Was just watching the coverage of the NZ round this morning in perth and they had a little segment after race 2 about the engines and was said they produce around 630hp only last 2000k before needing a top end rebuild and cost around $120,000???
Why do they cost so much.. I mean most people could build a NA 600hp motor for 1/3 of that money... Is it due to restrictions on what they can use so they need to use extreme top of the line gear or is it the fact that there pretty much on redline the whole race or a combination of the 2.... haha I think i just answered my own question didnt think of that till I started writing
Whats everyone else's thoughts anyway
BTW Go Tander!
-Clint
V8 Supercar Engines.. What the?
Started by
_Viper_
, Apr 22 2007 12:35 PM
25 replies to this topic
#2
Litre8
-
- Administrators
-
- 2,399 posts
Thrillseeker
- Name:Howard
- Location:Melbourne, Victoria
- Car:1976 LX SLR8000
- Joined: 05-February 07
Posted 22 April 2007 - 01:07 PM
They are restricted to 7500rpm and (I think) 10:1 compression so to make the most of that combination they run pretty radical roll cam profiles that kill valve springs fairly quick. A lot of $'s would go on cylinder head development, induction, optimising the Motec tuning parameters etc.
#3
_ChiaLX_
_ChiaLX_
-
- Guests
Posted 22 April 2007 - 02:49 PM
I heard that they pay 120k which includes mechanics time for all the pull downs and rebuilds labour wise. So you are basically paying for labour for a mechanic or 5 no matter how many times the motor is pulled down.
#4
Toranamat69
-
- Members
-
- 2,117 posts
Forum R&D Officer
- Location:Brisbane
- Joined: 07-November 05
Posted 22 April 2007 - 04:54 PM
I mean most people could build a NA 600hp motor for 1/3 of that money...
perhaps this is the statement that is a bit out there.
#5
Litre8
-
- Administrators
-
- 2,399 posts
Thrillseeker
- Name:Howard
- Location:Melbourne, Victoria
- Car:1976 LX SLR8000
- Joined: 05-February 07
Posted 22 April 2007 - 06:22 PM
Just a bit......especially one that will last for 6+ hours continuous hard use, not just 8 to 10 seconds.
#6
_Bomber Watson_
_Bomber Watson_
-
- Guests
Posted 22 April 2007 - 06:29 PM
it would be easy...if you had 700ci 
the power there making is fairly impressive for a small cube motor really.
the power there making is fairly impressive for a small cube motor really.
#7
Toranamat69
-
- Members
-
- 2,117 posts
Forum R&D Officer
- Location:Brisbane
- Joined: 07-November 05
Posted 22 April 2007 - 06:30 PM
Last time I checked a set of 8 custom titanium conrods was around the $12K mark - there is 10% of the build cost in those 8 items alone.
#8
Litre8
-
- Administrators
-
- 2,399 posts
Thrillseeker
- Name:Howard
- Location:Melbourne, Victoria
- Car:1976 LX SLR8000
- Joined: 05-February 07
Posted 22 April 2007 - 06:33 PM
That's one area I am surprised they haven't tried to limit in the name of cost saving. Endurance wise a good set of steel rods would have no problems handling that rpm (in fact they probably have a longer service life than the titanium rods).
#9
_MediuM16A2_
_MediuM16A2_
-
- Guests
Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:09 PM
soo anyone know what specs these engines run..
i dont even know how big they are or if they are naturally aspirated.
i dont even know how big they are or if they are naturally aspirated.
#10
Litre8
-
- Administrators
-
- 2,399 posts
Thrillseeker
- Name:Howard
- Location:Melbourne, Victoria
- Car:1976 LX SLR8000
- Joined: 05-February 07
Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:10 PM
5 litre capacity, V8, 2 values per cylinder, 7500rpm limit, restricted compression (10:1 I think). control Ecu (Motec), Normally aspirated.
