Reyland powered Westfield project

Participant · 23 Jun 2010 at 19:46

Perywinkle said:
Ever driven one? they are all about corner speed.
you'll be lucky to put down anywhere near that power output in a car that weighs a bit more than half a ton.

How does that justify the comment that they're 'missing the point'? :confused:

The point is fun. It's fun in a corner, and thanks to a 'turbo nutter engine', it's also fun in a straight line.

Dogbreath · 23 Jun 2010 at 22:57

Robbie G said:
How does that justify the comment that they're 'missing the point'?

The point is fun. It's fun in a corner, and thanks to a 'turbo nutter engine', it's also fun in a straight line.

You really need to drive one to understand. These cars are about ultra-light weight, sublime handling and small, light, high revving normally aspirated engines which gives you vastly better power delivery characteristics than any monster turbo'd engine can hope to achieve, nicely shown by the power plot in this thread. With the kind of torque that engine is pushing out, and the speed at which it comes on boost it simply isn't going to be anything like as controllable as it needs to be. This is like using a sledgehammer to to put a picture hook into a wall. It also explains why bike engines are such a good fit and so popular.

FWIW the Cosworth YB is a very heavy engine, and whilst you can make up for performance with more power, you can't make up for handling with it.

I'm not slating the build of the car at all, they've done a really nice job. I just think it could have been a much better all round package with e.g. an S2000 engine and box, or a well tuned Duratec. Boring and common maybe, but people use them for good reason.

BTW, sorry for having to make you wait a few hours.

Firestar_3x · 24 Jun 2010 at 09:48

Robbie G said:
The point is fun. It's fun in a corner, and thanks to a 'turbo nutter engine', it's also fun in a straight line.

Yep, because this car with a bike engine is very slow in a straight line, so slow infact i hear fiesta 1.25's can overtake it!

This thing must feel quite nose heavy now, i'd much prefer a small and light bike engine, would make for great turn-in, predictable power on demand and a 0-60 of sub 4.5 seconds.

Its a cracking looking car and a good build but i feel that sticking such an engine in a westfield kinda misses the whole point of the car,.

Perywinkle · 24 Jun 2010 at 18:43

Robbie G said:
How does that justify the comment that they're 'missing the point'?

The point is fun. It's fun in a corner, and thanks to a 'turbo nutter engine', it's also fun in a straight line.

Because you wont be able to put all that power down even in a straight line, and you've compromised the handling by putting a heavy iron block monster up front.
Colin Chapmans whole ethos was : To add speed, add lightness
A cossie lump, with turbo gubbins and a t5 gearbox will weigh in excess of 150kg, tha's before you've had to beef up the rear shafts etc.
Compare that to a bike engine, my r1 lump weighs 60kg inc gearbox, and another 10kg if you want to turbo it (280bhp no problems)

You want big power for top end speed, the seven unfortunatly is about as aerodynamic as a brick.

You'll get nigh on the same power to weight ratio in a turbo'd bike engine car, but with better handling and faster corner speed, and probably a damn sight cheaper.

classicVin · 24 Jun 2010 at 18:56

Awsome power figures for a little car like that !

Participant · 24 Jun 2010 at 20:07

Firestar_3x said:
Yep, because this car with a bike engine is very slow in a straight line, so slow infact i hear fiesta 1.25's can overtake it!

Yep, because anyone said that. Honestly, you are a buffoon sometimes!

Perywinkle said:
Compare that to a bike engine, my r1 lump weighs 60kg inc gearbox, and another 10kg if you want to turbo it (280bhp no problems)

Right, so you like your little bike engines, understood. So what would be faster on a lap of, for example, the Nurburgring?

ZG002 · 24 Jun 2010 at 20:13

Depends on gearing. The ring has one hell of a flat out straight section.

Still a lighter engined 7 would feel better. The rear end of these are pretty light, You don't really want a massive heavy lump up front.

Perywinkle · 24 Jun 2010 at 20:42

Robbie G said:
Right, so you like your little bike engines, understood. So what would be faster on a lap of, for example, the Nurburgring?

Right, so you don't realy know what the car was all about.
You might as well ask which would be quickest round an autotest track! Most circuits are not nurburgring legnth and you know it. Sevens where never designed with a track like that in mind.
They are meant to excel in corners.
You want straight line speed? build a drag car.
You want a mix? you're in supercar/formula 1 territory.

Participant · 24 Jun 2010 at 20:56

As you already guessed, I don't know what the f I'm talking about. I'm still interested however, to find out why someone would go to all that effort to put an engine like that into a chassis like that, if it's such a terribly bad idea?

ZG002 · 24 Jun 2010 at 21:03

Reyland seem to specialise in Cosworths and fast fords. (not solely mind)

So it's more of a case of use what you know.

The car won't be horrid and will be quick.. It's just not to every ones taste. You really need to drive one of these things to know what they are about.

Perywinkle · 24 Jun 2010 at 22:14

Robbie G said:
As you already guessed, I don't know what the f I'm talking about. I'm still interested however, to find out why someone would go to all that effort to put an engine like that into a chassis like that, if it's such a terribly bad idea?

I'm not saying it is a terribly bad idea, it will no doubt be brutal and fun in it's way.
I guess it's the same reason some people build 500bhp fwd golf gti's using the 1.8t lump, all be it belted and highly modified. It won't be quick round a track compared to a dedicated car. You do it becuase you can.
A lot of the car modifying scene seems to be one upmanship rather than car competance.
I'm not knocking Reyland for this, they are masters at what they do!
Epic motorsport takes on production fords.
However, power isn't king is all situations, and the seven is a prime example of this.
The seven was designed as a track car pure and simple.

Firestar_3x · 24 Jun 2010 at 23:24

Robbie G said:
Honestly, you are a buffoon sometimes!

Couldn't you remember how to spell you're?

Participant · 25 Jun 2010 at 12:08

Firestar_3x said:
Couldn't you remember how to spell you're?

'You are' and 'you're' meaning exactly the same thing of course :confused:

.

You know someone's clutching at straws when he not only resorts to criticising spelling and grammar, but he criticises spelling and grammer that is totally correct!

Firestar_3x · 25 Jun 2010 at 13:16

Robbie G said:
'You are' and 'you're' meaning exactly the same thing of course .

You know someone's clutching at straws when he not only resorts to criticising spelling and grammar, but he criticises spelling and grammer that is totally correct!

Yes i'm well aware they mean the same thing, only an uneducated buffoon uses 'you are' when you could quite easily use 'you're'.

Usually this is a sign of somone who doesn't know the difference between the two.

You seem to be on somewhat of a rampage after everyone called your Golf pants.

Participant · 25 Jun 2010 at 14:19

Firestar_3x said:
only an uneducated buffoon uses 'you are' when you could quite easily use 'you're'.

Usually this is a sign of somone who doesn't know the difference between the two.

That's news to me, since 'you are' is actually more correct if anything, given that 'you're' is just a contraction of 'you are'.

I just cannot believe I'm having to explain this to you...yet somehow, I can.

Back to school for you I think

.

Firestar_3x · 25 Jun 2010 at 14:56

Robbie G said:
That's news to me, since 'you are' is actually more correct if anything, given that 'you're' is just a contraction of 'you are'.

How can something that means exactly the same thing be "more correct" that the other. :confused:

Robbie G said:
'You are' and 'you're' meaning exactly the same thing of course .

I was simply being exactly as anal and akward as you.

Ish · 18 Feb 2011 at 13:30

Porkie said:
BIG Update time!

So on Saturday I took the Westy and my new Lotus Exige S for their first trackday of 2011 at Bedford.

Was great day and awesome to get both out on track.... however sadly it seemed the problems with the Westy engine were much worse than we thought. It seems I did kill it when it got superhot when headgasket failed....

However every cloud and all that!!!! SOOO.... yesterday Martoon took on a challenge that even Anneka Rice would turn down!

To build me a PROPER engine from scratch... built, installed, mapped and ready for Bedford in 5 days!!!!!! :god:

Spec is gonna be awesome. Very similar to the engine he built for the Gumball Rally all those years ago!

Long Rods and Forged Pistons combined with a big Ported head by Karl Norris and some better cams and solids lifters and new inlet. Gonna be a REV monster engine... which should help the car with traction and make it more controllable I think.

So first thing yesterday Mart ripped old engine out...

and started building new one! new 200 block, long studded and prepped.

shiny new pistons... Coworth Unobtanium New Techology pistons I presume? dont know what else those letters could mean!

Solid lifters and shims

Karl Norris ported head

will update as the engine build happens... MASSIVE thanks to Martooon for doing this for me. PROPER service from a PROPER tuner

Ish · 18 Feb 2011 at 13:33

Porkie said:
Martoon been buffing up the Pistons to extra shiny spec.

Ish · 18 Feb 2011 at 13:33

Porkie said:
yep! Martoon was slowed slightly as the wrong rods and the cams didnt arrive till an hour ago!

here are some more pics

bottom end all done...

new clutch cable as other one got toasted

going in...

In!!!! just waiting for cams... so head can be done

buckets I think these are called?

Cams arrived... and going in

Ish · 18 Feb 2011 at 13:34

Porkie said:
Heads done. Cams being timed up on dummy block

Then on real bottom end in the car