18 replies to this topic

[ianbunyan]

Stat's please!

[Add_Gee]

Im quite intrested to see what people have got, i had my old 998 setup on a rolling road with a mix and match stage 1 kit, and the readout said 65bhp at the fly. Now that is a lot from a 998 surley, was the rollers overreading or is the possible with that spec?

[Ollie180]

if you have minimag in the back there clubs that take the cars to a rolling road and it tells you the specs ofthe car and the bhp

[Guess-Works.com]

:cheese: personally I dont think its about power with a 998... its about enjoying the car, but there's absolutely no reason why you cannot get over 100 bhp at the fly on a 998 if you have enough $$$$$ but I think 50/60 is a reasonable target

Don't forget you could always short stroke a 1275 motor

[Dog]

But then again..

Why do poeple look at the BHP... when its the touque we feel?

[Guess-Works.com]

because power and torque are linked by a very simple equation....

HP = Torque * RPM / 5252

therefore... more power = more torque !

Which is why all power curves from dynos which have both power and torque curves plotted cross at 5252 rpm :smartass:

Edited by GuessWorks, 12 September 2005 - 04:01 PM.

[Sam]

140bhp from a 998... turbo

[Bungle]

there was a KAD short stroke 998 in miniworld a long time ago with 16 valve head that was kicking out around 200 bhp :saywhat:

[ianbunyan]

Woah... that's serious... I reckon 100 at the fly wheel would suit me fine. I'm gonna be off to Bill Richards next month... I am torn between safety and power! LOL - but I guess safety must come first and my brakes need converting away from drums! LOL - then by the end of the year, power will come... oh yes... power WILL come

[Dog]

GW you talked about a shourt strok 1275...


What would you say if I put that into my 1293 stage 3 engine? would that up the power?

[supermotolee]

it wouldnt be a 1293 anymore if you changed the stroke...
am i right in thinking a short stroke motor revs higher and can then produce more power if you can get enough fuel and air into it and out of course...
like bike engines tent to be more large bore short stroke they make more power but less torque than a car engine of similar capacity

[Dog]

Good point...

thats what happens when you make posts late at night

I might leave the short stroke idea... I am happy with a 1293, with a X-drilled, and nitrocarbonised 'n' wedged crank!




Might be an idea to do with the old 998 lump... wonder what a few little twaks can do?

[AlexM]

If you can get 60bhp from a 998 thats pretty good and you will still maintain high reliability, it is also about the same as modern cars of today are getting from 1litre engines.

Of course more is possible if you are willing to sacrifice reliability.

I have seen a supercharged 850 in MiniWorld with 85bhp

[AlexM]

I think a good measure of any modern car is that you're doing good if you can get 100bhp from every litre of displacement. And still have a reliable car.

There is no reason that you couln't achieve 100bhp and still maintain good reliability if you used modern car systems and technology such as fuel injection. You could get this without all that tomfoolary but not as easily, and if you did both you could get much much more. ie turbo's, 8ports, 16v's

Late Rover 1.8 K-series unit: 180bhp

Honda 2.0 VTEC: 200bhp

Both these run on the 1st principle of an easy 100bhp per litre

Mitsubushi FQ400 2.0: 400bhp

Thats just plain ridiculous, but pretty amazing when it matches a Ferrari 360 for example 3.6 V8: 400bhp

Of coursethe Mitsubushi is more highly strung (and if i remember has 4000 miles service intervals)

So it really depends on how much energy you want to put in to it as well as money.
All of this maybe missing the point :tongue: i just think its amazing some of the comparisions being made.

If you took the FQ400 principle to the 998 you would be getting 200bhp and your 1275 would get 266bhp!

[Dog]

266BHP Mini


Nah I think I am happy with my 80-100BHP, least it will be reliable