Polaris Slingshot Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Polaris is an American company. So is this why they went with an Eco tech engine?

I love the 2ZZ-GE Engine. Im partial to them I guess because I have had an mr2 and lotus. I have always bought my racing parts from Monkey Wrench Racing out of MI. They specialize in 2zz. A stock 2zz is about the same as a Eco tech regarding horse power give or take 15 horse. But with a little tunning and a supercharger the lotus gets 225 horse. Plus the 2zz is only 1.8 liters you can get it up to a 2.0 liter aswell.

So my ???? Is there a big difference between the two engines? The one on the slingshot and the one in a Mr2 and a lotus?
What about weight difference I would believe the chevy engine is heavier than a Toyota?


I don't know much about motorcycles so why not put a hayabusa in it? Is it because of a car engine is more reliable? Torque?

I would like to know more about these things. Plus does anyone know a site that has racing parts for the slingshot Eco tech engine? I know they there r not racing parts out for the slingshot yet since its hardly out but just the Chevy Eco tech engine in general.

Thanks
 

·
You could've had a V8
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
Loaded questions but I will take a crack at it:
1. There are pretty significant differences between the Toyota (Yamaha built) mill and the GM lump. The bore's and strokes are different - as well as size. The Toyota is a screamer - high redline, high horsepower - while the GM is lower end torque, lower redline. The 2ZZ makes 133 lb/ft. vs. the 166 lb/ft. in the GM. Not sure of the weight difference but I bet it is negligible.

2. A motorcycle engine doesn't really work in these vehicles. They SCREAM with top end horsepower at 11,000+ rpm but don't have any real low down torque - they don't need it for relatively light motorcycles. This puts stresses on transmissions which is one of many reasons they are sequential in bikes (as well as the T-Rex).

3. The Hayabusa motor has about 197 hp @ 9,975 rpm and 120 lb/ft @ 7,000 rpm so it is screaming when it is in the meat of the powerband. Conversely, the Ecotec is rated at 173hp @ 6,200 rpm and 166tq @ 4,700 rpm. 85% of which is available above 2,500 rpm according to dyno sheets.

4. Go to the Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice sites and you will get a wealth of info (the 2.4 ecotec in the SS is the same as the Sky/Solstice).

Hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Amazing!!! Ok I understand the motrocycle part. It's always at its max while driving screaming.

Thanks for the solstice heads up. Hope it's not the same transmission as the solstice because I've heard bad things about the engineering slash it being a truck transmission.

Can you go a litte more into the redline torque lb/ft... And which one is better for this type of application. Thanks so much this again was awesome info
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
A motorcycle engine doesn't really work in these vehicles. They SCREAM with top end horsepower at 11,000+ rpm but don't have any real low down torque - they don't need it for relatively light motorcycles. This puts stresses on transmissions which is one of many reasons they are sequential in bikes (as well as the T-Rex).
Not necessarily; there are lots of big displacement, low revving cruiser engines.

For some reason most people make reverse trikes in the boy racer mold with a shrieking 4 cyl engine; what I'd like to see is a Indian's take on the Morgan Three Wheeler with that beautiful Thunderstroke V-twin out front, and instead of Morgan's bumper car look, something retro-curvaceous, which would be in keeping with the Indian bikes' styling.

I'm sure it would cost more to build than the SS, but could still be way less than the Morgan.

Re transmissions, my guess is that it's not related to stresses (rpm may be higher but torque and tooth loading is lower), but that sequential shifting is simpler mechanically and doable w/o opposable thumbs.
 

·
You could've had a V8
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
The SS stated redline is 7,000 rpm (which is different than photos of the tach I have seen but it says it on their website). Torque comes on at 2,500 rpm and maxes out at 4,700 then starts to trail off gradually up to redline where is has about 70% tq.

"cars" which for all intents and purposes is what the SS really is (no matter what the law says) needs a "car" motor. While light, 1,700 lbs would be way too much for a motorcycle engine. Even the Spyder, which has a motorcycle engine in it, is relatively light (~700lbs IIRC). The T-Rex is 1100 lbs with a 6 cyl BMW motorcycle motor but still suffers the motorcycle drawbacks (sequential gearbox and LOUD!) They don't make any long shaft drive cycle transmissions that I am aware of so the engine would probably need to be in the back or middle of the SS.

I am just jazzed because you can boost the Ecotec easily and cheaply and it will hold up well. 300hp should be reliable with this motor.

