Anyone here own a bike powered kit car?

Skeeter

Skeeter

Skeeter

Caporegime
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
37,146
Location
Surrey
Hi

Having seen the "fastest for 8k" thread, and looking into kit cars, I was just wondering if anyone on here has a bike powered kit car such as an MK Indy? Are they as awesome as they look?

£6-8k for an MK Indy vs £15+ for a Caterham seems like a no brainer to me!
 
A kit car with anything above a 1.8 would be fairly quick.

The old man's mate built one with a 2litre pinto engine and that was really quick, although never passed its SVA. So the college is re-building it and mean to be getting auctioned off :p
 
Not bike engines though.... I wanna know if the 900 - 1000cc bike engines are any good in these type of cars, and how they compare to car engines like in Caterhams?

I suppose a bike engine may be half the capacity, but its also half the weight....?
 
Last edited:
A bike engine would be seriously quick, theres a few on you tube. Only problem is reverse, some people put a motor in, others just push it back.
 
Just about any litre bike engine needs to be in a car well under 500Kg to 'work'. Above that and they really labour and struggle to get you going. A lot of noise and fuss but not that quick.

*n
 
I'm building a Stuart Taylor kit car, but I decided on a 1.8 Zetec engine for ease of installation and parts availability:

http://wicksta-seven.blogspot.com/

No updates for a couple of weeks as I only just got back from a holiday last week and had a wedding this weekend. The kit I'm using is a common one for people to put bike engines in:

http://www.ariesmotorsport.co.uk/

The guy who owns the company is extremely helpful if you want to call him for advice or where to pick up a second hand one already built.
 
so a circa 1l Bike engined one is around the same performance as a car engined counterpart with around double the capacity? Thats what I wanted to hear!

This isnt an impending purchase. I just really really want a small fast kit car within a few years, and always liked Caterhams. But your looking at atleast £15k for a nice one, whereas MK Indys with Fireblade or R1 engines are less than half the price, rarer, just as fast and sound so much nicer!

Im also not that engineering minded. Id buy a prebuilt rather than build my own. Is being a bit of a noob when it comes to building cars/bikes going to put me at a disadvantage?
 
Bike engined sevens are usually quite a bit faster than car engined counterparts unless they are highly tuned.
In the Indy you'd need around 200 bhp car engine to keep up with an r1 powered car.
My r1 lump cost me 500 quid, you'd have to spend a hell of a lot more than that to get a zetec or red top up to 200 brake.
 
Perywinkle said:
Bike engined sevens are usually quite a bit faster than car engined counterparts unless they are highly tuned.
In the Indy you'd need around 200 bhp car engine to keep up with an r1 powered car.
My r1 lump cost me 500 quid, you'd have to spend a hell of a lot more than that to get a zetec or red top up to 200 brake.
Click to expand...

Is it literally down to the physics? A bike engine is less powerfull but revs so much higher and weighs so much less than a car engine that it can outperform something of twice the capacity? Whats the BHP of an R1 or Fireblade engine?
 
Skeeter said:
Is it literally down to the physics? A bike engine is less powerfull but revs so much higher and weighs so much less than a car engine that it can outperform something of twice the capacity? Whats the BHP of an R1 or Fireblade engine?
Click to expand...

150-160bhp
 
This is sounding more and more like a good idea every minute!

And the best thing, the GF aproves (as long as I buy a pre built, as she would leave me if i spent my life in a shed)! :)
 
Skeeter said:
Is it literally down to the physics? A bike engine is less powerfull but revs so much higher and weighs so much less than a car engine that it can outperform something of twice the capacity? Whats the BHP of an R1 or Fireblade engine?
Click to expand...

I know little about bike engines but I believe they are also generally in a higher state of tune..

as for the BHP figures between 140-150 akaik??
 
Skeeter said:
Is it literally down to the physics? A bike engine is less powerfull but revs so much higher and weighs so much less than a car engine that it can outperform something of twice the capacity? Whats the BHP of an R1 or Fireblade engine?
Click to expand...


A major benefit of bike engines is the sequential gearbox which makes gear changes much faster. I suspect a car engine with a sequential box wouldn't need anything like such a large power advantage as one with an H pattern box.

On the downside, some bike engines are prone to oil surge when used in a car (requires expensive custom made baffled sump, or dry sumping) and the clutches and gearbox get a hammering since it's dragging around 2-2.5 times the weight it would be in a bike.

For any distances the bike engines can also be very tiring, because of the low gearing the engine is already screaming away when cruising at 70mph. For track work they make a lot of sense.

The newest R1's make 177bhp, but the older ones ranged from 128-154bhp
 
Last edited:
It would be a second car. My toy. Would be taken on weekend drives, and to tracks over the UK and the ring, etc. Basically, id much rather have a bike powered kit and then a 2.0l Diesel Mondeo with aircon etc for the comute, than an all in one luxobarge.

But would I be walking ito a world of trouble if I got one as I dont know much about engines, especially bikes.
 
Bike engines are good but even a standard 2.0 Zetec is 128bhp only 20bhp behind the R1 but torque of the Zetec is 178NM where are the R1 is only just over 100NM,. The Zetec will be easier to run and live with and tune. A zetec wont need to rev to 6.5rpm just to start something so heavy moving away from the line. Sequential box is fantastic but then dont forget you are going to be using a clutch designed to be operated by hand with your foot. Also if it is a concern the only reason bikes get good mpg is the lack of weight, stick the same engine in a car and its gonna return very low mpgs. I mean bike engines are good, but not sure decision is quite as clear cut as has been made out so far.

As for weight the 2.0 zetec is 118kg, the r1 engine is 80kg but think that figure could include the gearbox so yeah big difference really.
 
G_D said:
Bike engines are good but even a standard 2.0 Zetec is 128bhp only 20bhp behind the R1 but torque of the Zetec is 178NM where are the R1 is only just over 100NM,. The Zetec will be easier to run and live with and tune. A zetec wont need to rev to 6.5rpm just to start something so heavy moving away from the line. Sequential box is fantastic but then dont forget you are going to be using a clutch designed to be operated by hand with your foot. Also if it is a concern the only reason bikes get good mpg is the lack of weight, stick the same engine in a car and its gonna return very low mpgs. I mean bike engines are good, but not sure decision is quite as clear cut as has been made out so far..
Click to expand...
Add to that....I think you be changing gear every two seconds with a motorbike engine gearbox fitted....

R1 does about 104mph in first gear..then the rest are very close together (6 gears)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom