I need some LO206 info

Hi all,

I have been working on getting my local track, NCMP, to add the LO206 engine to their 2014 season. So far a few of us have been fortunate enough to convince 90% of the previous year's clone racers to commit to the switch. Sounds great, right? Here is where things get a bit fishy.

From their site, "KRA will be making a class rule change to the Clone classes for 2014. Both the Senior and CIK Clone classes will allow the Briggs LO206 engine. The class will be referred to as the Briggs 206/Clone CIK and Briggs 206/Clone Senior. We have had a lot of requests to add the LO206 and after talking to competitors in the clone class from last season 90% supported addding the L206. Engine builders and competitors that have ran both engines say the LO206 should have more torque and the Clone should have more top end. Weight will be the same with either engine. "

Now to me the clone and the LO206 should not be raced together. The clone has a HP advantage on the LO206 and this track has it's long straights that favor the highest spinning motor. I have my opinions as to why they would go this route, however, I also think its pretty obvious what the track owners are trying to do.

Can someone on this forum tell me how well this would work out, or are we in for a season of clones walking all over the LO206?
 
Has Mark (or anyone involved) actually dyno'd the engines back to back for a comparison?
Depending on the clone rules, it's hard to say if there would be a big enough advantage to the clones. Like you, I tend to think so.

Now, the LO206 rev limiter would be a BIG factor in the comparison, (especially given the length of straights at NCMP.)
This is one of the leading reasons that the Animal Pro-Gas package was introduced into Gold Cup racing from my understanding. No one likes to be against the rev limiter for half of the straight away.
I could understand creating a separate class but combining them can make some people uneasy real quick.
Hopefully it all gets worked out.

--
Thanks and God bless,
Brian Carlson
Carlson Racing Engines
Vector Chassis
Vector Cuts
(25 years full time serving the karting industry)
www.CarlsonMotorsports.com
215 N. High St.
Linden, IN 47955
765-339-4407
bcarlson@CarlsonMotorsports.com
 
Yeah, I guess that was something I was looking toward the engine builders for their opinion. The clone is the bsp with the big pipe vs LO206. I know some builders have built both I just wasn't sure if they are really on the same playing field or not.
 
dont give up yet....we are doing the same at CMP this year and i dont have a LO206 yet to compare against my clone trackwise BUT i was told they have ran them at jax 103rd street together and depending who had the "best kart" the LO206 out ran clones as much as the clones out ran the LO206. reputable engine builder sent me some dyno comparisons PM and the numbers show the LO206 at the advantage until the rev limiter kicks in.
 
Thorton57,

I think your statements are true, but the question is, "Is the benefit of the clone past the rev limiter enough to make up the difference on the bottom end?" Our experience in SIRA (street races with even shorter straightaways then NCMP) is that the clones had just a little more than the LO206s (they run together in 4 cycle masters only). I think they decided to give them a weight break this year, but I would think these same results would be even more exaggerated at a big track like NCMP. You will not see me there with my LO206 until I see some evidence to the contrary.

Why not run them together, but score them separate? It sounds like there was enough interest in both engines to keep both, I would think that would mean there will be enough karts in each...
 
If the clone is a true box stock engine the LO 206 will kill it.
If it's a $1200.00 blueprinted engine they are pretty even.
 
Thorton57,

I think your statements are true, but the question is, "Is the benefit of the clone past the rev limiter enough to make up the difference on the bottom end?" Our experience in SIRA (street races with even shorter straightaways then NCMP) is that the clones had just a little more than the LO206s (they run together in 4 cycle masters only). I think they decided to give them a weight break this year, but I would think these same results would be even more exaggerated at a big track like NCMP. You will not see me there with my LO206 until I see some evidence to the contrary.

Why not run them together, but score them separate? It sounds like there was enough interest in both engines to keep both, I would think that would mean there will be enough karts in each...

definately dont know yet..my info is hear say but will reply back in a couple of weeks with actual results and CMP also has enough straightaways to negate the corners ....i know one of our locals ordered a motor from jimbo, so we can practice together and swap motors, cause our clones are blueprinted. also i THINK they gave the LO206 a 25 lb weight break already. regardless its going to be good..we have more interest in 4 cycle sprint racing now because of the LO206
 
We race at the NFKC (103rd St) Jacksonville Fl. Our fall season consisted of 6 races. For those of you who have never been there, we have a 1000 foot back straight. Last year, the clones and LO206 ran together. We ran the first three with a clone (big pipe at 375 lbs) and won all three with a fast time of 39.5 seconds. We went back to our LO206 (completely stock at 350 lbs) for the next three and won them all with a fast time of 39.2. The difference in fast times was due to the 25 lb weight difference. We believe the engines are equivalent at equal weights. The only time we ever saw an advantage go to the clone was if the clone was drafting a LO206 down the long straight. The clone could pick up those extra RPMs needed to make a last second pass. I don't know about anyone else's experience with the LO206 but we kept the RPMs on the LO206 at just below the rev limiter. Our limiter comes in at 6040 to 6060. We ran the clone up to 6700.
 
