After further research I can't find any video or history of the engine to back up my statement. The highest rpm I've found verified is 6900.
After further research I can't find any video or history of the engine to back up my statement. The highest rpm I've found verified is 6900.
Swank Force One wrote:jstein77 wrote: I'd say go short stroke and small, like 1200 -1300 cc. Suzuki Swift GT, maybe? Many of the larger bike engines are easily capable of that rpm.The Swift GT was DOHC, though...
Not with a SOHC head on it it's not. Slap a head from a 1.6 8V tracker (bigger valves than the 1.3 8V head) on it, and you have a SOHC 1.3 with forged, nitrided crank, heavy forged floating rods, and 10,000 RPM capability.
poopshovel wrote:Knurled wrote:Yes. That's EXACTLY what I said. It'll do it just long enough for a couple-9 solo II national championships and podium spots anyway (shrug.)poopshovel wrote: Honda EW3/EW4. 10k all day. .040 over, integra pistons, ITBs, Titanium valve springs & retainers.So, just to be clear, you'd stick it on a dyno and run it at 10k for, oh, an hour at full bellow?
Sorry, "all day" is a peeve of mine. Blipping up to speed for a second or two for a short run is miniscule.
One of my friends figured that a weekend of HPDE was like about 40 seasons of drag racing, in terms of RPM/time. It's amazing what you can get away with when it only has to run for a couple minutes at speed.
Strike_Zero wrote: 2TC
Pushrods FTW!
My 3K / 4K hybrid in my Starlet would turn 10,000 with no trouble
In reply to Trans_Maro:
It gives me hopes for my 3TC Corolla post Challenge 
In reply to Strike_Zero:
http://www.brdracing.com/
If an engine won't do 100 hours of track time with a relatively small amount of compression loss/spun bearing, etc.............I don't consider it reliable.
OP didn't say anything about reliability.
Trans_Maro wrote: OP didn't say anything about reliability.
It's true, SFO did not. But it has been brought up by others.
My point being that if something won't do it more than a few times, is it really capable of doing it?
Eye of the beholder, expectations, desire to argue on the internet, etc.
Most of the 300~ish hp N/A F-series SOHC Honda builds are up near or above 9000rpm. Aside from the K-series and H-series heads, the F-SOHC's flow the best, but it takes major porting. 320+cfm on the intake isn't uncommon. That Bisimoto guy coughconartistcough revs his F-SOHC drag car out to like 12000 or something.
I don't see why you can't make the TR7 or early Saab 2.0L 8 valve engines do that. The cam was directly over the valves and pushed valve buckets straight down on the valves. No rocker arms no other geometry. Better springs, better rod bolts, better oiling and I'd bet you are there. I had a 16 valve Dolomite sprint version that routinely saw 7500 with no ill effects other than rod bearings wearing out real fast.
beans wrote: That Bisimoto guy coughconartistcough...
Try getting that through the head of some Honda guys.
Derick Freese wrote:beans wrote: That Bisimoto guy coughconartistcough...Try getting that through the head of some Honda guys.
Why is he a con artist?
Took him 6 months to deliver a batch of cam gears that slip, while charging more than twice of what the other (custom made, mind you) cam gears cost. He copied all of his cam profiles from ones already existing on the marketplace for around $100 and charges over $300 for them. What about the valve springs that he charges an arm and a leg for that aren't any better than what's available STOCK?
A series Honda engines, if you wanted to know. Absolutely no engineering work went into the parts, and about half of the guys on 3geez eat that E36 M3 up because of the sticker on the berkeleying box.
z31maniac wrote:Trans_Maro wrote: OP didn't say anything about reliability.It's true, SFO did not. But it has been brought up by others. My point being that if something won't do it more than a few times, is it really capable of doing it? Eye of the beholder, expectations, desire to argue on the internet, etc.
I'm honestly not too worried about reliability. Nobody will be able to tell me if it'll be reliable or not. I'll have to figure it out myself.
But considering that my current motor ran for 3-4 years with a blown head gasket and at some point swallowed a few turbo chunks and CONTINUES to run like a bat out of hell, i'm not particularly worried. Does this sort of thing have a LOT to do with revving the nuts off a destroked motor? No. But it ain't gonna go without a fight.
I'll worry about reliability once i figure out what the heck i'm even going to do with the car once built. 
Well, I played around with a Cosworth 997 pushrod that would top 10K back in the day (ever heard of a Ginetta G4?0.
But SOHC? I guess the Cosworth SCA would qualify. They were pretty thin on the ground among my sports racer friends even back in the day, but would run to 10K and were THE engine to have in Formula 2 for several seasons.
Today, I'd just add a cam and run a Honda S2000 - rev like a mad bastard and strong as rock.
tr8todd wrote: I don't see why you can't make the TR7 or early Saab 2.0L 8 valve engines do that. The cam was directly over the valves and pushed valve buckets straight down on the valves. No rocker arms no other geometry. Better springs, better rod bolts, better oiling and I'd bet you are there. I had a 16 valve Dolomite sprint version that routinely saw 7500 with no ill effects other than rod bearings wearing out real fast.
7500 on either of the SAAB 8v motors is just some valve springs away. The late 16V T7 heads didn't see valve float until 7200 on stock springs.
The bottom ends on the NA engines are the same as the Turbo engines and are very robust. You'll certainly have valve train issues before rod/piston/crank issues.
A friend of mine reportedly saw 10k RPMs on a stock bottom end b201 regularly in his rally car. Rally legends seem to get bigger with every telling, but I trust him on this one.
I'm building a 16v B202 for 7500-8000 RPM right now.
z31maniac wrote: My point being that if something won't do it more than a few times, is it really capable of doing it?
That's like the people who say "OMG a stock 13B is good for like 15,000rpm stock"
My response is a simple "Once."
Derick Freese wrote: Took him 6 months to deliver a batch of cam gears that slip, while charging more than twice of what the other (custom made, mind you) cam gears cost. He copied all of his cam profiles from ones already existing on the marketplace for around $100 and charges over $300 for them. What about the valve springs that he charges an arm and a leg for that aren't any better than what's available STOCK? A series Honda engines, if you wanted to know. Absolutely no engineering work went into the parts, and about half of the guys on 3geez eat that E36 M3 up because of the sticker on the berkeleying box.
Scope out the f22 header fiasco on cb7tuner. It's bad. And the power curve in the h22 headers.
I'll chim in: Nissan E15, in NA trim they make 186 hp at 9600 RPMs and 165 hp at 8600. Turbo versions put out between 210 and 300 but those are reving much less. I do know of some E15s destroked to 1300 cc for SCCA D-sports racers that turned above 10K but those seem to need refreshing every 3 hours of run time..........I do not remember the exact power outputs 190 ish I think.
Tom
How high did a Fiat X1/9 engine rev? I know they can be made to rev high with crazy builds ive seen.
The coolest one i saw though was a 1.6l version with a turbo.
In reply to kanaric:
Stock redline on the 1300 was 7k, they'd pull to 8 though. The heavier pistons/longer strokes of the higher displacement ones that came later lowered that number.
Does rocker arm ratio play a significant role in any of this? Or is this strictly how cam data may be manipulated due to different rocker ratios?
Working with a 1.72 rar.
The second part. yeah, that.
You'll need to log in to post.
