kostritzer

Hi Where the rear swingarm is hinged? I've understood right? If you can wait 'til the next week i can tell you. Ciao, Luigi. Yes exactly. No big rush, thanks!

I'm really interested in the cam development, any news on that?

If anyone has a 5th gen motor lying around and could measure the width of the engine case where the swing arm pivots I'd greatly appreciate it!

I need the width between the two frame spars where the airbox and the rear cylinder head would normally reside. Trying to see if its possible to shove a 5th gen motor into an RC51 chassis!

Anyone have the following bare frames sitting around that they could give me some dimensions on? 5th/6th gen VFR RVT1000 (RC51) CBR600RR 03 and up Anything else that handles extremely well and is quite light! Looking for width between the frame spars, particularly interested in the RVT frame... Thanks in advance!

This might be cheaper in the long run... at least you can get your money back and then some... http://cgi.ebay.com/...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT Good point, but that one bike will only help the one guy who buys it!

Opening the front door (air box) along with opening up the back door (larger diameter header) usually needs more than port and polish... I think you'll also may need more compression along with bumpier cams... I agree Larry, the cams are key for this motor. If we can find someone to make some relatively inexpensive cams for the 5th gen then all kinds of doors should open.

Does the PC V allow you to advance ignition timing? You probably won't be able to make any large gains without the ability to advance the timing for a given RPM. Air intakes and fuel trims are all helpful for fine tuning, but ignition timing will make the largest gains outside of internal engine mods on a normally aspirated engine. Given the fact that the 5th gen was tuned from the factory to run on 87 octane, higher octane fuel will allow you to run more timing which is almost guaranteed to net you some HP and more importantly torque!

I dunno about this on a VFR, but put this setup into a sub 1500lb car with stand alone engine management and you can have some real fun!

I guess if you look at two VFR cranks linked end to end, they will look just like a flat plane V8, which in turn looks like an inline 4 crank with journals wide enough for two rods on each one correct?

I've been dreaming about something similar for a long time as well, turbo VFR in one of these... NSU TT. They're already rear engined, and weigh less than 1500 lbs stock, similar to a mini. Sorry if you're thread is getting slightly jacked Gollum, but you opened up a can of worms with this one! As far as the 180 vs. 360 crank goes, doesn't the ST1300 engine use a 360 degree crank? I would imagine this engine could be coerced into making some serious power.

Well, how much are F355 engines going for these days? :cool: I don't really see why someone would want to build a flat plane crank LS1. I know these engines make tons of power, but I would think a smaller V8 with a multivalve head and a shorter stroke would make a much better flat plane base. Why would you want a flat plane V8 if you can't rev the thing to 10K? Because you actually can make a LS1 rev to 10k reliably. Circle track guys have been doing it for decades, which also means it's pretty cheap to do compare to say... a 1UZ or VH45. With those you're buying FOUR custom made camshafts with THIRTY TWO springs, and their' timing setup is always more complicated. With a SBC, SBF, or LS engine you just throw in some cam gears to replace the chain, a $300 camshaft, and a $1,000 valvetrain kit consisting of the super lightweight pushrods, roller rockers, and the strongest for their weight springs available. The big upside to something like these engines though, is that most of the parts are commonly available, and affordable. And another HUGE upside is bore size. If you wanted even a MILD stroke comparable to a Ferrari stroke, then you've got well over 5 liters to play with. Even at 8k that's going to be making more power with stock LS1 heads over a 3-4 liter Ferrari reving to 11k. Shorten the stroke to reduce vibration caused from the flat plane design and you still have 4+ liters and an engine that won't rattle your fillings loose (Ferrari engines tend to be quite buzzy, but it's well compensated by their spacecraft quality mounting). Shortening the stroke obviously has it's other benefits, that the engine will rev easier and the pistons & rings will last longer. But really, even a 2 valve LS1 head can outflow a 5 valve Ferrari head, once to take into account the fact that most Ferrari V8's are very small displacement and they're not running NEARLY the oversquare design most bike engines are running, which is why even Ferrari engines have a hard time beating a basic F20A Honda engine for HP/Liter. That being said I'm not bagging on Ferrari. They have their engines, but a lot of their stuff just makes me go "who cares". Their consumer stuff has never been farther from their race stuff in history. If I was going to spend $20,000 on a used engine, I'd expect it to reach at least 110% volumetric efficiency. Oh yea, did I mention a guy I know was going to build a flat plane crank LS1? He's going to be running around 4 liters iirc, and build it to live around 8k all day long, and is projecting over 500hp. He's a machinist for a living, and a well respected head porter, so I'm sure his costs will be about as low as they get, and I still think I could do this for less than half what he'll spend. I won't have the power potential, but we both have different goals in mind for different projects. I wouldn't argue with the fact that you can build an LS1 for much less than a quad cam V8, the parts to make them go fast are already there as the engine is well supported by the aftermarket. I wasn't aware that you could make them rev to 10K RPM reliably, I always thought you had to have a NASCAR budget in order to do so. I was joking about the Ferrari thing, seems like most manufacturers have accomplished what Ferrari has for a fraction of the price(BMW, Audi, Honda, etc.) Now if only Honda would build a V8 using the F20C heads and a flat plane crank.... Back to your project, how are you planning on plumbing the turbos? Will you have each turbo running off a shared(between two engines) bank?

Well, how much are F355 engines going for these days? :beer: I don't really see why someone would want to build a flat plane crank LS1. I know these engines make tons of power, but I would think a smaller V8 with a multivalve head and a shorter stroke would make a much better flat plane base. Why would you want a flat plane V8 if you can't rev the thing to 10K?

Well, if you're going to use a VMAX engine, you might as well use the new 1700 version. 200 hp, fuel injected, torque meister. I haven't seen one in a car yet, but it has to be one of the best motors to use in one.

Thats what I was picturing. A jackshaft setup like this blue car with a driveshaft running to the rear end. Here's a picture of a twin bike engined caterham doing something similar. Actually, this would should give you your flat plane sound since a flat plane V8 is pretty much two inline 4's joined at the crankshaft! The Z does have a looooooong nose!

Here's a pretty straightforward way to link up the two engines, gearboxes and all. Of course it doesn't turn them into a flat plane configuration, but it sounds like you can figure it out from there. Twin Ducati's

I'd love to see that mini with the VFR engine. Here's a Honda N600 with a VFR750 engine in it, wonder if they'll ever finish it? http://hondan600.net/projects/n600pictures.html

I love the sound of flat plane crankshaft V8's as well. Take a look at what Audi did with their V8 in the early 90's in DTM. They took their standard road car 90 degree crankshaft and "twisted it" into a flat plane crank! The rules said you had to use the original crankshaft, so they were definitely "stretching" 'em quite a bit! The twin VFR is a neat idea, but balancing them would be very difficult. Powertech and Hartley have built flat plane V8's using Hayabusa and R1 cylinder heads, that would probably be the(expensive) way to go. I've been tinkering around with the idea of putting the VFR engine into a small lightweight car sometime in the future. I would probably opt to turbo-charge it as that is the easiest way to make both horsepower and torque with an engine. Plus you have plenty of room in a car for all the plumbing compared to a bike! My advice to you is to put it in the lightest car you can find, a sub 1500lb car ideally!

Do any of the PC's give you the ability to control the ignition timing on a VFR?