Hartley Enterprises makes the excellent H1 Hayabusa V8 engine. That’s the one used by Dennis Palatov in his Ariel Atom. Drawing on their experience creating the crankcase for that engine, they’ve designed a 6061-T6 billet crankcase for the Hayabusa top end that turns the inline 4 into an engine that will bolt right up to an automotive transmission like the Ford Sierra Type 9.
A common engineering problem when trying to create a motorcycle engine powered car is what to do for a gearbox since motorcycle boxes, among other issues, tend not to have reverse gears, except for some trikes and big touring rigs and don’t hook up easily to automotive drivelines. The H2 Busa takes care of that issue quite nicely. Quaife makes various gearboxes and differentials for adapting motorcycle engines to automotive applications but the Hartley H2 makes the whole process easier and your choice of transmissions wider.
The whole engine will weigh about 140 pounds, put out 175 to 250 horsepower with the potential for a lot more when mounting a turbo. It will be offered as a kit or in completed form with availability in the first quarter of 2009. No prices are specified yet. Think of the possibilities! Nice.
Link: Hartley Enterprises
Phoebe says
“Think of the possibilities!”
I’ll bet it would be great in something old, little, and rear wheel drive =)
Mr. Tanshanomi says
The question remains, why don’t car guys build light, powerful, high-revving engines like this?
HotRodTroy says
Mr. Tanshanomi,
Maybe the Congress should be asking the “Big 3” that very question.
my $.02
Scott says
This is exciting. I would need to see the pricetag to feel great about it, but this may be just what some of us have been looking for to spark our next project.
Nice work Hartley!
todd says
yep, I’m thinking pre-smog cars or some sort of racer.
-todd
QrazyQat says
The question remains, why don’t car guys build light, powerful, high-revving engines like this?
How many miles can you put on an engine like that before it needs a rebuild? How does it do smog-wise?
Jim says
“The question remains, why don’t car guys build light, powerful, high-revving engines like this?”
These engines have no possibility of meeting the emissions requirements for automobiles and are of questionable durability. Neither is a problem for a car intended as a track day toy.
Mark L. says
The problem is not emissions requirements, which they can easily meet.
The problem with extremely short stroke high RPM engines is that they are weak on the bottom, and have extremely high average linear piston speeds, and that coupled with the weight of a car, even a small one, is that the engine is constantly under high loads and speeds to achieve acceptable performance.
This results in highly accelerated wear on the moving parts, specifically pistons, rings, and crankshafts.
I had a Hayabusa powered Baby Grand National race car that I converted from the FJ1250 to Busa power for roadracing use, and the performance at 1,180 lbs was pretty good for a car. The problem is, the engine has a TBO of about 24 hours before requiring a COMPLETE overhaul. Exceed this at your own risk. You WILL break the crankshaft, drop valves, and the leakdown exceeds 10% by then as well.
Yes, it would be longer in a road legal car, but still expect at best, a 100 hour time before overhaul.
Engine cases that are rigid with a 700 lb load of a bike suddenly flex under the 1500 lb load of a car. Crankshafts that work great in the bike it was designed for suddenly develop all kinds of unexpected harmonics under RPM/LOAD operations that were never forseen during the design process for the bike it came from. Clutch baskets crack, gears loose teeth, countershafts flex and crack the engine cases without external support bearings, and the problems go on…
These small engines make a tremendous power to weight ratio, but the reason that they have costs in the $ 20,000 – $ 80,000 price range is that you are paying for all the broken parts and engineering work that had to be done to fix the aforementioned problems.
And, you are still stuck with a very short TBO with a very high price tag.
By the way, as an engineer, we have had numerous discussions about building a kit to adapt a Busa engine into the Baby Grand, as it is an absolute riot to drive, but you are still facing a $30,000 bill for a car that is only track legal.
I don’t mean to be discouraging, but this is a much more difficult path than you would think at first glance. Just ask Hartley, Radical, with their Busa based V8’s priced in the $20-30,000 range, and RST, which built an FZR-1000 based V8, that is now an $ 80,000 engine.
Mark L.
Mark L. says
Also, we have not even started down the NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness), drivability, and economy path yet.
All of which have to be addressed as well….
For those of you that are really interested, take a look at the following:
Radical sports cars (Busa 4 & V8)
Baby Grand National racing (Water cooled FJ1300)
Diasio 962 Car Company (FZR-1000 & Rotary)
These are companies that have done what we are discussing, and you will see the price tags and rebuild costs associated with this endeavor.
Mark L.
Tom says
go to dpcars.net :an amazing 4wd lightweight car using this engine.
Journeyman says
I would just like to make a comment concerning the availability of a reverse 5speed transmission for
Harley Davidson Motorcycles. It was developed by Allan Sputhe at Sputhe Engineering. Probable around 5 or 6 years ago, I personally set up one of these transmissions in a trike with full hand controls. The customer has been very pleased with the results and reliability. J.M.
QrazyQat says
The problem is not emissions requirements, which they can easily meet.
