eyecast Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Dear Engine enthusiasts Any thoughts on the Suzuki 1.3L, turbo charged, fuel injected, computer managed, alloy Suzuki blocked engine, with a 2 to 1 gearbox, producing up to 180hp, weight comparable to the Rotax 912 range. Have any forum members had any flying experience with a Suzuki? Eyecast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhawk Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Hi Eyecast, Have you got any more info on these engines and where to get them. Are they rebuilt car engines? Blackhawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecast Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Hi Blackhawk I found the Suzi on http://www.lightwing.com.au/Home.html and wonder if there in any one out there already flying the suzuki 1.3L. To me it reads great and is indeed a modified version of an engine that has pulled arround a lot of automobiles. With up to 200hp I think it is a contender. eyecast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Not wishing to rain on your parade but 200hp out of a 1.3L motor is a BIG BIG ask. Your time between overhauls may be very short. Consider that Lycoming makes a 200hp engine and it has a cubic capacity of 360 cubic inches or 5.9L . Yes I understand that there are differences here but there is no substitute for cubes...... Regards Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecast Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Hi Phil In the short preview 200HP is a possible emergency I guess short time sprint. I agree the overhaul time could be short to maintain the high performance, similar to a race engine v's engine loads in the family sedan. Cubes are best but also come with kgs........ eyecast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Suzuki engine, It might be a nice little engine, but I am the eternal skeptic as to whether this type of power from a small capacity motor will give the RELIABILITY, let alone the overhaul life. You also need to know whether the reduction gearbox is a reliable item, suitable engine mount points are available, how you would cool the exhaust system with that sort of power output and so on. Not for me. I'm happy to be proven wrong,. . I prefer the Wankel rotary for a sports application, and put up with the extra fuel consumption.(still better than a 2-stroke) or a purpose designed engine. Cheers Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Hi Eyecast Myself and a mate have been researching the VW 1600 motor for a wittmans V Witts single seater. My mate is very well clued on VW type 1,2 and 3 engines having built thousands of them, but the most HP we can get from the motor is 40-50hp reliably. There are VW1600 engines that deliver 200hp and genuine horsepower at that....life of the engine.....about 10 passes down the dragstrip before a full rebuild. Your biggest killer will be that you need to run very high revs and get rid of LOTS of HEAT. Most motors wont take it. Dont get me wrong, I like suzukis (bikes mainly)...their engines are brilliant but wont take that sort of punishment. Unfortunately there are many people around that make extreme claims as to what they can make an engine do. What is the trade off?? If so much hp could be extracted reliably from such a little motor, everybody would be doing it and people have tried. Do you due diligence carefully and ask some very hard questions like "will you give me a written guarantee that I will get 500hours at 200hp before an overhaul is required ? " I already know the answer...if the person making these claims even bothers to speak to you..... Exercise caution or you may well be lighter in the pocket and out of luck in the air...both of which are bad if somebody is experimenting with your money and life without you knowing about it. Ok...I'm off my soapbox now.... regards Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I have an article in the Sept 1993 Kitplanes with a write up about the Turbo Suzuki. Ascension Development of Post Falls Idaho were marketing it at that time, expected TBO of 1000 hours. It has flown in a Murphy Renegade. Power is 100 h.p. Weight 185 lbs. If you wish I could email you a copy of the article, just give me your email. Hope this is of some help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knighty Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Other concerns and issues Hi Guys I am not doubting the claimed HP of this little beast because I have seen some dyno tables and results however the tests did not conclude how long the engine could deliver the total HP before going BANG!!! I am not promoting an engine manufacturer here but I have sighted the Sub4 people in NZ who are remanufacturing the Subaru engine and undergo some full on tests where the motor/psru is under full load for hours at a time and verified by a recognised authority. It would be good to see how long the engine could run before something failed? I am also not sure how a certified aircraft engine is put through its paces however I am sure they would go through some heavy duty testing in regards to running max throttle, max heat, max lean burn etc, someone on the forum might like to enlighten us all. As for propeller speed reduction units (PSRU) and propellers they would