Proposed rules for use of 600cc MC egines in the F500 class

[Jnovak]

As many of you are aware we have formed a 600cc engine rules committee to try to define a working set of rules for the use of 600cc 4 stroke motorcycle engines for use in F500. We have essentially used the format of the engine rules for FB (F1000) as these rules are very well formulated and have been approved by the CRB & the BOD.

We have been in contact with members of both the CRB & the BOD in an effort to understand the process and to make sure that we are preparing this correctly.

Please be aware that this is a DRAFT of a proposal and there may certainly be changes as needed prior to sending any proposal to the CRB & BOD for their review.

We are asking for the input of all interested parties in an effort to make this proposal as functional as possible.[

Also note that our efforts are intended to make CERTAIN that current F500 cars remain absolutely competitive and that the class philosophy of the utmost value in low cost racing is maintained or improved.

The list of engine rules definitions are drawn directly from the FB (F1000) rules in the GCR. As such they also follow the same format and numbering. The numbering format will change if & when this rules proposal is submitted for approval to the SCCA.

(Current engine & associated rules from the F1000 section of the GCR with our suggested modifications in RED)

H.4. Engines
A. Motorcycle-based 4-cycle engines up to 600cc. Engines shall be approved production engines supplied by the following manufacturers; Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha. The list of approved manufacturers may be modified by the CRB.

B. Engine internals and compression ratio must remain stock. The competitor must present, on demand, an original factory manual for the engine to allow compliance verification. There shall be no modification of any component of the engine unless specifically authorized in these rules.

C. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted.

D. Turbochargers and superchargers are prohibited.

E. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.

F. The exhaust system and exhaust manifold are unrestricted, within SCCA safety regulations, except that stepped exhaust headers are not allowed.

G. The lubrication system is unrestricted except that dry sump systems are not permitted; any oil pan and/or baffling is permitted and the use of Accusump or similar oiling assist systems are allowed.

H. Oil coolers are unrestricted.

I. The cooling system is unrestricted. Radiators and associated ductwork shall comply with with existing F500 bodywork rules.

J. Replacement of the stock camshaft chain tensioner with any other chain tensioner is allowed. The replacement chain tensioner must attach directly to the engine in the original chain tensioner position. There shall be no modifications to the engine to enable the use of the replacement chain tensioner.

K. Replacement of the standard connecting rod fasteners with alternate fasteners is allowed as long as there are no modifications to the connecting rods.

L. The engine head gasket must be the thickness of the OEM gasket for the year and model of the engine.

M. Camshafts and camshaft drive mechanisms cannot be modified or adjusted in any way unless specifically specified in these rules.

N. Engine rev limits must not be modified from the stock as defined in the shop manual. There shall be no modifications to the ECU to allow for higher than specified rev limits.

H.5. Inlet Restrictors

A. The air inlet system is unrestricted at this time. However, the CRB may require the use of an inlet restrictor at any time by publishing the requirements in FasTrack.

H.6. Fuel system
The fuel system is unrestricted within the following limitations:

A. Fuel Cell Vents: Fuel tank air vents shall be located at least 25cm to the rear of the cockpit.

B. Fuel capacity: maximum 6.0 gallons.

H.7. Electrical System
The electrical system is unrestricted within the following limitations:

A. Self-starter: Cars shall be equipped with an on-board self-starter and an on-board power supply controlled by the driver while in a normal driving position.

H.8. Transmission/Final Drive

A. Rear wheel drive only is permitted.

B. The final drive ratio is unrestricted. Internal transmission gears shall remain stock.

C. Cars may use sequentially shifted motorcycle transmissions. Reverse gear is not required.

D. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Only mechanical gear shifting mechanisms are allowed. This shall include cables, rods, or other mechanical linkage systems. Other assisted shifting mechanisms are specifically not allowed. This shall include electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters etc. Other similar devices are NOT permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are also prohibited.

