HagmanMod1
Active VIP Member
how are these for power tuning and reliability and is the bottom end a 900 cat
1160 engine tech
- Thread starter HagmanMod1
- Start date
maxwell
Active VIP Member
talk to longhairfreak on here.
he has one and swears by it
but i dont know if you can take him seriously or not.
he has one and swears by it
but i dont know if you can take him seriously or not.
LOL - yeah the "propane turbo killer"....
Better yet - talk to Mountain Magic, they've done a few of them
I think they are strong motors and make good torque at a lower peak RPM, so the calculated HP #'s aren't as high because the rotational values (RPM) are lower (but who cares
). Haven't heard of any real reliability issues with them either. The Cat 900 bottom ends were stout and well built (like a Harley).
sumx54
Active VIP Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2007
- Messages
- 5,479
- Reaction score
- 5,702
- Location
- Rocky Mountain House
- Website
- www.absoluteadventure.ca
I regret to inform you that longhairfreak will not be able to be reached for discussion for a while, he is on vacation. Sorry if this causes any problems with you gentlemen.
- Thread starter
- #6
HagmanMod1
Active VIP Member
i'm actually looking to buy one that the built in a rev chassis thanks for the imput
- Thread starter
- #8
HagmanMod1
Active VIP Member
should know by tommorow if i'll take it. just waiting on an official price if its to much i'll just ride my old beater for now
maxwell
Active VIP Member
lol old beater...
what happened to your other plan
what happened to your other plan
- Thread starter
- #10
HagmanMod1
Active VIP Member
honistly it still may happen not to sure just want more power but dont want to ride a heavy tank its all up in the air right know
maxwell
Active VIP Member
ever consider a shot of nitrous...that would put your 860 in the ballpark with the 1160 i would think....or damn close
- Thread starter
- #12
HagmanMod1
Active VIP Member
how does an 1160 in a rev chassis with a 174" sound pretty fricken sweet i'd say
maxwell
Active VIP Member
that does sound good. never been on an 1160 but im sure it can work.
im building 4 174 xps in the spring cant wait to see how those work
im building 4 174 xps in the spring cant wait to see how those work
jasonrev
Active VIP Member
A guy I know has one and it works very well. Engine tech does'nt claim the huge numbers that you would think, but what they do claim is honest. I think one in a rev chassis would be an absolute riot.
Torque production is lower in the RPM band, which results in lower HP numbers. Don't look at HP #'s, only look at where a motor makes torque in the RPM range, and also what the BSFC values are. Anything less than .6 lb/hr in fuel is not enough for trail riding, reasonable values IMO are .65+.
Rotational HP is calculated as: P(hp)=(T[ft-lbf])*(W[rpm])/5252
So
T = Torque
P = HP
RPM=RPM
the calculated HP of an 1160 making 150 ft/lbs at 7000 rpm is 200 hp. Now bump that 150 ft/lbs up to 8000 rpm and you are on the receiving end of 230 hp. Its easy to make big HP numbers on the calculator by moving the torque up in the powerband. Moving the torque curve around is what makes one engine more "powerful" than another, but doesn't mean it makes it more useable. The lower the rpm in a CVT transmission, the more efficient it is. So the ideal situation is the 150 ft/lbs @ 7000 rpm, because your clutching will be able to transfer far more power to the track at this rpm, vs 8000.
Always look at what HP figures a motor makes at the "max" rpm. RPM is so critical in where a motor runs and its ability to run there all day. No one is going to run a big twin around all day at 9000 rpm to make 275 HP, it will vibrate apart, so 7500 rpm would be where you want to see a motor making max torque, then just calc the HP from there. Too many people are fooled by the HP number game.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/f/4/3f4e67fbc99d3f78ada3a3833c20d020.png
Similar threads
