n/a BETA max hp #'s
07-14-2002, 09:30 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Red:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dopeskills:
I'm guessing it is because the engine was originally based off the eclipse turbo engine...</div>Nope. The BETA motor was based off the Eclipse just as much as it was based of the Sentra, the Civic, the Corolla and the 323... Essentially saying, it was based off 4 cylinders and front wheel drive.
The motor responds much better to turbocharging because of cylinder head design. The *trough* combustion chamber shape and the bad exhaust port design lend themselves to forced induction rather than normal aspiration.
Combine that with the fact that these motors turn into Hyundai Hand Grenades when revved above 7500, and you basically are stuck with something that needs to make horsepower very low on the RPM band.</div>I thought I heard that the original design was from a mitsu engine... Oh well. Thanks for clearing that up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dopeskills:
I'm guessing it is because the engine was originally based off the eclipse turbo engine...</div>Nope. The BETA motor was based off the Eclipse just as much as it was based of the Sentra, the Civic, the Corolla and the 323... Essentially saying, it was based off 4 cylinders and front wheel drive.
The motor responds much better to turbocharging because of cylinder head design. The *trough* combustion chamber shape and the bad exhaust port design lend themselves to forced induction rather than normal aspiration.
Combine that with the fact that these motors turn into Hyundai Hand Grenades when revved above 7500, and you basically are stuck with something that needs to make horsepower very low on the RPM band.</div>I thought I heard that the original design was from a mitsu engine... Oh well. Thanks for clearing that up.
07-14-2002, 10:15 AM
#43
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few things I've read here in this post that I've got to set straight.
A 2.0-2.1L engine will never make 220lb-ft of torque. That's like 180% volumetric efficiency eek!
Piston speeds of 500+m/s??????? Your doing something waaaaayyyyyy wrong there in your calcs. You can't just multiply rpm by stroke rolleyes.gif . I know the proper equation and I'll post it in a bit...when I get my scanner to work so I can post the calcs I did for the Vdub. Speeds should be around 35m/s at the most, and that's damn high!
Thirdly, if someones put $10K US into a Beta and not gone over 180whp (205flywheel), then I doubt they'll ever go higher, the *revability* is most likely the week link.
A 2.0-2.1L engine will never make 220lb-ft of torque. That's like 180% volumetric efficiency eek!
Piston speeds of 500+m/s??????? Your doing something waaaaayyyyyy wrong there in your calcs. You can't just multiply rpm by stroke rolleyes.gif . I know the proper equation and I'll post it in a bit...when I get my scanner to work so I can post the calcs I did for the Vdub. Speeds should be around 35m/s at the most, and that's damn high!
Thirdly, if someones put $10K US into a Beta and not gone over 180whp (205flywheel), then I doubt they'll ever go higher, the *revability* is most likely the week link.
07-14-2002, 11:19 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>ol skool dubber:
Piston speeds of 500+m/s??????? Your doing something waaaaayyyyyy wrong there in your calcs. You can't just multiply rpm by stroke
. I know the proper equation and I'll post it in a bit...when I get my scanner to work so I can post the calcs I did for the Vdub. Speeds should be around 35m/s at the most, and that's damn high!</div>Read it again, he said 504 meters in a minute. rolleyes.gif
And, he wasn't even talking about piston speed, it was piston travel. Obviously the velocity plot would be close to sinusoidal, so the peak velocity would be somewhat higher, but the absolute average velocity is about 500 meters per minute, that is how far it travels each minute. That's about 8-1/3 meters each second.
I'd say the statements were fairly correct.
Piston speeds of 500+m/s??????? Your doing something waaaaayyyyyy wrong there in your calcs. You can't just multiply rpm by stroke
. I know the proper equation and I'll post it in a bit...when I get my scanner to work so I can post the calcs I did for the Vdub. Speeds should be around 35m/s at the most, and that's damn high!</div>Read it again, he said 504 meters in a minute. rolleyes.gif And, he wasn't even talking about piston speed, it was piston travel. Obviously the velocity plot would be close to sinusoidal, so the peak velocity would be somewhat higher, but the absolute average velocity is about 500 meters per minute, that is how far it travels each minute. That's about 8-1/3 meters each second.
I'd say the statements were fairly correct.
07-14-2002, 11:46 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SilverGT from Fxtreme had his 1.7L '97 Accent GT over 200hp. He had dynoes & time slips of 13.7's. He had everthing done though. Bored & stroked to 1.7L, head work, standalone, I/H/E, BIM, BTB, etc.
07-14-2002, 12:24 PM
#47
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Read it again, he said 504 meters in a minute.
And, he wasn't even talking about piston speed, it was piston travel. Obviously the velocity plot would be close to sinusoidal, so the peak velocity would be somewhat higher, but the absolute average velocity is about 500 meters per minute, that is how far it travels each minute. That's about 8-1/3 meters each second.
I'd say the statements were fairly correct.[/QB]</div>Well in that case he is correct(shouldn't of skimmed the post). But that only gives average speed, though usefull it's not the full picture. The fastest piston speed happens when the rod is perpendicular to the crank throw. This usaully happens about 50 degrees BTDC. In those 50 degrees or so, it has to slow to a stop from it's highest speed. And actually most of the acceleration happens in the last 15 degrees BTDC. And it's the acceleration, not velocity that robes volumetric efficieny and puts stress on the components. Well actually jerk(deriv. of accel) is what puts stress on components.