E. The clutch assembly is unrestricted except that the clutch engagement system shall be operated solely by driver input and shall be mechanical or hydraulic in nature. The clutch must be manually operated by the drivers hands or feet and there shall be no operation of the clutch by any assisted method.

F. The use of jackshafts to transmit power from the output sprocket to the rear axle is allowed.

G. Chain tensioners are allowed.

From the F500 rules:
E.2. Weight and Dimensions
Minimum weight as qualified and raced, with driver, shall be 700 pounds (800 lbs. for AMW and Rotax 494 engines, 825 lbs. for Rotax 493, 835 lbs for 4 stroke 600cc motorcycle engines).
Wheelbase: Maximum 80"
Overall Length: Minimum 110”
Maximum 150”
Overall Width: Minimum 50”
Maximum 55”

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Jnovak]

Please note that the 600cc rules committee has decided to delete the change to the maximum wheelbase from 85" back to the current 80". The only proposed chassis change is to the minimum weight for 600cc MC engines at 835 lbs.

This was done because it is not necessary to increase the wheelbase to allow for the installation of 600cc MC engines and that an increase in wheelbase might cause problems with existing cars.

It is our intent to fit within the current F500 rules, wherever possible, and to make certain that the 600cc powered 4 stroke cars and the 500cc 2 stroke cars are competitive with each other.

Thanks ... Jay Novak
F500 since 1984

[Captain]

Hi Jay,

I am actually a Vee guy, but if this goes through I may jump ship, as I am also a motorcycle guy. Everything all in one package.


Anyway, does "J" refer to the internal cam chain tensioner? The primary chain tensioner (in some bikes)? Or the final drive chain?

Might just want to clarify that.


Can't wait to see it accepted!
Jim

[Wahawk]

I would support this new engine proposal 100%. My son and I sold our KBS mainly because the competive engines were out of production. (and Goodyear stopped making 10 inch tires.) We had a new design chassis 50% complete when the 493 went out of production. A four stroke, I believe, would make less noise, less smoke, drink, less fuel, and would be more green. and you would be able to buy new engines again.
Jay thank you for your efforts on this proposal. I hope it flys.

Dave Bowser
SCCA member since 1970

[Jnovak]

Thanks for the support Jim & Dave. Make sure that you support these changes by writting letters to the CRB & the BOD when the time is right.

Also note the change to the chain tensioner item in the rules. This was intended to be for the camshsft. Thanks for the good eye.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[hamilton]

At 85" we (I) need a higher min weight.......at any WB the min weight should be 850lbs. for all of us statistical mutants that want to be competitive.

DH - 230lbs.

[Daryl DeArman]

As someone currently between cars (most recent one on its' way to Atlanta as we speak) the F600 concept is appealing to me.

My initial concerns:

section A) I don't like the "may be modified by the CRB" for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the idea is that they could "add" approved manufacturers at a later time, but I don't want them to be able to remove a manufacturer. It also could progress into a spec motor class...ala Legend cars. If SCCA could sell the name, they just might and I wouldn't want that to happen.

section N) If the shop manual does not specify a rev limit and I don't modify the ECU but I modify the wiring or sensors am I okay?

Transmission section B) Internal transmission gears must remain stock? The gears themselves or the ratios? What if the motor was used in different models with different ratios in the same year?

Please consider some kind of model year motor eligibility so that it doesn't have the potential to evolve into a motor of the year class, yet is allowed to evolve over time. Not a rolling year of eligibility because that does nothing to prevent a new motor year eligible every year, only delays when you can begin using a motor. 3 or 5 year blocks might be good. pre 2010 models allowed through 2013, pre 2013 through 2016 etc.

Great work!!! I hope the class takes off.

[Jnovak]

Good questions Daryl, see my comments below.

As someone currently between cars (most recent one on its' way to Atlanta as we speak) the F600 concept is appealing to me.

