Engine

Based on price and availability, I narrowed it down to four options in my car.

2001 R1

This is basically the engine that Richard used in his car. This version was in production from 2000 to 2003. The plus points are that this 998cc engine produces >150bhp and 80lb.ft of torque, yet weighs only 60Kg. The stacked gearbox puts the sprocket where you need it for good prop angles and the gear selector up high at the back of the engine for a very positive and direct gear linkage routing.

Experience has shown that sump modification is not necessary in a BEC and that over filling is sufficient. Richard use a baffled sump and this works very well too. It has a cable clutch and small liquid-cooled oil-cooler built onto sump. It also has good gearing and a useful 11,750rpm redline. Ditching the EXUP valve can cause problems unless the servo is retained in the loom or a black box is used to spoof the ECU. Seems to respond well to the usual BEC trick of junking the airbox and re-jetting with power around 160bhp. Certainly bikes with full exhaust systems, K&N filters and jets are producing this much.

2003 R1

This is basically the same as the 2001 engine but is fuel injected. Because of this it has a slightly more complex wiring loom/harness. It needs the same sump baffle and a car catalyst to get through SVA.

No longer available new but decent, low-mileage engines are available at decent prices. Increasing demand is pushing prices upwards though.

2004 R1

The new 2004 engine is a new 998cc, liquid-cooled, short-stroke, 20-valve, in-line four-cylinder engine designed to make 180 horsepower power at a 12,500 rpm. The shorter cylinder head is re-angled farther forward to 40 degrees. In a Striker this increased lean would cause the engine to hit a chassis rail but in the Menace it actually leans away from the driver, allowing easy alignment of the propshaft to the output shaft. The claimed 180bhp is acheived using a ram-air effect. This only really starts to have effect at 150mph. The gearing of the Menace means that this effect can be ignored, basically limiting the power to nearer 170bhp.

Power: is 132 kW (180 HP) @ 12,500 rpm with direct air induction 126.4 kW (172 HP) @ 12,500rpm without direct air induction. Torque is 106.6Nm (10.9kg-m) @ 10,500rpm without direct air induction 110.1Nm (10.9kg-m) @ 10,500rpm with direct air induction.

The downsides of this engine are that it is relative untried and tested in BEC formats so far. There seems to be an issue with the wiring loom too, which has in-built security, requiring the original lock and key to work. The US/Canadian version of the wiring loom and ECU has no security system though.

Dyno testing has also shown that the 2004 engine does not have the low and mid-range power of the 2003 engine due to the lighter crank and shorter stroke. The other aspect that has become apparent is that the 2004 engine runs a lot hotter and it is more difficult to dissipate the heat, this is assumed to be due to the barrels being thinner and the lower coolant volumes used. This view is supported by the fact that the 2004 bike, in its original form, has a larger radiator with two fans instead of one and the underside of the fuel tank and engine compartment are covered in a heat reflective foil.

There is also interesting information at:

Mazda RX8

A great engine from Mazda which is light in weight, yet produces 231bhp at 8200rpm and has a 9000rppm red line. The engine has two 654cc rotary cyclinders and an amazingly linear power delivery. Maximum torque is 211Nm at 5500rpm. There is also a less powerful version of this engine available with a 5-speed gearbox. The engine and gear box are both only 338mm high, meaning a low centre of gravity when mounted. The revised flat, wet-sump lubrication system contains a 40 mm deep oil pan, only half as deep as current rotary engines.

The downside is availability and cost. These things are virtually impossible to get hold of and the only reason it is on my list is that I have a friend with good contacts, that may be able to source one for me.