(Entire here means engine, transaxle, and all accessaries needed for a Locost, meaning alternator only.)
Entire Honda H22A1 drivetrain, 460 lbs
Entire Honda K24A2 drivetrain, 405 lbs
Who drives shortblocks, anyway?
| LocostUSA.com https://www.locostusa.com/forums/ |
|
| Summary of engine weights https://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4299 |
Page 1 of 14 |
| Author: | chrisrobertson [ August 11, 2008, 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Summary of engine weights |
I'm kicking around the idea of building a mid-engine similar to Kimini, La Bala, etc and been trying to track down a light motor. So that others don't have to do the same amount of research here's what I've been able to find. Note I didn't actually weigh any of these so don't rely on the accuracy! If anyone has any other engine weights to add fire away! Honda D = 100lb short block + oil pan (110-130 hp) B = 104lb short block only (160-190 hp) H = 123lb short black only (160-215 hp) H trans = 96lb D trans = 90lb Ford/Mazda (Duratec) 2.3L = 260lb w/manifolds, AC, starter, etc 215lb just the engine Nissan SR20DET = 490lb complete Just engine A12 87 kg A14/A15 93 kg CA18DE 113 kg CA16 113 kg L16 113 kg L18 118 kg CA18ET 118 kg CA18DET 128 kg L18SSS 133 kg L20B 137 kg SR20DE 139 kg FJ20E 144 kg SR20DET 149 kg FJ20ET 166 kg VW/Audi 260 hp S3 engine weight 335 pounds 3.2L VR6 = 373 (255hp) 3.6L VR6 FSI < 2.8L VR6 1.8T ~80lb < 2.8L VR6 BMW X5 3.0L = 355lb Toyota 2ZZ-GE = 115kg (as in the Elise) 2ZZ-GE Engine 64 pounds C64 Transmission 13 pounds Air Conditioning 22 pounds Twin Oil coolers 29 pounds Other modifications 26 pounds Subaru 2.2L NA = 130kg 2.0L Turbo = 150kg 3.0L 6 cylinder = 169kg (2000-2003), 160kg (2003+) 3.2L 6 cylinder = 180kg VW type IV (as in the Porsche 914) 2.0L = 130kg |
|
| Author: | chrisrobertson [ August 11, 2008, 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A couple of additional Nissan engines RB25DET - 720lbs - sport compact car magazine Sept 2003 (complete swap for a 240sx) VQ35 - 260lbs longblock, no intake manifold (weight on bathroom scale so probably lighter than reality) VQ35 - 313lb longblock + intake manifolds (on a fairly accurate shipping scale) VQ30 - 127lb shortblock VQ30 - 315lb longblock |
|
| Author: | Fester [ August 11, 2008, 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nice list! The lightest engine on the list is the one I was already thinking of using. That clinches it for me. |
|
| Author: | KB58 [ August 11, 2008, 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
(Entire here means engine, transaxle, and all accessaries needed for a Locost, meaning alternator only.) Entire Honda H22A1 drivetrain, 460 lbs Entire Honda K24A2 drivetrain, 405 lbs Who drives shortblocks, anyway?