My initial concerns:

section A) I don't like the "may be modified by the CRB" for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the idea is that they could "add" approved manufacturers at a later time, but I don't want them to be able to remove a manufacturer. It also could progress into a spec motor class...ala Legend cars. If SCCA could sell the name, they just might and I wouldn't want that to happen. IMHO this class will never get to the point that it has enough significant values to sell the rights to the name to an engine manufacturer. The rules are very much based on the structure of the F1000 rules with a lot more restrictions. There will not be any need for a spec motor.

section N) If the shop manual does not specify a rev limit and I don't modify the ECU but I modify the wiring or sensors am I okay? Wow, a true racer speaks his mind, how can I get around the intent of the rules? You are not the 1st to discuss this issue. The intent here is to stop people from building 18,000 rpm engines & spending lots of $$$. I think we will continue to work on this in an effort to restrict engine escalation.

Transmission section B) Internal transmission gears must remain stock? The gears themselves or the ratios? What if the motor was used in different models with different ratios in the same year? Whatever engine you purchase must be STOCK & must run the ratios as installed by the manufacturer. If you think you can find a production engine with a set of gear ratios you think will help then go out & buy that motor. No switching of parts allowed. period.

Please consider some kind of model year motor eligibility so that it doesn't have the potential to evolve into a motor of the year class, yet is allowed to evolve over time. Not a rolling year of eligibility because that does nothing to prevent a new motor year eligible every year, only delays when you can begin using a motor. 3 or 5 year blocks might be good. pre 2010 models allowed through 2013, pre 2013 through 2016 etc.
We have discussed this at great length & it is currently the consensus that these particular production engines are very near their maximum as built. This does not mean the the manufacturers cannot improve the HP, they probably will. However it is the intent of the CRB that they can restrict the hp of any engine by restricting the intake air flow by the potential use of inlet flow orifices. This will keep engines at a specific peak HP level for the reasonable future. I think we will need to let this play itself out a bit as we are not certain of the performance potential of the engine/car combinations. We will have several cars running within a couple of months & will know more then. (I think)

Great work!!! I hope the class takes off.

[iamuwere]

At 85" we (I) need a higher min weight.......at any WB the min weight should be 850lbs. for all of us statistical mutants that want to be competitive.

DH - 230lbs.

With you there!

[RussMcB]

In my opinion one of the disappointing aspects of FB is the expected and consistent substantial increase in HP every few years. Sure, you may see HP creep in any SCCA class, but it is WAY more in FB than anywhere else in SCCA. Imagine the FC guys trying to cope with a new engine available that is 5 HP more. Every two years! :-).

The fast guys, especially those with money, are always going to outperform guys like me (average driver, lower budget, older chassis, etc.), but the current FB rules mean front runners will need to upgrade often to stay competitive, and their chassis may need modifications to accept newer engines. That sounds like $5000-$7000 unnecessary dollars to me. It also means that someone who keeps an engine (model) for several years will slowly fall further back. A better situation for the popularity of the class would be something to give engines longer competitive lifespans.

[Jnovak]

I agree Russ, we need to be extremely vigilant on this issue. We do not want to be another classs with continually escalating costs & HP. I do think the answer might be throttle body orifice plates under the throttle. This will keep airflow to a specific maximum and there will be no need to have new engines just for the sake of new engines. The downside of this is that it will take time to determine what is required.

We will be testing in less than 2 months. I can guarantee you that the car & drivers will be the best we can make it. This should give us an excellent understanding of the capability of the engine/car combination. I will be ready & more than happy to work directly with the CRB to make certain that we have control of this situation.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

In my opinion one of the disappointing aspects of FB is the expected and consistent substantial increase in HP every few years. Sure, you may see HP creep in any SCCA class, but it is WAY more in FB than anywhere else in SCCA. Imagine the FC guys trying to cope with a new engine available that is 5 HP more. Every two years! :-).

