Non-FSAE turbo 600 projects

[Test Driver]

Hello,

This question is for the engine guys.

Have any of you thought of, or gone on to work on a 600cc turbo project elsewhere? If so, what would you say are the attainable power numbers/life time ratios.

The reason I ask is that SCCA allows turbo 600 (more like 670) bike motors on some of their classes like DSR, where the current motors of choice are NA 1000 bike engines. However, as most here already know, availability on 600s is much higher and cost is about 1/3 that of 1000s without taking into consideration builder fees. Yet, I've not heard of someone running the smaller turbo motors in this class.

I'm basically trying to get a feel for how long a modern turbo 600 would live if say, 150-170 hp were squeezed out of it.

Ramon

[Test Driver]

Hello,

This question is for the engine guys.

Have any of you thought of, or gone on to work on a 600cc turbo project elsewhere? If so, what would you say are the attainable power numbers/life time ratios.

The reason I ask is that SCCA allows turbo 600 (more like 670) bike motors on some of their classes like DSR, where the current motors of choice are NA 1000 bike engines. However, as most here already know, availability on 600s is much higher and cost is about 1/3 that of 1000s without taking into consideration builder fees. Yet, I've not heard of someone running the smaller turbo motors in this class.

I'm basically trying to get a feel for how long a modern turbo 600 would live if say, 150-170 hp were squeezed out of it.

Ramon

[jack]

I have been getting into DSR now that my FSAE days are over. I wondered the same thing at first, also why people dont use 900cc two strokes.

After a little research I think I have found several reasons why almost everyone runs a R1 or GSXR 1000 engine. Most competitive cars have "built" engines which approach 200 hp. An engine like this will only weigh a slight amount more than a turbo 600, but will last forever. Allthough DSR racer have cash to spare, they aren't F1 and they can't afford to blow up a motor every few races. a motor that they can drop in and forget about is what they want. Also, what wins DSR races is car setup, not horsepower. Since most drivers are their own engineers, knowing how to setup a car to be fast, and bothering to do it for difference tracks will make the biggest difference.

That is just my opinion though, and I don't race DSR (yet), so there could be more to it.

[Test Driver]

Jack,

I too thought about the two stroke engines. And now that I live in SE Michigan, it might be an option that I would have not considered before.

However, I still don't like the idea of using CVTs which is the norm with the few people running 2 strokes in DSR and all the guys on F500s. Theoretically, a CVT would be perfect. But in practice, tuning and longevity seem to be constant sources of agravation. Maybe it has to do with direct snowmobile conversions to closed wheel (even F500s are mostly closed) applications where heat over a long sprint is a much higher concern. The huge CVT components needed are also a detractant.

One of the ways I'd consider the 900 2S option is if I could use a small/light self-contained transmission. Something a la Harley comes to mind. But I digress.

Yes, the DSR crowd seems preocupied with the current 200hp built bike engines. But now, there seems to be a move to curb built engine costs. Some reports of $10k engines have a lot of participants worried that the class is spiraling into the realm of Dr./Lawyer series. The escalating manufacturer prices are driving this as well. These escalating costs are some of the reasons I'd like to see if one could use what to most on this series would see as a disposable powerplant.

Ramon

[SpeedAddictions]

Longevity in a turbo application, in my experience, depends on the tune. Having the right equipment to ensure the proper a/f ratios will ensure this. Developing the right tune will allow you to dial in the motor for longevity. For example, my 2.3T motor is being built to be capable of withstanding 600 hp. However, in the interest of longevity I'm building maps for a tune of 375-400 hp. I'm using a BigStuff Gen 3 Pro SEFI engine mangaement system. I am a big proponent of standalone EMS in a turbo application with an upgraded fuel system. Keep the boost a lil on the conservative side and you shouldn't have a problem with longevity with the proper tune. Good Luck!!

On a sidenote, here's a link to the latest turbo project performed by my friends at Stage 6 Motorsports & HP Performance. Dwight is a fabolous tuner and is helping design my project Turbo Ranger. World's most powerful and fastest Ford GT.

http://www.turbofordgt.com
http://www.stage6motorsports.com

[Kirk Feldkamp]

I agree with Jack here. A tuned/piped N/A 1000 will net right around 185-200 hp. The same could be achieved with an intercooled, ~15psi 600. The weight difference between systems is probably right around zero. That means that the time/money/energy required to develop a comparable turbo 600 (with questionable durability) could have been much more easily spent on a basic 1000 that could go out and run all season without any problems.

