Engine choices

Which drivetrain to choose, so many choices, 4-cyl? 6-cyl? NA? Turbo?
rxtoy
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Mar 2014, 16:15
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No

Re: Engine choices

Postby rxtoy » 24 Aug 2016, 21:28

I can't tell you sizes on the ZZ engines but considering they're used in the Toyota MR-S in a mid rear configuration, and in a few lotus' I'd be surprised if they weren't a good option.

Cheers
Matt

User avatar
freakynami
Posts: 578
Joined: 23 Dec 2008, 17:53
Anti-spam question: 0
Are you a spammer: Yes
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: Engine choices

Postby freakynami » 25 Aug 2016, 01:03

Yep, 2ZZ-GE also used in the corolla sportivo here, so should be perfect with the usual caveat of, everything is different slightly, need to tweak a bit here and there around gearbox/exhaust etc.

I've read up a bit about them when I was looking at a Sportivo dd a while back, IIRC there were issues with the VTEC (or whatever in toyoda) pin failing but otherwise a very solid option with plenty of go.

gto1973
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 00:32
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Taranaki, New Zealand

Re: Engine choices

Postby gto1973 » 10 Sep 2017, 00:56

I also am thinking about the 2zzge I have recently put one into a mini jetboat that goes for wiring this week.
the lift pins do fail on them apparently so best just to change them while motor is out pretty simple I done this on my engine.
it also come out supercharged good for about 300 hp standard from what I read

so I am torn between the a standard 2zzge and doing an r1 bec probably similar in hp but 80nm more on the 2z I'm not after a car for cruising around town it will most likely be thrashed.. question if say both motors were geared to do the same top speed at limit would the be equal in acceleration ect? would one be quicker around the track? would the gearing for the bec multiply the torque an hp to the wheels? sorry for all the questions just not sure about this stuff

User avatar
rennkafer
Posts: 185
Joined: 24 Nov 2016, 12:19
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Port Orchard, WA

Re: Engine choices

Postby rennkafer » 10 Sep 2017, 13:26

IMO, the Midlana is a bit heavy to be a BEC. Even the 1000lb Lotus 7 clones are pretty abusive to the clutches on bike engines, so adding 50% more weight isn't going to be better. Plus there's the lack of reverse to deal with.
Bill J

ChrisS
Posts: 480
Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 08:08
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Worcestershire UK

Re: Engine choices

Postby ChrisS » 10 Sep 2017, 14:17

I'd go so far as to say no way would it be suitable for BEC unless you built it using very light (much thinner) materials. Most of the BEC versions of 7s over here have a chassis significantly lighter than the CEC version, and they are already light compared to Midlana. Typical BEC Westfield is around the 450kg mark all up and ready to run I think. My calculated weight for my Midlana chassis alone so far, and its only 2/3 complete, is 120kg That should be pretty accurate as I've been measuring every part I weld in.

As a guide, our Westfield chassis is made almost entirely from 16g 1" square ERW tubes.

Midlana1
Site Admin
Posts: 2684
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 16:44
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Southern California

Re: Engine choices

Postby Midlana1 » 10 Sep 2017, 17:05

Switching to a bike engine will knock off maybe 200 lbs from the total, putting it down to maybe 1500 lbs, so yeah, still a bit heavy if it's not a turbo'd Hayabusa engine...

gto1973
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 00:32
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Taranaki, New Zealand

Re: Engine choices

Postby gto1973 » 10 Sep 2017, 23:32

so the 2zzge seams to engine seams to weigh in at about 160 ish kgs 350ish pounds for you guys plus axles I'm assuming, I'm quite keen on it atm will need to measure at a wreckers or something. so I don't know how heavy a seven type car is but it sounds like Midlana is quite a bit heavier where is the weight in midlana how light could it be built? safely.. could Midlana be built to come in at 500kg?? would 200 pounds put your car down to 1350? or am I missing something? I don't remember reading it in the book but did you record a rolling chassis weight?

thanks Jesse

ChrisS
Posts: 480
Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 08:08
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Worcestershire UK

Re: Engine choices

Postby ChrisS » 10 Sep 2017, 23:59

I know I keep referencing a Westfield, but it's only because they are familiar. A bare chassis for a typical CEC would be about 60kg. A wild guess at this stage, but I reckon my bare Midlana chassis is going to be pushing 150kg by the time it's done. From there, you could reckon on the rest of the car being broadly similar (unless you stick a massive V6 into it.........) so to take another wild guess by adding 100kg to a typical complete CEC Westy weight of 650kg, and 750kg is probably a good place to start, which is pretty much where Kurt gets to as well but from a different direction.

That's still pretty light, especially when you consider how strong the chassis is, but IMO it isn't BEC light. That weight would punish the transmission badly I think.

I bought a set of hanging scales to satisfy the general curiosity about the weight of my chosen power unit and to help me get some decent numbers that I'll need for the paperwork here, so as I progress I'll be putting up some actual numbers. So far I've just been measuring material as I use it and calculating based on unit weights.

Midlana is a good enough design that you could use thinner material in a lot of places I think, but that then makes your welding all that more critical. I was more than happy to stick with the thicker stuff, but if your an experienced welder/fabricator you could save quite a chunk by going thinner.

All the above IMO, which comes with no guarantees or authority and is usually worth what you pay for it.....nowt! :)

gto1973
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 00:32
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Taranaki, New Zealand

Re: Engine choices

Postby gto1973 » 11 Sep 2017, 01:38

not sure if this is the right part of the forum to discuss it :?: but that also begs the question how thin I think when I converted the main tubes ect they were around 3mm I'm sure there's a bit of ass covering in there for Kurt and ultimately would be up to the builder to decide but for say 300hp what's the thoughts on the thinnest wall thickness? the welding fabrication ect is not a problem. I have no idea about torsional ridgity ect which is something I guess I will discuss when I commit to the build an talk to the low volume vehicle people here. which is a funds thing atm so its either sell the boat I just built or wait till I go away for work :roll: :roll: although quite enjoy the research side of it

that's fine cant be too different from the style cars here in nz, Frasers an McGregor.

Midlana1
Site Admin
Posts: 2684
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 16:44
Anti-spam question: 4
Are you a spammer: No
Location: Southern California

Re: Engine choices

Postby Midlana1 » 11 Sep 2017, 06:39

gto1973 wrote:not sure if this is the right part of the forum to discuss it :?: but that also begs the question how thin I think when I converted the main tubes ect they were around 3mm I'm sure there's a bit of ass covering in there for Kurt and ultimately would be up to the builder to decide but for say 300hp what's the thoughts on the thinnest wall thickness? the welding fabrication ect is not a problem.

I like to think that the SCCA designed my chassis. What I mean is, I followed their lead for what size tubing to use for the roll cage because they know what happens in a wreck. As for tubing outside the cage proper, I used the same thickness or slightly thinner. As the book notes, while you - as a responsible adult - can go with thinner wall tubing, it's entirely up to you whether you're comfortable with the potential consequences (in addition to anyone you sell the car to).

Before taking the step of reducing tube wall thickness, consider what it'll do to the total rolling weight of the car. With a 2.0+ liter engine, driver, and all fluids, it's going to be around 1750lbs. If you reduce all the chassis tubing thickness by, say, 25%, it doesn't reduce the weight of the car 25%, it reduces the weight of the chassis 25%. The bare chassis is around 270 lbs as I recall, so 25% is roughly 70 lbs. That means that total rolling weight drops from 1750 to 1680 lbs, a reduction of 4%. That isn't very much.


Return to “Drivetrain selection”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests