket.

Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group