Granted that is for a comparable turbo 600. 250hp is well within the reach of current aftermarket offerings when required pressure ratio and mass flow are considered. At that point, however, you're into rods, pistons, and probably a little head work (valve springs). The kicker is that the turbo to do that (a GT2860RS for instance) costs about twice (~$1200) what a stock GSXR600 (~$600) does on Ebay. When you look at the overall cost of developing an engine like this, I would have a hard time justifying that extra cost for an engine that's being stressed WAY beyond its design point. A GT2860RS on a 600 is also going to be rather laggy...

The reason nobody uses the two strokes is because they're a sonofabitch to keep together. Sure you can make fantastic power, but for how long? The DSRs 10-15 years ago were all using the two strokes... but because they were such a pain in the ass, everyone started moving over to transverse four, four strokes from motorcycles. This has been the trend for the last 15 years. I have some friends that used to use some two stroke monster back in the day in their DSR. They told me of a story of a race where they went out for practice... first hot lap was 2 seconds over the track record, second lap was at the track record, third lap was 2 seconds under the lap record, fourth lap was in the tralier with a blown engine. They never went back to two strokes after that. The reliability of two strokes can never come close to comparing to the reliability of the current sportbike engines.

Jack is also correct in saying setup is a significant factor in DSR. Sure there are a lot of guys that just go out and toss it around, but to be competitive nationally you really have to know what the heck you're doing. I had the privilege of crewing for my friends when they ran at Fontana for their first time. They dropped ~15 seconds a lap by the end of the weekend compared to their first practice session because of setup and driving changes resulting from data aquisition and a thorough understanding of their car. It was a cool experience to see the process firsthand with a couple that really knows how to sort out a new track.

-Kirk

[Test Driver]

Kirk,

Thanks for the insight. Sounds like a turbo 600 is doable if a bit questionable.

I've kept tabs on the DSR guys' forum for a few years now. It seems a bullet-proof 1000 is not as simple as it would seem. There are plenty of stories of people blowing them up all the time. The current thinking is, even if just running stock power, builder engines are the way to go if anything, for the peace of mind.

For me, peace of mind is knowing that when, not if the engine blows up, there's plenty of cheap replacements available. But this also applies to older 1000/900 bike motors so I guess I'm not convinced either way at the moment.

What you mention about two strokes, do you think it would be the case with modern sled engines?

Ramon

[Bill Kunst]

OK,
Just to throw a penny or two into this...

New two strokes with DI or SDI could easily be more reliable and tuneable than the old carbs. Plus, there are plenty of slednecks that twist the things around trees, so they are practically free (under $1000).

My question is really about the 1 liters. How do they keep blowing them? Do they run dry sump? If they are not, they are looking for problems. Also, who is building/tuning these engines? That can make a big difference as well. When I was working at a performance shop, we had an engine builder (sunbuilt) who did some engines for a M3 race car in the grand am series. They also did the tuning (which they sucked at) and the engines kept blowing. New tune, engines lasted more than one race or less.

These engines are tough. People turbo the busa engine up to 700 hp. That is stupid rediculous, but I imagine that an engine or engines this stout should be able to handle this racing abuse at far less hp.

Just my couple pennies,
Bill

[Test Driver]

Bill,

I don't know very many specifics of how the engines get blown up. Most of what I know is what I read on the forums. But I would say it's not really a single factor.

There are a lot of people running these bike engines in this high G application without dry sumps. And although it would seem certain oil starvation is emminent, theres lots of anecdotal testimony to them working out fine albeit it, with minimal changes like high innitial oil level, baffling, Accusump etc.

I seem to recall Lee Stohr saying that the previous Runoffs winner had run the same wet sump R1 for something like 4 years in a row. But, I think it's one of those high dollar builder engines.

Ramon

[Kurt Bilinski]

Over on the Locost BEC (bike engined car) forum, the consensus is that the R1 can be run wet-sump while the 'Busa *must* have a dry-sump if tracked. They learned this the hard way. It's a shame, too, since the 'Busa's generally a better engine to use, but a $2000 dry-sump system is rather painful, but not as much as blowing them up I guess...