The fast guys, especially those with money, are always going to outperform guys like me (average driver, lower budget, older chassis, etc.), but the current FB rules mean front runners will need to upgrade often to stay competitive, and their chassis may need modifications to accept newer engines. That sounds like $5000-$7000 unnecessary dollars to me. It also means that someone who keeps an engine (model) for several years will slowly fall further back. A better situation for the popularity of the class would be something to give engines longer competitive lifespans.

[R. Pare]

B. Engine internals and compression ratio must remain stock. There shall be no machining of any component of the engine unless specifically authorized in these rules.

Suggestion: Either define "machining" or change to "cannot be modified in any manner" - "machining" does not include polishing, acid etching, etc, though one could argue that "must remain stock" covers those contingencies.

[Jnovak]

Thanks Richard, Done.

Thanks ... Jay

[JerryH]

Another atta-boy for you Jay - keeping the shifting manual with no assist is another real cost saving. It's also more trouble free. That and no dry sumps - now you're talking!

Jerry

[Jnovak]

Thanks Jerry, we are doing everything we can do to keep the costs to an absolute minimum. Hopefully we will wind up with a very cool package for the cost of a top FV.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[tedsimmons2]

From the proposed F600 rules:

H.4. Engines
C. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted.

Power Commander – cost $350; a Bazzaz unit cost - $1000. Would the Bazzaz unit be considered acceptable and within the "intent" of the rule?

Z-Fi TC Option

The Z-Fi TC (Traction Control Unit) has all of the same features as the Z-Fi QS with the addition of user adjustable traction control.

The Z-Fi TC brings traction control technology from the highest levels of professional racing down to the average racer. The Z-Fi TC does not require any additional sensors to be mounted to the bike, and is fully legal for AMA Super Sport and Super Stock competition.

Countless hours of racetrack testing and tuning were used to distill the complicated nature of this technology into a simple and intuitive tuning interface using the Z-Fi software. Traction control is easily adjusted by Throttle Position, RPM, and Gear to suit any track or riding condition. Adjustments on the fly can be made with an optional TC adjust switch, making tuning even more simple.
• All the same features of the Z-Fi QS
• State of the art Traction Control technology for faster lap times
• Adjustable by Throttle Position, RPM, and Gear for optimal performance under all riding conditions
• Intuitive software interface for easy tuning
• Uses stock sensors only, AMA Super Sport and Super Stock legal
All Products are for Closed Race Course Use Only.

MSRP: $999.95

[teamfour]

I would think the traction control version would be illegal. That needs to be written into the rules. Plus, the AMA guys have some doubt as to its effectiveness.

I just bought the Bazzaz Z-Fi unit plus the fuel mapping module. $715 shipped. You could just use the Z-Fi and use a pre-made map for $375. You would need two PCIII units to do what the Bazzaz does.

[RussMcB]

I just bought the Bazzaz Z-Fi unit plus the fuel mapping module. $715 shipped. You could just use the Z-Fi and use a pre-made map for $375. You would need two PCIII units to do what the Bazzaz does.

I think another big benefit of Bizzaz over PCIII is that it's self tuning feature can decrease the time (and money) someone might spend on the dyno.

[teamfour]

I think another big benefit of Bizzaz over PCIII is that it's self tuning feature can decrease the time (and money) someone might spend on the dyno.

Exactly Russ! I spent a ton of time researching the fuel mapping module since I can't easily throw an extra $375 down the drain on a gimmick. One day of self tuning easily pays for the unit compared to a day at the dyno. A big plus is that the unit takes readings at all throttle positions, gears, PLUS, since you are moving, the ram air effect is considered. Once the recording feature is on, it stays on until turned off. This allows you to record a one lap session or multiple days of readings (up to about 2 hours). I can store different maps in the laptop and upload them at will at the track. I can also adjust for those days in the south where we start off in the 40s with low humidity and end at 90 degrees and 100% humidity.

[glenn cooper]

You could just leave the stock ECU alone.
Traction Control, I'm just not seeing it. On the motorcycle yes, on a car, no.
Waste of money. Run the stocker, Go fast.