|
|
| Author: | Hasbro [ August 11, 2008, 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This has some weights and makes for a good read: http://archive.grassrootsmotorsports.co ... =34472&p=1 |
|
| Author: | Philippe [ August 13, 2008, 7:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Summary of engine weights |
In my experience reliable figures are hard to find. The main problem is that various yardsticks are being used. Short blocks, long blocks, running engines, engines with transmission , drive shaft, live axle, or IRS, engines with transaxles, engines with turbos and intercoolers. And if this was not bad enough the power output is represented in various ways too. American yardstick, European yardstick, HP at the flywheel, HP at the wheels. My general impression is that transaxles have the power/weight ratio edge and DOHCs offer better performance enhancement possibilities. But of course I could be wrong. IMHO the only two classes of car engines which would stand out are Mazda rotary and highly tuned aircooled Porsche-VW engines. For anything else the norm for a complete drivetrain seems to be somewhere between 350- 500 lbs. Philippe |
|
| Author: | bremms [ August 15, 2008, 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Volvo B18/B20 330lbs with flywheel & manifolds no starter or alt. Volvo B230 320lbs same. weighed a Alfa 2l came to 225# no flywheel with intake manifold. weighed a b13 rotary and it was around 220lbs can't remember if the flywheel was attached or not. |
|
| Author: | Driven5 [ August 18, 2008, 9:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
People need to do more weight measurements like this...Unfortunately they're still not all of the same completeness for a truely direct comparison and you are not able see everything that is/isn't included on the engine. I believe the 4 banger without an engine note is a KA24DE. |
|
| Author: | gtivr4 [ August 18, 2008, 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here is an alternate weight on the KA24DE: http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/299880 
371lbs |
|
| Author: | KB58 [ August 18, 2008, 11:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
When comparing drivetrains, the engine, tranny, axles, and diff all have to be included. There's a fair difference between: 1. Front engine = 300lbs, tranny = 100lbs, driveshaft = 20lbs, rear axle with diff = 100lbs, for a total of 520lbs. and: 2. Transverse engine = 300lbs, transaxle = 100lbs, for a total of 400lbs for the same power. |
|
| Author: | horizenjob [ August 18, 2008, 12:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It is reasonable to compare weights of the components of a drive train. Particularly if you have settled on a seven-type Locost. Saving 100-120 pounds is a worthwhile goal, but clearly there is a great deal more design work to create your car from scratch as opposed to doing a "book"design. If your goal is a seven-type car, a mid engine is probably a difficult route. Maybe in a few years it won't be. Not everyone needs to be a trailblazer. On thread comment: I like the old Ford crossflows. They are several inches smaller (4"?) than the other motors being discussed, which makes packaging and ground clearance much easier. I think they are around 225 lbs., but they have aluminum heads available now. |
|
| Author: | Driven5 [ August 18, 2008, 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, the crossflow is a rather compact engine. I don't remember where I got this, but it gives a good frame of reference. Although I believe the significantly larger (and more powerful) Duratec four cylinders weigh in a similar ball park to the X-Flow. |
|
| Author: | KB58 [ August 18, 2008, 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
horizenjob wrote: If your goal is a seven-type car, a mid engine is probably a difficult route. Maybe in a few years it won't be. Not everyone needs to be a trailblazer.
All I meant was that the weight of a car is the sum of all its components. For front-engine layouts only, for example, say you want to use the super-light Subaru to make a lightweight wonder, then throw it ahead of a heavyduty 120lb tranny and 150lb truck rear axle. It ends up being as heavy - or heavier - than using a heavier engine but lighter tranny and axle. I know it's obvious, but not so much when looking at the engines separately. |
|
| Author: | Philippe [ August 19, 2008, 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
horizenjob wrote: It is reasonable to compare weights of the components of a drive train. Particularly if you have settled on a seven-type Locost.
Saving 100-120 pounds is a worthwhile goal, but clearly there is a great deal more design work to create your car from scratch as opposed to doing a "book"design. If your goal is a seven-type car, a mid engine is probably a difficult route. Maybe in a few years it won't be. Not everyone needs to be a trailblazer. This is all a good discussion and the figures and pictures provided above are tremendously useful. However, I tend to share KB58 's views that the goal (with any sports car) is a minimal weight or optimal weight to power ratio. This means that engime weight figures while usefull cannot be isolated from the other drive train components if one want to be consistent  .
Philippe |
|
| Author: | horizenjob [ August 19, 2008, 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pounds are pounds, and we agree more is not better. Philippe is probably on the metric system, but we will let that slide for the purposes of this discussion. 
I think comparing drivetrain weights probably removes the question of which pile to weigh the clutch and flywheel in, those parts seem to regularly be left out... But if your discussing weights for a seven type car, seems like it's possible to separate parts that are on opposite ends of the car. For instance, in the search for an appropriate axle, it does not help to only have drivetrain weights. That would be frustrating. Or having someone tell you, "just drop in a FWD transverse setup". Sure the total weight matters, but for a person building the drivetrain, instead of using a self-contained unit, knowing the weight of the pieces would help. I do think there is not enough attention to the weight of the rear axle. |
|
| Page 1 of 14 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|