Rule changes for 2015

[Grahame W]

Whilst not disagreeing with the fundamental logic of a max power by any means formula, factually £1500 to £3000 for TB's and ECU is not a cheaper way to extract power from a 1600SS than the £550 head cost on my admittedly 6 year old DVA invoice.

 

[Simon.Rogers]

I am aware of a batch of Brand New Titan Roller barrels ready to find new homes for K series engines.  (No they are not mine).  I will have to find out cost and how many.

A new MBE 9A4 ECU is £545.00

[garybee]

A set of GSXR750 TBs are £70 and a megasquirt ECU is a couple of hundred. Not everyone takes the bolt on route, performance can be had cheaply if you're willing to work at it and the rules aren't too prescriptive. 

[david nelson]

Grahame its not just the cost of the head but also needs fitting. We have seen some in the padoock spend money on engine rebuilds. I have never seen the point in stripping a perfectly good engine and rebulding it. Rob had his 1.6 ss ported a few years ago pre BUSA and and the end result was the linings dropped or something and the engine was binned. If he had just put TB on the engine would not have been taken apart.

Adrian had his 1.6 ss ported and rebuilt IRIC, on stripping down his old engine there we no real wear of note.

The k was designed to do many thousands of miles and we are looking at the low end of the power. I think both Dave Jackson and Ken Evans ran standard 1.6 with TB and a can change and got 190BHP.

I just feel we should keep thing simple. 155BHP no rules. The other advantage with TB is you can use these on your next engine (K) from 155 to 250 bhp. ECU also will last a life time.

 

David

[david nelson]

Grahame its not just the cost of the head but also needs fitting. We have seen some in the padoock spend money on engine rebuilds. I have never seen the point in stripping a perfectly good engine and rebulding it. Rob had his 1.6 ss ported a few years ago pre BUSA and and the end result was the linings dropped or something and the engine was binned. If he had just put TB on the engine would not have been taken apart.

Adrian had his 1.6 ss ported and rebuilt IRIC, on stripping down his old engine there we no real wear of note.

The k was designed to do many thousands of miles and we are looking at the low end of the power. I think both Dave Jackson and Ken Evans ran standard 1.6 with TB and a can change and got 190BHP.

I just feel we should keep thing simple. 155BHP no rules. The other advantage with TB is you can use these on your next engine (K) from 155 to 250 bhp. ECU also will last a life time.

 

David

[Richard Price]

To quote David:-

"Re 1.6 SS. After hearing how much it cost to build a 1.6 with ported head it must be a cheaper way to fit TB and a new ecu to get to 155BHP"

Why? What have you heard David?

Even paying someone to remove the head, port it, then refit it, it should not cost more than fitting a programable ECU and having it properly set up (and that would be retaining the stock plenum!).

Porting a head need not be very expensive at all. I ported my own head after reading the notes on DVA's K engine page, and spending, maybe, £100 on tools and consumables, and then about another £100 on having it pressure tested, skimmed, and the valve seats recut.

I think £2k is likely to be conservative for buying, fitting, and calibrating TB's and an ECU.

I think fitting TB's to an otherwise stock 1600/1800 K is a little pointless.

Real world, I don't think a stock K R300 is much quicker than good 1800 SS, and certainly not worth the expense of te TB's and programmable ECU.

I would have been very interested to have seen the results on the day at Nothampton if let's say Jeff Smith, or David could have been there with their cars as they ran in 2011.

I know there is this figure of 140bhp quoted for an 1800SS, but, with decent exhausts (don't forget, Caterhams quoted figures will have been with the standard short exhaust manifold), and optimised cam timing, I think an 1800SS would have been well over 150bhp at Northampton (particularly when most stock class one 1600's were well over 120bhp, and most closer to 130bhp)

Where an 1800SS has an advantage over a 1600 is torque. A ported 1600 is fine if you can keep it between 6000 and 7500rpm, but the times that a 1600 drops below 6000rpm, its loosing out by quite some margin over a stock 1800SS.

 

Having said that. Any change to the regulations works against my own specification, but I'm still happy to accomodate cars that fit the basic K R300 spec or similar. If it looks like it's been a mistake, then, maybe it can be reviewed, and changed again.

I see it as letting a few have a half decent chance, rather than no chance agains the revised 210bhp class 4 cars.

 

 

[Richard Price]

David,

'sorry, I must have already been typing when you replied.

I agree about pulling a good engine apart. I only removed my head a second time after Tom bent the exhaust valves for me

 

[david nelson]

Richard

 

My point is there are many ways to gain the 155bhp. For the 1.8ss its an ecu and map. You are right it does not need TB but why should we restrict people?

If a class 4 engine goes bang and due to cost can to fix it you could pick up a 1.6 or 1.8 for sensable money. Add the TB and ecu you already have (no cost) and your done other than a map.

it about reducing the rules and giving more poeple the chance to join if they would like. 

Re the roling road and my 1.8 ss. I would love to know what it makes but no plans to pop it back in. If i do then a trip to Northampton would be on the cards.

 

David

[Grahame W]

David/Richard

By way of background when I posted my Northampton run numbers I was quite detailed in the description of the total spec of the car. As a result I got a lot of private blat mail from members who are not sprinters who wanted to understand the relative contributions of the various components that make up a 150ish bhp 1600/1800 K series.

The fitting cost for my head from DVA was £330 so I still maintain that porting is a reasonably cost effective route compared to TB/ECU as clearly a wider audience than just we competitors read these posts

For clarity like you both I am in favour of just a power limit for class 3 (by whatever means) and allowing R300's to evaluate for 1 season just how quick they may be

However with comparatively open regulations I still believe what comes with that is a responsibility to prove what we've got so I still see no alternative but to ask you top running guys to provide recent power run data

 

 

 

[CaterBram]

If you've not recieve Matthew's email, the answer is now.