GC

[Daryl DeArman]

...unless it rains....

[Jnovak]

I think you are right Glenn. Traction control simply not needed on a 600cc powered car.

Thanks ... Jay

PS: we should add this in the rules. Have to think of a way to properly word it.

Thanks ... Jay

[Lee Stohr]

As far as I know, a stock ECU works on a full race DSR engine. I don't know why Power commanders and so forth are necessary in your rules. Better ask an engine builder, which I'm not.
I don't know the cost philosophy of F500, but I would be concerned about putting serious 4 stroke bike engines into your deal and expecting it to be cheap. Just because you can get a cool, mass produced, 16,000rpm engine off eBay for a grand doesn't make it cheap. Most everyone in FB/DSR gets new engines from new, parted out bikes. Your taking a chance on a bike that was dumped and trashed on ebay. You can't get new engines from parted-out bikes except in this year's model. If you allow the current calender year stock engines in your rules, then everyone will have to change engines every 2-3 years. But if you allow full race engines like DSR, then an engine can be kept competitive for 5-6 years. No one has solved that issue in FB. Let alone the issue of how SCCA tech is going to inspect 'stock' bike engines.
Maintaining equivalency between your old and new vehicles is likely to be impossible as can be seen from what FC has been going through with Zetec, Pinto and alum heads. They have done more scientific testing than I've ever seen to try and achieve equivalency, but it doesn't matter because perception will trump facts every time. Good luck !

[teamfour]

As far as I know, a stock ECU works on a full race DSR engine. I don't know why Power commanders and so forth are necessary in your rules.

Lee, I'm not an engine builder either. But it is my understanding that the ECU is so finely tuned that ANY changes to the airbox or exhaust requires some sort of fuel remapping to get optimal performance. Maybe an engine guru can chime in here.

[Daryl DeArman]

If you allow the current calender year stock engines in your rules, then everyone will have to change engines every 2-3 years. But if you allow full race engines like DSR, then an engine can be kept competitive for 5-6 years. No one has solved that issue in FB. Let alone the issue of how SCCA tech is going to inspect 'stock' bike engines.

Acknowledging the difficulty/impossibility that SCCA tech can accurately inspect stock bike engines and then ignoring that fact for a minute let me suggest again: A rolling block of eligible years may be the best solution to stop the motor of the year. Every 5 years re-up the eligible model years to the current year and older. For example; 2010 allow 2010 and older, 2015 allow 2015 and older, 2011, 2012 model etc, wouldn't be permitted until 2015. Yet, while building new cars today you can still utilize a new motor. Just my thoughts.

[Lee Stohr]

I'm pretty sure we ran a stock Suzuki ECU on Jaremko's DSR most of the year, or I should say that I think it would run just fine on a stock ECU.
We stuck a 600cc Yamaha ECU on our 1000cc Yamaha's just to get the higher rev limit of the 600cc engine, and it worked somehow. I have no idea how the ignition curves of the 600cc ECU could work on a full race 1000cc Yamaha, but it won the Runoffs 4 times.
If you require 5 year old bike engines in your new rules, at some point, all you will be able to get is well used engines, and they will need complete overhauls, which is not cheap. Most people want to get a new engine in a new race car.

[Daryl DeArman]

If you require 5 year old bike engines in your new rules, at some point, all you will be able to get is well used engines, and they will need complete overhauls, which is not cheap. Most people want to get a new engine in a new race car.

True, I guess what needs to be decided is which possibility is the lesser of two evils--a new motor of the year every year or having only 4 year or older engines available every 5 years?

Year one--new motors available
Year two--one year old motor or older
Year three--two year old motor or older
Year four--three year old motor or older
Year five--four year old motor or older

How many cars being built right now have 2009 motors?
How many have 2004 or older?
How many of the cars with 2008 motors are upgrading to 2009 motors next year or are fine continuing using their current platform?

