Tim_H Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Just wonderin' like. For what seems 100cc, gives you 35HP between the two cars. Are the only differences 1) 100cc 2) Bigger valves 3) Plugs 4) Comp Ratio ie. 1300 pistons 🤔 🤔 If so, then can I 'convert' my 1600 to 1700 sprint spec, by changing the head, pistons & plugs? And would that provide say, 20hp? L7 EVN Edited by - tim_H on 25 Apr 2005 11:33:21 Edited by - tim_H on 25 Apr 2005 11:47:56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JampJ Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Different head, cam, ignition, carb set up, and larger cylinder bore/pistons etc. Cheers J&J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheds Moderator Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 There's a lot of work and if you want the engine to last it will cost you a bit in forged pistone etc. Tuning the 1600 (cam, fitting twin 40s) may be a good compromise. Otherwise I'd be fitting a Zetec for 160+ bhp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_H Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 I've already got the twin 40's L7 EVN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 1600 with GT cam 100 HP 1600 with A2 cam 110 HP so only 25 HP more 1700 Super sprint 135 HP with Kent 234 cam 140/145 HP with 244 cam ( uprated) larger valves but a 1700 reliable need forged piston eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burt1969 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 1600 with A2 cam 😬 Our Kitty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Field Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Tim, go on to the vulcanengines.com website for all the info about going from 1600 to 1700 or more. I have just gone to a 145bhp 1700 with a 244 cam. Drop me an e-mail if you want the spec. Terry 1700XF - Team Lotus with flares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 If I were you I ll stay with 1600 + a good unleaded head stage 2 cam Kent 234 for road you will have something like 125 / 130 HP very good engine, very flexible lot of power lot of torque no trouble, sound as a beast for a little money If you go 1700 more money spent for road useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Perry Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 A few other engineering things should also be considered. Lightened/balanced flywheel plus dowling, new chain, better cam followers, convert to electric fuel pump. Its not going to be cheap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JampJ Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Plus different timing curve, and carb rejetting. Cheers J&J Edited by - johnjulie on 25 Apr 2005 21:34:47 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cskip Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 If you have an AX block you could even go 1800cc. I did 😬 244 Cam, forged pistons etc. Skip. West Hants Luddite See CSKIP here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 If it a road car you can stay with the cheap solution keep the GT cam (same as the historic formula ford in france about 115/120 HP with the 32/36 webers use a good unleaded head stage 2 or 3 stay with mechanical fuel pump (I stay with a 1600 Burton ul stage 2 head A2 cam) 2 webers you should have 120 HP You have time to take off the engine Normally the caterham Flywheel is about 5.7 Kg or 5.3 with is perfect on escort it was 7.6 kg eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_H Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 Ok, - confused now. As it is : Standard Sprint Spec. 1600cc, twin 40's, GT cam, Aldon (std) distributor, lightened flywheel (std), 4-2-1 side exit s/steel exhaust. I'd like to retain the 1600 block, - but putting 1300 pistons in raises the CR. - apparently? Bigger valve head? - Different Cam? Ignition curve? L7 EVN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 1300 pistons not strong enough aldon with ignitor perfect just change the head and if you want to get off the engine cam kent 234 if you want to spend more money forged piston and conrods if you want to spend more forged steel crankshaft eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe 90 Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 The question is, what are you trying to achieve? If it's "most bang for your buck", there are a number of cost effective options, some of which can be combined. 1. Rebore and new pistons. I can't think of any reason not to go to 1700cc in that case, as the cost is much the same irrespective of the size of overbore. 2. Forged pistons. These give more power and are essential if you hope to exceed 135 bhp at any stage. 3. Hairy cam. A 244 is sufficiently tractable in a car as light as a seven, but is more expensive than a 234 because you need to machine the spring seats. Either cam will need the pistons machined for valve clearance. 4. Ported big valve head. You'll need to do this at some stage anyway, but bear in mind the issue of spring seats. 5. 4 into 1 exhaust. Is that any help? SEP field working, not spotted in 103,300 miles. Some photos on webshots, updated 25 Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Tim, As Eric, Oliver and others suggest there are so many things you can do. I have a similar spec. engine to you - some possible 'food for thought' discussed on previous threads here & here * A Caterham supplied 1700SS engine produced somewhere in the region of 120BHP, not the 135 quoted. * Mapped 3D ignition is good and there are cheaper alternatives to Weber Alpha. * .........or junk the crossflow and fit a Duratec 😬. Seems to be the way forward! Gavin. Edited by - Gavin on 27 Apr 2005 10:57:55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Sorry to say that power is not the best thing to have on a road caterham Because it is more important to have less horses at high rev and more at low revs for a road car torque is also important and the differences between a 110 caterham and a 150 hp with the kent are not so important on the road the mileage you can do with 110 HP is higher than a 150 hp and the cost is less it will leave you some money to une the car and not leave it at the garage Sorry not to be agree with all power fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheds Moderator Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Good point Eric and I agree. I think too that a 3D map/decent electronic distributor would be a good way to upgrade the thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe 90 Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Nowt wrong with power On the other hand careful suspension setup is a cheaper way of making the car faster. SEP field working, not spotted in 103,300 miles. Some photos on webshots, updated 25 Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Bill Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 As it may be one of my last posts, I'd like to put the case for BEC's again. No problem with only having 130ish bhp at the top end with beggar all torque, and as you are never driving it anywhere near the max, the 'blade engine lasts and lasts. The same goes for the R1, except it has a little more poke (around 150-160bhp). OK perhaps not the cheapest way to upgrade, but possibly the cheapest way to go sub 4 secs 0-60 at around £3.5k (less money back from selling your existing engine and box, etc.). And if it does go wrong it won't be a king's randsom to fix it BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheds Moderator Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 BB comes in from the dark side again. Can you really get sub 4 sec out of a Blade 7? The weight comes down to 450kg with creature comforts but I understand that it's hard to approach 400kg.Say 420kg without too much effort, will that see sub 4 sec? I suppose the seq box helps the shifts, all one of them required up to 60. 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Bill Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 I'm sure with the right tyres, diff and a blatant disregard for the mechanical wellbeing of the machine, you won't be far off the magical 4 secs in a 'blade car, I'm convinced that an R1 version would breeze it. However, I have my doubts about the n/a 'busa versions. In a small skurmish with a westfield 'busa in my striker 'blade, he wasn't doing any better until we got into third, then he buggered off into the distance!!! 😳 TTFN! BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now