When new, perhaps, but the rest of your post accurately describes why such an engine would likely fail the EPA tests, which included (correct me if I’m wrong) a durability requirement, that an engine has to be able to keep emissions down even while racking up some miles. I understand that even for motorcycles this involves a test of over 9,000 miles; for cars I believe it’s far longer, that it needs to be shown that emissions would be within limits over the suggested useful life of the vehicle, which is 100,000 miles for cars. That would mean any engine which wears even emotely close to as fast as you describe would have no chance of meeting car emissions requirements.
motoxyogi says
One of the earlier posts mentioned the weight issue and personnaly i think this is where the car industry is going backwards.
Apart from a few exceptions like the Tata Nano featured and the Smart car, it’s seems like every car model is getting heavier with every model change.
The VW golf mk 1(1974-1984) weighed in at approx 800kg while the mk 5(2003-) weighs in at approx 1400kg. Granted the new golf is bigger but only by about 10cm wider by 30cm longer.
And it’s a similar story for other cars like the corolla, civic and micra.
This completely contradicts the trend in motorcycle design, which has been chasing weight loss for what seems like forever now, while the car companies have been sitting back watching the money roll in as people pay for overweight cars.
Weight only benifits 2 things, ride quality and protection.
So if back in the 80’s, let’s say VW said “Right, lets take a page out of Tadao Baba’s book”.
would we all be driving nippy little lightweight cars bout 600 kilos with 100hp getting 80mpg. With the option of putting the heart of a Hayabusa or zzr1400 under the bonnet without much worry.
Essentially a formula 3 car without the wings and slicks.
todd says
I wouldn’t put the blame on the auto industry (for the weight issue at least). More heavy stuff costs more that less heavy stuff. Manufacturers have to add more heavy stuff without increasing the cost too much.
Why all the heavy stuff? The people who test drove or purchased the car said they wanted it to be quiet. They want it to ride smoother. They wanted it to SEEM safer… No matter how awesome the MK1 Rabbit GTI is the people who owned it and the focus group participants wanted more.
It’s the same problem with motorcycles, they just keep getting bigger and heavier every year.
-todd
todd says
case in point: VMax
-todd
PaulN says
Maybe I’m missing the point, but how can you increase the weight of a vehicle by 75%, even if it’s over the period of three decades? Is that progress?
OK, increased weight means increased momentum, and if you also increase ridigity, then you have a better chance in a collision. I understand that, but we are still talking about a HUGE increase in mass! Never mind what that does to the poor tires and suspensions.
Also, sound deadening has come a long way in that time span, no? I remember putting Dynamat in my car 20 years ago, and marvelling at the reduced road noise. While this doesn’t apply to motorcycles, it’s still appropriate for portions of this topic.
I guess I just don’t get it.
nicolas says
I don’t know if it’s a good car example, specifically for US references and customs … but here is an example of a car that has driven happy people during 40+ years with a flat twin 600cc engine :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV
and as they say in the article, a smart and simple engineering made them reliable : “test engines were run at full speed for 1000 hours at a time, equivalent to driving 50,000 miles at full throttle”
OK nowadays this car would fail all the safety and emissions tests. But it has been first engineered just before the 2nd world war, since then technology has improved. The Smart car shows that you can have a tiny yet safe vehicle.
The first versions of the Smart had a 600cc 3 cylinder, I think, and in Japan they have a lot of 600cc small vehicles. Not even talking about the busa-engined Smart cars seen here on the Kneeslider (look on the top right of the screen)
So ok, a motorcycle derivative powerplant will not do well to move a heavy metal “muscle car” or a soccermom SUV, but they have a good potential in well engineered (sub-)subcompact vehicles.
B*A*M*F says
Nicolas:
The difference between the Japanese sub 660cc “K” cars and sport bikes is that most Kei class cars have turbos and they are legally limited in power output. The turbo helps them make the maximum legal power output with a healthy torque curve. Most motorcycle engines sacrifice that to make high RPM horsepower. There’s nothing wrong with that, and it’s well suited to a motorcycle. However, in a car, it means really revving the hell out of your engine just to drive normally in everyday traffic. To paraphrase what one of the higher-ups at at Mercedes said a few years ago, “Americans buy horsepower, but they love torque.”
shaun says
could you americans stop talking and get on with the job- complete the h2 motor and ignore the negative comments.
Tom J Allen says
Back in the mid ’70s I was a Kawasaki dealer & the Z1 900cc motorcycle had just come out. It had ball bearing mains & needle bearing rods. I bought a lay down chassis from Sandy Kosman in S.F. Cal. very light. It had a custom turbo setup running 27 psi boost with a freon charged intercooler. It broke a lot of top end, clutch parts, but you put that kind of setup in a heavy street bike & you would be lucky for it to last 10 seconds. Just buy some F1 motors from people that know how to build them & they might last 300 miles. You all don’t understand the stresses involved. Hell if you can’t be happy with a proper 2.6L Honda K motor with a Rotrex or a turbo in an Atom 3 you need to give up on cars & just smoke dope. Maybe if you get high enough you will think that you are driving your abortion V8 pos. You will save a lot of money & be a lot happier, or Just put a Top Fuel motor in it. 7000+ hp, but sadly it only lasts a little over 4 seconds. It requires a total OH before the next run & if you don’t set everything exactly correct, it will meltdown before 4 seconds, It might only cost $100,000 to OH it. Pull your head out. You all are playing with cars. Use a good reliable car motor/tranny, or always be blown up/broke down. I’ll take the smoke dope & save a lot of money & frustration. Call me when your V8 can make ten laps wfo.