I read the 2009 GSXR 1000 has higher compression, different cams, sodium filled valves and titanium rods....in the early stages of the class perhaps people won't upgrade until they need a rebuild and then will decide which is more cost effective per hp/tq/rpm gain as they have other things yet to be optimized.

If it isn't apparent, I don't want a class where the possibility exists that a motor of the year will be required to run at the pointy end in Nationals. I'd like to know that I can get at least one major rebuild between replacements. I do not want us to be utilizing a motor that has been out of production for 30+ years just to have stability. Some kind of happy medium please.

[Gaerte]

We have many diff. rules in our cars for diff. areas of the US our PA engine rules allow for over bore on older engines so you may remain competitive with out spending money on new engines. The cost of over bore gen. runs as much as a low mile ebay engine but it still save on new "header, oil-pan, wiring, and injection".

Regards, Dean

[Lee Stohr]

That's my point - I don't know how any class using hi-tech, cutting edge, 4 stroke engines will ever be 'cheap'. I assume F500 is supposed to be 'cheap' racing.
Some would argue that the answer is SIR's, but some engine builders have found problems with those and of course it just opens yet another area for cheating.
DSR works OK with no rules, you immediately eliminate cheating, inspection difficulties and having to have the current year bike engine. But it takes a $10K engine to win the Runoffs.

[Dave Gomberg]

True, I guess what needs to be decided is which possibility is the lesser of two evils--a new motor of the year every year or having only 4 year or older engines available every 5 years?

On the F500 forum, I have posted multiple times that there is no reason to fear an "engine of the year". There is an inexpensive, effective, simple intake restrictor (not a "Single Inlet Restrictor") that can be imposed, if necessary. The F1000 rules have a statement that the CRB can impose such a restrictor at any time. The same can be done for 600cc engines, if they become part of F500. Since it is not yet known whether or not it will be necessary to do so (and won't be until some actual track testing is done), it is premature to decide this . And, before anyone asks, no it is not necessary to have a Power Commander or to reflash the stock ECU when using such a restrictor.

Dave

[RussMcB]

DG, you're teasing us with this super duper restrictor talk. When will we learn more about it?

I'm interested to hear how it gets past the problem that earlier SIR testers experienced - having the ECU go into limp home mode (IIRC).

It sounds like a good thing, but I'm sure there will be some negative aspects to it. Everything is a compromise, after all ...

[Gaerte]

Lee in our sport the same thing has happen the open engine rule class has been the strongest. Our cars have been around since 1946 and we have seen many changes but it has always been the open class on top.

Regards, Dean

[glenn cooper]

Dave, Restrictor Plate Racin'?
Say it ain't so...

GC

[Lee Stohr]

after restrictors we'll probably have success ballast.

[Daryl DeArman]

I don't have a whole lot of faith in the ability of the club to properly size the restrictors to achieve any semblance of parity. Look how long and the troubles with the FC Pinto/Zetec thing and you are only comparing 3 different motor combinations. "F600" will have at least 4 new combinations appearing every year.

Open class rules are the easiest to follow and enforce. Often times the cheapest to build to if you aren't interested in running up front! Conversely, could be the most expensive class to run up front. I'm not against the idea of DSR-like 600 engine rules for a F500 like class, I just don't think it would ever float combining them with the existing F500 rotax cars--so I don't think that option should even be on the table.

[Lee Stohr]

You're right. Maybe it's time to phase out the weedwacker engines

[Jnovak]

Relax guys, we will have 2 to 4 cars running in a couple of months at most. When we see how they run we can make some decisions at that time. There is no need to have every technical answer in the business today. Remember the rules that we posted were simply a draft of a rules concept. We can & will make changes to the proposal as needed to make it as functional & as low cost as possible. I can assure you that it will have to be some form of stock engine or engines only.

Yes, fully built race motors are easy to police as anything is when there are no rules. F500 has extremely restrictive rules right now & the rules work. Let's see if we can do something similar with bike engines.

