Miatabusa
07-08-2010, 02:17 PM
#45
Bolting a Miata flywheel to the Hayabusa's crank was also rejected. Not only is the 11,000-rpm powerband a poor match for the Miata's gearbox, but the crank doesn't have any provisions for anything as big as a flywheel on the end.
This solution keeps the maximum revs coming into the Miata transmission down to a very manageable 6900 rpm, virtually identical to the engine it was designed to support.
Reply
0
0
07-08-2010, 02:43 PM
#47
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 223
Total Cats: 0
I only read the first link on the original post, not the second link.
So by that logic this adapter plate is restricting the speed to a managible 6,900 RPM as opposed to the higher 11,000+ what is the point of even doing it since your losing 3,000+ rotations.
So your motor works some 35+% harder than it should for the same output?
So by that logic this adapter plate is restricting the speed to a managible 6,900 RPM as opposed to the higher 11,000+ what is the point of even doing it since your losing 3,000+ rotations.
So your motor works some 35+% harder than it should for the same output?
Reply
0
0
07-08-2010, 02:47 PM
#48
I only read the first link on the original post, not the second link.
So by that logic this adapter plate is restricting the speed to a managible 6,900 RPM as opposed to the higher 11,000+ what is the point of even doing it since your losing 3,000+ rotations.
So your motor works some 35+% harder than it should for the same output?
So by that logic this adapter plate is restricting the speed to a managible 6,900 RPM as opposed to the higher 11,000+ what is the point of even doing it since your losing 3,000+ rotations.
So your motor works some 35+% harder than it should for the same output?
The adapter just mounts the motor to the Miata tranny, with the Hayabusa output shaft aligned with the Mazda input shaft.
They are using the stock Suzuki gear reduction on the output shaft. You still have the full rev range and powerband of the motor, but the multiplied torque is more useful for a car's weight, and they couldn't attach a flywheel to the 'Busa crank anyway, and they get a stronger gearset.
It's just a geared reduction to a secondary shaft...like you on a Friday night. ( aye keed, aye keed)
Reply
0
0
07-08-2010, 10:20 PM
#50
^^ haaaaaa.
I was meaning viable motors. The right answer is probably always the LS1, but the motor weighs about 470lbs, and there are certainly lighter motors from Audi, Bmw, Merc, and others that are production capacity and desirable in some rights. I was kinda thinking of the lightest4-cyl swap you could do and the busa is probably it. My genius *** was thinking Ecotec or some other light 4-cyl aluminum block, but ****, why not just an old air-cooled Vw magnesium block, there's your no power and ultimate weight reduction, huh?
On the other hand, you could put some of those little v8 motors in the passenger seat so you can say you have a V8 in the car.
I was meaning viable motors. The right answer is probably always the LS1, but the motor weighs about 470lbs, and there are certainly lighter motors from Audi, Bmw, Merc, and others that are production capacity and desirable in some rights. I was kinda thinking of the lightest4-cyl swap you could do and the busa is probably it. My genius *** was thinking Ecotec or some other light 4-cyl aluminum block, but ****, why not just an old air-cooled Vw magnesium block, there's your no power and ultimate weight reduction, huh?
On the other hand, you could put some of those little v8 motors in the passenger seat so you can say you have a V8 in the car.
Reply
0
0
07-09-2010, 07:31 AM
#52
Other than that the only 1.5Ls I can think of are V-twins.
Come on man, torque multiplication is a tough concept...it involves ratios...and fractions! ******* fractions
Reply
0
0
07-09-2010, 06:27 PM
#55
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Athens
Posts: 197
Total Cats: 0
How about the Triumph Rocket motor?
More of a thumper than a screamer, (bikes wise, still redlines at 7000rpm)
2.3L 150ft/lb in-line 3.
http://www.triumph.co.uk/uk/Triumph_..._III_7686.aspx
Bolt on a Turbo/SC and you've got just over 200ft/lb
http://www.streetfire.net/video/supe...ate_183231.htm
Fooook knows how much the motor weighs though.
More of a thumper than a screamer, (bikes wise, still redlines at 7000rpm)
2.3L 150ft/lb in-line 3.
http://www.triumph.co.uk/uk/Triumph_..._III_7686.aspx
Bolt on a Turbo/SC and you've got just over 200ft/lb
http://www.streetfire.net/video/supe...ate_183231.htm
Fooook knows how much the motor weighs though.
Reply
0
0