#11
dattoman
-
- Administrators
-
- 16,487 posts
Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
- Name:Neil
- Location:Perth Western Australia
- Car:LX SS , 76 Cadillac , 3 x dattos
- Joined: 04-February 07
Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:16 PM
not to mention controlled brakes, controlled suspension, controlled bodywork
And boring as batshit
600 hp doesn't guarantee something interesting to watch unfortunatly
And boring as batshit
600 hp doesn't guarantee something interesting to watch unfortunatly
#12
_MediuM16A2_
_MediuM16A2_
-
- Guests
Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:41 PM
i disagree.. its funny when Skaife burns his clutch out when he starts in 3rd.
interesting specs.
interesting specs.
#13
Heath
View Garage
-
- Administrators
-
- 18,394 posts
I like cars.
- Name:Heath
- Location:Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne
- Car:Heavily Modified UC Sunbird Hatchback
- Joined: 07-November 05
View Garage
Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:52 PM
Someone told me they were pretty much a re-engineered 302 Chev. Are they talking out of their arse or is that true?
#14
RIM-010
View Garage
-
- Members
-
- 8,079 posts
DON'T PANIC
- Name:Tim
- Location:Cowell, SA
- Car:LJ 2 Door - HQ Premier
- Joined: 01-March 06
View Garage
Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:58 PM
Well, they're a 5L Chev, they can't be too far off a 302...
Tim
Tim
#15
makka
-
- Members
-
- 3,559 posts
A m��se once bit my sister
- Name:Cohen
- Location:ya daughters place
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 23 April 2007 - 10:52 AM
yes heath, they are a 302 chev, and the ford ones are 302 windsorsSomeone told me they were pretty much a re-engineered 302 Chev. Are they talking out of their arse or is that true?
#16
orangeLJ
-
- Members
-
- 10,261 posts
Yes, yes I do post alot!
- Joined: 02-May 06
Posted 23 April 2007 - 11:07 AM
when i heard them say they were goin to have a look at the motor, i rushed in to see. but iwas severly dissapointed. What a bullshit little segment. I liked the bit where they had 5 litre bottles of oil on the bench and crompton said "now most family cars are most likely to be 3 litres and removed two bottles, and if you even have a small hatchback, then it could even be 2 litres, so you can see that these are quite large engines" what a crock of shit, majority of commodores from like 2001 onwards are atleast 5.7 ltrs, then theer is the new VE which is 6 litres, not to mention all the other motors with more then 5 litres.
Didnt really elaborate on WHY they cost so much though, whcih pissed me off, atleast ten used to have cross sections and go into a bit of detail.
Didnt really elaborate on WHY they cost so much though, whcih pissed me off, atleast ten used to have cross sections and go into a bit of detail.
#17
_Keithy's_UC_
_Keithy's_UC_
-
- Guests
Posted 23 April 2007 - 12:42 PM
I agree and disagree with some of your points orangeLJ - there are some things that they just cant let out.
I agree with your view on channel 7's coverage. It seems extremely cheaply produced in comparison to channel 10's coverage - which was more than fantastic. Channel 7 need to spend some more money and show the people who sit with beer-in-hand to watch their program of a saturday/sunday that they know what the V8's are all about. And that AFL is nothing compared to the V8 Supercars.
Keith
I agree with your view on channel 7's coverage. It seems extremely cheaply produced in comparison to channel 10's coverage - which was more than fantastic. Channel 7 need to spend some more money and show the people who sit with beer-in-hand to watch their program of a saturday/sunday that they know what the V8's are all about. And that AFL is nothing compared to the V8 Supercars.
Keith
#18
orangeLJ
-
- Members
-
- 10,261 posts
Yes, yes I do post alot!
- Joined: 02-May 06
Posted 23 April 2007 - 01:57 PM
the other thing that pissed me off about their coverage is the constant AFL advertising, i know that cross promotion is a big thing, but can they leave it out!! and also they seem to get focused on one set of cars, and when an accident happens it took them ages to get footage of it.
The other thing that makes me laugh is their coverage on the news, the bird that does 7 news at4 i think it was, called rick kelly some other name, and their interview was completely off topic.
The other thing that makes me laugh is their coverage on the news, the bird that does 7 news at4 i think it was, called rick kelly some other name, and their interview was completely off topic.