have to be some serious mean mothers of equal size and proportion to the claimed horsepower. I've personally gone down this path and believe me you can really chase your tail here, get roped in by a lightweight alloy motor of considerable power versus weight then bolt on the extras to harness the ponies and so the story starts to unfold and $$$. My experience dictates that once you go over the 120HP mark the redrives and props start to get very expensive and heavy, you start to run out of options on brands/makes of popular parts used for common aircraft also you have to think about extra cooling (duel radiators or custom built aluminium $1000 units, and modifications to cowls) etc etc. If only life was just that simple to bolt in an engine and away we go, lots to think about in this subject and huge considerations need to be made. Knighty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Hi Ian Instead of emailing it why don't you upload it into the Downloads section of the website for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhawk Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Suzuki 1.3 Hi guys, The reason I asked Eyecast the source of his information was to see whether the 180hp Suzuki engine he mentioned was a typical rebuild motor vehical engine which had been souped up to the max. Which it was. So all of your perceptions and concerns with this small 1.3 litre rebuilt engine pumping out 180hp are well warranted. Now for the next stampeed of replies to what I am about to let you know about. Next week we will be recieving our 'BRAND NEW STANDARD FACTORY BUILT' 180hp Suzuki 1.4 litre, twin cam, 16 valve, Turbochared, EFI engine. Suzuki who are a large size manufacturer would not put out standard engines from their factory if they were not confident of the performance or the long term dependibility. The engine is being delivered to an independant engine engineer for our own Dyno testing to make sure it performs as claimed. If any one is interested in the results let me know. Blackhawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Blackhawk, I think we'll all be interested in your findings. Please post for all to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galpin Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I have followed the development of the B2 engine for some time. It is based on the Suzuki 1.3litre engine. Information can be found at http://www.b2engines.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disperse Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Some time ago I was quoted 100hp per liter. As an acceptable hp extraction. so I just flicked over to check out the 2008 model yamaha R 1 Now thats one hell of a scary beast. 132.4 kw @ 12500 rpm ( 177.5 hp ) now thats a 998cc non turbo engine. Standard factory unit. or you can add variable length induction which takes you to 139kw (186 hp ) But heres the other side TORQUE. A good aircraft engine is a low revving high torque engine. So the above unit only 112.7 nm of torque @ 10,000 rpm Compared to my 2005 camry 3.0 liter V6 which produced 145kw very close to the bike. Yet from memory produced around 300nm of torque . Then there was my 14 liter cummins that only produced 500hp But did this at a mere 1800rpm. Because of the stupid amounts of torque it produced 1800nm (I think). So what is more efficient ??? a smaller, finer prop spinning at 4000rpm. or a larger, coarser prop with enough torque behind it to still spin it at 2800rpm. Your small engine high revver uses a gear box to convert all those revs into torque. your bigger engine low revver just makes torque. ps I've been wrong before and it may just happen again someday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disperse Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 just one other question to throw in .... are they rating the hp of these engines at the flywheel or at the prop ie: after the gear box. and also don't take my above post the wrong way... it's just there is so much talk of HP and not a lot of torque. and I quoted the cummins torque figurs wrong it only had a mere 1650nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecast Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 Cut & past from http://www.lightwing.com.au/Home.html Suzuki Engine Meet our newest friend, "Suzi"!, seen here with Nick Hughes, an older friend ! "Suzi" is a 1.3L turbo charged fuel injected computer managed all alloy Suzuki blocked engine with a 2 to 1 gearbox, producing up to 180hp. This engine has been developed primarily for the SPEED SP-2000 and SP-4000 aircraft though its use in our extended high wing GR- range would add flexibility and carrying capacity not to mention the ability to carry four seats and / or floats. The beauty of this engine is in its wide power range, it is envisaged that a gate on the throttle will permit an emergency maximum horsepower of up to 200 to be achieved. The engines main application will be in the E-LSA SPEED and it will available in two configurations, for the two seat SPEED and for the SP 4000 or the four seat SPEED. The engine is budget priced at $14,000 and we anticipate it will be popular with kit builders. The "Suzi" fitted to the SP4000 Although the "Suzi" is not a heavy engine, an extended engine cowl will be