The tranny is the same - Aisin 5 speed. I have heard mixed things about it so I am very curious what it will be like. Perhaps 4Nines/Nick could give some feedback?
 

·
You could've had a V8
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
Not necessarily; there are lots of big displacement, low revving cruiser engines.

For some reason most people make reverse trikes in the boy racer mold with a shrieking 4 cyl engine; what I'd like to see is a Indian's take on the Morgan Three Wheeler with that beautiful Thunderstroke V-twin out front, and instead of Morgan's bumper car look, something retro-curvaceous, which would be in keeping with the Indian bikes' styling.

I'm sure it would cost more to build than the SS, but could still be way less than the Morgan.

Re transmissions, my guess is that it's not related to stresses (rpm may be higher but torque and tooth loading is lower), but that sequential shifting is simpler mechanically and doable w/o opposable thumbs.
Indeed there are some cruiser engines out there and there is even one in the Campagna V13r (Harley V-rod motor but a v-twin none the less with 84 lbs at lower RPM) which is lighter than the SS and runs 0-60 in about 6.5 seconds.

But lets not kid ourselves - cruisers are not very "sporting" especially when they are getting up to 800lbs - I don't care what V-twin you have in it. Throw another 900lbs on top of that and how sweet do you think the SS will be with any V-twin?

Even comparing a Morgan, with its S&S cycles motor, weighs 1200 lbs - the SS is 40% heavier.

I think a retro Indian Trike (a la Morgan) would be very cool. After seeing the SS it seems like it wouldn't take a whole lot of engineering to modify the chassis for front wheel drive Indian duty. Probably get closer to the Morgan's weight with the powertrain change alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
This engine is a "no brainer" choice..... http://www.ecotecpower.com/
"
About Us
The Ecotec engine is GM's first truly global engine. Ecotec's architecture results in low emissions and has flexibility to meet the needs of drivers around the globe, creating the possibility that the Ecotec could become one of the highest-volume engines in the world.

Ecotec Power is an enthusiast site dedicated to the Ecotec engine. Many GM brands use this powerplant, including Chevrolet, Holden, Oldsmobile, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall. The engine has had much success in racing applications. This site exists to empower owners, enthusiasts, engine builders, race teams, and anyone interested in the performance application of the Ecotec engine."



But why go with an inline 4 auto engine? Well, as said before.... it's mainly about torque. The Ecotec produce 135ft/lbs at 1500rpm and there is no motorcycle engine out there able to match that. Torque equals drivability and reliability and motorcycle engines cant meet either requirement. 100,000 miles is an extremely old motorcycle engine and it's rare to find one where just about any Ecotec should still be running strong at 100,000 mile point
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
The Toyota engine is designed to be transverse. The GM engine was ready to go. Less R&D, timeline, and development costs to go with GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
But lets not kid ourselves - cruisers are not very "sporting" especially when they are getting up to 800lbs - I don't care what V-twin you have in it. Throw another 900lbs on top of that and how sweet do you think the SS will be with any V-twin?
0-60 in 5 sec may be sluggish for a bike, but it's quite sporting in a car.

Also, I'm thinking the market for the Indian trike would be equivalent to sport cruisers for bikes.

Even comparing a Morgan, with its S&S cycles motor, weighs 1200 lbs - the SS is 40% heavier.
As we

The Indian trike shouldn't weigh any more than the Morgan, which is itself hardly an examplar of structural efficiency, being only a couple hundred lighter than a Lotus 7 type car.

But that's "should".

I guess due to he SS chassis was built to , and that the mysteriously high weight is likely in thick tube walls to compensate for their less than optimum structural layout (from what I can see there are several places with notably absent triangulation, and no measures taken to compensate for the non-triangulatable cockpit opening, like side pods (but then neither do most "space frame" cars).

I think a retro Indian Trike (a la Morgan) would be very cool. After seeing the SS it seems like it wouldn't take a whole lot of engineering to modify the chassis for front wheel drive Indian duty. Probably get closer to the Morgan's weight with the powertrain change alone.
I would hope not, must have the option of power oversteer.

Obviously Polaris appreciates this, or they wouldn't have gone to the complication and expense of adding right-angle and belt drives when it would have been much simpler to use an existing front-drive engine/transaxle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
the Ecotec 2.4 has a huge aftermarket base.

and considering Trex and Morgan use motorcycle engines. this sets slingshot appart from the competition :D
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top