#19
_Big T_
_Big T_
-
- Guests
Posted 23 April 2007 - 03:09 PM
Agree about 7's poor coverage. Watched race one on Saturday, didnt bother with Sundays racing. Did some work on the Toranas instead, so in hindsight, Good on Ya 7, you got me away from the tele and into the shed, time much better spent I reckon.
#20
_AGGRO_
_AGGRO_
-
- Guests
Posted 23 April 2007 - 05:04 PM
the engines run in the holdens arent 5L Chevs, they phased them out a few years ago with the start of project blueprint, they now all rund 5L holden motorsport engines with holden design heads etc. and yeah 630hp reliable from an N/A 5L is impressive considering the limits of compression, revs and fuel too
#21
Dr Terry
-
- Moderators
-
- 3,325 posts
Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator
- Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
- Joined: 13-November 05
Posted 23 April 2007 - 05:47 PM
They are 5-litre Small Block Chevs, they are basically de-stroked NASCAR engines with a locally developed EFI inlet. The new heads are the GM Aurora heads, that for some reason are now referred to as being 'Holden Motorsport' heads. The last to use Holden V8s was probably Perkins in 1995/96. It's cheaper to make horsepower with off-the-shelf US parts.the engines run in the holdens arent 5L Chevs, they phased them out a few years ago with the start of project blueprint, they now all rund 5L holden motorsport engines with holden design heads etc. and yeah 630hp reliable from an N/A 5L is impressive considering the limits of compression, revs and fuel too
Dr Terry.
#22
lakeside
-
- Members
-
- 2,703 posts
Lotsa Posts!
- Name:Col
- Location:melb
- Car:LC SBC
- Joined: 07-November 05
Posted 23 April 2007 - 09:50 PM
V8 Supercars are boring as hell, follow the leader. The only way to make places up in a race is run the bloke in front off the track or wait for him to do it himself. I happen to see the V8 utes, now thats racing. Been watching Moto GP and Superbike for 20year and i love it. It's not like the V8 Supercar parade
#23
_northy_
_northy_
-
- Guests
Posted 23 April 2007 - 09:59 PM
i love to watch the supercars but i hate the utes. i also love the superbikes did you watch last nights race stoner didnt put a foot wrong last night amazing race
#24
lakeside
-
- Members
-
- 2,703 posts
Lotsa Posts!
- Name:Col
- Location:melb
- Car:LC SBC
- Joined: 07-November 05
Posted 23 April 2007 - 10:38 PM
Stoner is looking god, touch wood 
I don't like the utes, but they have a go
I don't like the utes, but they have a go
#25
_Toranamuk_
_Toranamuk_
-
- Guests
Posted 24 April 2007 - 01:29 AM
The $120k would be close to the mark for a complete new combo, pulleys to clutch, including ECU & engine looms (2 looms fitted, 1 data loom & 1 ecu loom)
Just the heads alone complete with valve train is close to $15k, to CNC a block to achieve minimum weight is $8 to 10k & thats without the cost of the block or any other machine work.
Now that crank weights are controlled it has bought the costs of cranks down a bit.
Add up all the parts, add machine work, Assembly time & dyno time & its a healthy total.
Yes the engines have a 7500rpm limit, but some drivers get too enthusiastic on downchanging & they will buzz the engine from 9000 to 10000 real quick, killing the valve train in the process & stretching conrods like they dont need be stressed.
On & on it goes, $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Just the heads alone complete with valve train is close to $15k, to CNC a block to achieve minimum weight is $8 to 10k & thats without the cost of the block or any other machine work.
Now that crank weights are controlled it has bought the costs of cranks down a bit.
Add up all the parts, add machine work, Assembly time & dyno time & its a healthy total.
Yes the engines have a 7500rpm limit, but some drivers get too enthusiastic on downchanging & they will buzz the engine from 9000 to 10000 real quick, killing the valve train in the process & stretching conrods like they dont need be stressed.
On & on it goes, $$$$$$$$$$$$$
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