The 1.7L someone here mentioned making 200hp probably does so cause of it's smaller stroke, it probably revs to sky high numbers.
And, he wasn't even talking about piston speed, it was piston travel. Obviously the velocity plot would be close to sinusoidal, so the peak velocity would be somewhat higher, but the absolute average velocity is about 500 meters per minute, that is how far it travels each minute. That's about 8-1/3 meters each second.
I'd say the statements were fairly correct.[/QB]</div>Well in that case he is correct(shouldn't of skimmed the post). But that only gives average speed, though usefull it's not the full picture. The fastest piston speed happens when the rod is perpendicular to the crank throw. This usaully happens about 50 degrees BTDC. In those 50 degrees or so, it has to slow to a stop from it's highest speed. And actually most of the acceleration happens in the last 15 degrees BTDC. And it's the acceleration, not velocity that robes volumetric efficieny and puts stress on the components. Well actually jerk(deriv. of accel) is what puts stress on components.
The 1.7L someone here mentioned making 200hp probably does so cause of it's smaller stroke, it probably revs to sky high numbers.
07-14-2002, 01:07 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>ol skool dubber:
Well in that case he is correct(shouldn't of skimmed the post). But that only gives average speed, though usefull it's not the full picture. </div>Ahh, but it does. smile.gif His case states that we are comparing engines at a fixed RPM. Given that both cranks are rotating at the same speed, the piston that travels the greater absolute distance is the one that has the higher absolute average velocity, and therefore undergoes the most extreme acceleration & deceleration, n'est pas?
He does mention the acceleration load and its implications. The rest is merely a lesson in algebra that most people will never use, interesting as it may be wink
Well in that case he is correct(shouldn't of skimmed the post). But that only gives average speed, though usefull it's not the full picture. </div>Ahh, but it does. smile.gif His case states that we are comparing engines at a fixed RPM. Given that both cranks are rotating at the same speed, the piston that travels the greater absolute distance is the one that has the higher absolute average velocity, and therefore undergoes the most extreme acceleration & deceleration, n'est pas?
He does mention the acceleration load and its implications. The rest is merely a lesson in algebra that most people will never use, interesting as it may be wink
07-14-2002, 04:17 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red, one quick thing to point out.
The Beta motor WAS based on the mitsu 2.0L motor. In fact, back in the early 90's all hyundais had mitsu motors in them. By the mid 90's Hyundai was still using mitsu motors, but had start modifying them, making changes to the ECU's and cam shafts. Mitsu complained to hyundai about modifying their patented design, and Hyundai threatened to pull the contract. Mitsu backed off, fearing losing a major customer and Hyundai continued to use mitsu motors for a short while with their modifications. Finally Hyundai smartened-up, took the mitsu design, and modified it to the extent that it didn't fall under the patent and started producing them, themselves. However the first few batches in 96 still had some left over mitsu's in them with Hyundai faceplates.
Just passing the word from the dealership,
-Steve
The Beta motor WAS based on the mitsu 2.0L motor. In fact, back in the early 90's all hyundais had mitsu motors in them. By the mid 90's Hyundai was still using mitsu motors, but had start modifying them, making changes to the ECU's and cam shafts. Mitsu complained to hyundai about modifying their patented design, and Hyundai threatened to pull the contract. Mitsu backed off, fearing losing a major customer and Hyundai continued to use mitsu motors for a short while with their modifications. Finally Hyundai smartened-up, took the mitsu design, and modified it to the extent that it didn't fall under the patent and started producing them, themselves. However the first few batches in 96 still had some left over mitsu's in them with Hyundai faceplates.
Just passing the word from the dealership,
-Steve
07-15-2002, 02:22 AM
#50
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Veniston:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>ol skool dubber:
Well in that case he is correct(shouldn't of skimmed the post). But that only gives average speed, though usefull it's not the full picture. </div>Ahh, but it does. smile.gif His case states that we are comparing engines at a fixed RPM. Given that both cranks are rotating at the same speed, the piston that travels the greater absolute distance is the one that has the higher absolute average velocity, and therefore undergoes the most extreme acceleration & deceleration, n'est pas?
He does mention the acceleration load and its implications. The rest is merely a lesson in algebra that most people will never use, interesting as it may be wink </div>Ya, but he's neglecting rod ratio and only basing piston speed on stroke, a good start, but not the whole picture.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>ol skool dubber:
Well in that case he is correct(shouldn't of skimmed the post). But that only gives average speed, though usefull it's not the full picture. </div>Ahh, but it does. smile.gif His case states that we are comparing engines at a fixed RPM. Given that both cranks are rotating at the same speed, the piston that travels the greater absolute distance is the one that has the higher absolute average velocity, and therefore undergoes the most extreme acceleration & deceleration, n'est pas?
He does mention the acceleration load and its implications. The rest is merely a lesson in algebra that most people will never use, interesting as it may be wink </div>Ya, but he's neglecting rod ratio and only basing piston speed on stroke, a good start, but not the whole picture.