On Road Racing and given the clone is running the big header I really think the clone has much advantage after trying both, and IMO I also think the actual clones running at most tracks are gonna be faster than a 206 but I also think the 206 given the right tech that checks seals are not removed and checks top end is a much better option considering the mess clones causes at any track with ionconsistent or non existent tech. I was a big clone supporter myself and have invested a lot on them but I have to admit right now the 206 is a better option. I can´t guarantee for how long and again always depending on how serious tech is at your track. JMO
 
If you are talking about Road Racing as in Daytona big track racing, I have no facts. As far as sprint racing, as in 103rd St, what I posted are facts. Not I think or maybe or IMO! You can look up NFKC on mylaps and see for yourself. And we had tech at everyone of the races. In fact, I brought the clone engine home in a box a couple of times. We had tech on both the clones and the LO206. We passed every time. Others finished the race but didn't pass tech.

For those who are wondering, I would encourage you try the LO206. You will not be disappointed. Absolutely no maintenance required except changing oil. No changing springs every race. No pipe, cam or flywheel of the month. Just be sure you drain the carb if you are going to let it sit for more than a week or two. The carb will varnish up quickly if the gas evaporates in the bowl.
 
I think that what you will find is that each track lay-out will make a difference in which engine (and at what weight brake) has an advantage.
Jax. with that long straight has to be a good measuring stick of the 206 stuck against that rev limiter all too long. Short and tight sprint tracks obviously would be different. Big momentum ovals, again, different. This is why I don't like mixing of engines in a class. One thing if they are scored separately, but when racing head to head, generally one brand will come out on top, and then the racers all jump ship to that brand so they're not left at a disadvantage. Another problem with combined classes that you run into is the weight breaks varying from track to track necessitating the racer changing weights and set-ups to go from one track to the next.
01ron, thanks for your input - especially since you've given us your exact results on the same track with both engines. Now if we could just have the results on the same day, same track conditions, same air density, same tires, same chassis, same lines, same drafting partners, etc etc. Just so many variables to consider. :)

Ultimately, it's up to the track promoters to give us a class to run in. If enough racers show up with LO206s to merit a class of their own, it'd be hard for a promoter to turn them away (especially in the current economic climate.)
 
Thanks for all the info guys. I think I spoke a bit too quickly judging the people at NCMP. They are going to do some testing when weather gets warmer to make sure the engines will be comparable and may add weight to the clone to get them on a level field.

Another question: I know it doesnt need it, however, how is 100 octane (track mandated) going to effect this engine?
 
Only ran more than 87 octane pump gas one time in Jacksonville. At the Florida State race at 103rd St, we were required to run race fuel. I believe it was 93 octane VP. We ran the exact fast lap time with our clone at that race as we did with 87 pump gas octane at the first three local NFKC races with the clone. We saw no big difference although as stated above, to many variables between these races. Never tried more than 87 in the LO206.
 
At the Rock Island Grand Prix, the pole sitter in LO206 medium and the Pole sitter in Clone medium were the same guy...Gary Lawson. The LO206 was 2 tenths faster. This is a 7/10th miles street course that is flat out with 90 degree turns.
As far as octane, use 87 octane. 100 octane will most likely not work correctly to be honest. It's not a race gas engine. The Briggs rules even mandate 87 octane. Don't waste the money on high octane for this engine.
 
The problem isnt just wanting to run the 100 octane, it is required for all classes to run at the track. I was just curious if it would negatively effect the engine at all.
 
That's what I'm saying. I Don't think race gas will sit very well with these engines. I can make some calls and get clarification if you'd like, but to be honest, the track really needs to just go with the 87 octane. I've never ran race gas in a kart engine, it was either pump gas or methanol. I tried 116 octane once, and the methanol engine wouldn't even start.
 
You can also switch to non ethanol gas. Regular pump gas with ethanol starts to break down within thirty days of manufacture . non ethanol gas is stable for up to six weeks (for residential really it would fine for several months but, I wouldn't use it in a racing engine.
If you are talking about Road Racing as in Daytona big track racing, I have no facts. As far as sprint racing, as in 103rd St, what I posted are facts. Not I think or maybe or IMO! You can look up NFKC on mylaps and see for yourself. And we had tech at everyone of the races. In fact, I brought the clone engine home in a box a couple of times. We had tech on both the clones and the LO206. We passed every time. Others finished the race but didn't pass tech.

For those who are wondering, I would encourage you try the LO206. You will not be disappointed. Absolutely no maintenance required except changing oil. No changing springs every race. No pipe, cam or flywheel of the month. Just be sure you drain the carb if you are going to let it sit for more than a week or two. The carb will varnish up quickly if the gas evaporates in the bowl.
 
As one of the KRA members who voted for the shift to LO206, I just privately asked Jimbo about the 100 octane Fuel that the track is mandating. Curious to find out if it might have negative effects that require a change in track rules for this engine.

B.J.
 
You and your track should push to stay with the written rule set. That is what makes this program work.
 
I have zero doubt the clone will be faster than the 206 at new castle. On an oval or track like rock island the 206 will be better because you dont need to over rev the engine. The clone has a wider power band than the 206, albeit only due to the rev limiter. To keep up on the straight the 206 will have to run significantly less gear so it doesn't get on the limiter. Probably up to 5 teeth less. This would hurt acceleration out of the 180s substantially. Or ride the rev limiter down the straight and beat them out of the corners...will be an interesting race
 
Back
Top