developed mounting the engine or prop flange about 1.1 meters from the firewall. Engine weight is comparable to the Rotax 912 range The "Suzi" fitted to the SP2000-E Fitted to the two seat experimentally registered LSA SPEED, this engine will give outstanding performance with a climb rate estimated in excess of 1,200 ft a min and a top speed at 15,000 feet in excess of 145kts. The "Suzi" combines automotive power and fuel economy with ease of maintenance and automotive reliability. eyecast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 My current ride is a Yamaha fazer 600 generating 95hp. A great motorcycle and it makes that hp figure at about 12000rpm. I guarantee, regardless of how good yamaha build their engines, it will not produce this horsepower for long if it was held at those or close to those revs. 177hp from the current crop yami R1. It wont last at 12500rpm for long either...bottom line here is very few people have the balls big enough to ride an R1 even close to its limits and the amount of time an R1 spends at max hp is about 1% of its life..... The idea behind turbo charging an aero engine is so that it can maintain its power on climb not to add more power at sea level. I still think that 180hp is a BIG claim to fame for such a small motor. I would love to be proved wrong in the real world. I vaguely remember reading an article on certifying a lycoming. It read something like this First 50 hours. Engine to be run non stop with all temps, pressures and RPM normal. Second 50 hours Engine to be run non stop RPM normal, temps and pressures at maximum values. Third 50 hours Engine to be run non stop all temps,pressures and RPM to be run at redline. Engine then subject to full strip down and inspection. This is just what I remember so is subject to a sieve like brain and will have holes in it. Bottom line...extensive testing to get a motor certified. Regards Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrat Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Try this site http://www.raven-rotor.com/homepage.html. We have just put one into a Zenith CH 701. Had i little bit of trouble at first but all running very smooth now. Ianrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Phil, often as part of certification they run engines at red-line with no oil, (to simulate oil loss) usually with no noticeable significant wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Life of little screamer. You can pull down engines that have done 5 or 6 hundred miles of flat out race driving and you will measure NO wear, unless the oil film has broken down partially and then you may observe some burnishing and scuffing. No high performance engine in a race environment maintains a continuous high load. It is backed off frequently, so the AVERAGE power is way below the impressive figures quoted. This enables the inevitably large quantities of heat to dissipate, and the engine to survive. You are not able to determine the distortion (due to localised heat and load) that shortens the SAFE life of components (fatigue). Measured cylinder block distortions in these small engines,(head gasket face) under high load can reach figures exceeding ONE millimetre (.040") Connecting rods can stretch by similar amounts. Cylinder heads achieve temperature gradients that you wouldn't want to think about causing distortion or cracking. Nobody can suggest a TBO of 1000 Hours unless they are picking a figure out of the sky. It has little to do with wear, for if you keep the grit out of it with good filters, there won't be much, but thats not the point. The whole things been stressed to a level where it's unreliable, eventually . OK on the race track maybe, but in a plane , perhaps not. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disperse Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The 90hp out of a 1.3 suzi (Raven site) is a much more acceptable .... The 100hp per liter I quoted before actually came from a conversation about outboards. Now they do run all day at 75% + but they have a huge supply of water to keep them cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Water supply. Disperse true! One promising site in the USA (of course) with racing outboards, had developed the Wankel rotary for racing in that environment, with considerable success. As you point out, the steady high load is similar to an aircraft application.Large engines, particularly Radials, use the mass of engine metal as a heat sink. A high power setting can be used for a limited time eg Take-off power for 5 minutes. The temperatures are not stable (they are increasing) but should remain in an acceptable range for a specified short period . Nev... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 isnt the Rotax 914 only 1.3 ltr capacity? yet produces 100 hp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Yes, the rotax is 1.3L and comes in 2 flavours... 80hp and 100hp. the 914 is turboed and produces 115hp. 100hp is a lot different to 180hp as is 90hp quoted on the raven site. regards Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disperse Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 So I wonder if they a burning the fuel better or just ramming more of it down it's throat ? 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