I think is is obvious that there is a lot of interest in the concept as the over 8,000 views on Apex attest . So I suggest that we give this project an opportunity to play itself out.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[RussMcB]

On edit: This was posted before I read Jay's attempt to get this thread back on track. Apologies if this post detracts from the main ideas in the thread.

A restrictor, if implemented successfully, would help the class by keeping competition closer and more enjoyable for everyone. I wont go so far as to say it will save money, BUT people can have more fun with the same level of investment. That's pretty important for club racers especially in tough economic times.

The following is from a F1000 POV, but could pertain to the F600 discussion.

For lower budget racers, the HP gap would not continually widen on a regular basis (every year or two). In fact, a restrictor would cap HP so that eventually a low budget racer could catch up and get to within a few HP of the latest & greatest. That is an awesome prospect.

And, I'd think that front runners would also like it, Rather than having to spend ($7,000?) every couple of years for a new engine combo (to avoid being 2-5 HP down from new engines), they could keep their engine investment and have other options for spending their money, such as tires, more test days, more events, etc.

Another benefit is that the chassis would not be expected to cope with more HP. Maybe less of an issue with new F600 chassis, but could be a concern for converted tube frame FC cars in FB that are already going much faster than designed.

Food for thought ...

[tedsimmons2]

Note the claimed horsepower of 123.3 hp.

From MotorcycleUsa.com

2009 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R

Engine: 599cc liquid-cooled Inline-Four, DOHC
Bore x Stroke: 67 x 42.5mm
Compression Ratio: 13.3:1
Fueling: fuel-injection, 38mm Keihin throttle bodies
Horsepower: 124.3 hp @ 13,500 rpm (claimed)
Torque: 49.2 lb-ft @ 11,800 rpm (claimed)
Transmission: 6-speed cassette-type

They followed it up with a power boost throughout its 16,500 rpm rev range, as well as integrated cutting edge chassis technology enabling the rider to put down fast laps with greater ease.

Your parents always said it’s what’s inside that counts; and apparently Japanese families are no different. Thus engineers introduced a substantially lighter, more powerful 599cc Inline-Four. Engine vitals like its 67 x 42.5mm bore/stroke and 13.3:1 compression ratio remain unchanged. What has changed, however, are the camshafts, which are nearly one pound lighter and coated with a more durable outer coating, revised cylinder porting and new friction-reducing pistons for improved performance, especially in the mid-range.
Above, cylindrical aluminum guides direct fuel spray into 10mm taller dual-bore velocity stacks that utilize inlets at two fixed lengths, thereby optimizing engine fueling during mid-and-high rpm engine loads. More powerful ignition coils are said to improve combustion efficiency.

Other weight saving adaptations includes narrower transmission gears and a revised shift dog shape. Oil pump and starter gears have also been trimmed down, while engine covers are now manufactured out of magnesium and feature removable noise-reducing pads on the inside. Primary fuel-injector mounting plate, relocated head pads, and a smaller coolant reservoir round out the changes.

From Motorcycle.com

It's no surprise to see this new edition (2009) of ZX-6R with several tweaks to its modest motor. It begins with several modifications to the intake system of the injected engine. From the airbox, Kawi fitted new double-bore intake funnels that are a simpler form of the variable-length intakes on Yamaha sportbikes. These velocity stacks have inlets at two different (but static) heights, with the taller inlet boosting midrange power while the short stack maximizes top-end production.

Combustion efficiency is aided by new cylindrical guides at the top of the air cleaner to direct more accurately sprayed fuel from the secondary injectors. The distance between the dual throttle plates of the 38mm oval-bore throttle bodies has been lengthened 10mm for a smoother transition through to the revised cylinder-head porting.

Other engine upgrades include more powerful stick coils for the ignition, revised piston profiles with a molybdenum coating on their skirts and lower-friction piston rings. The titanium exhaust system begins with its four header pipes using crossover tubes for lower-end scavenging before it flows to a four-into-one collector. A catalyzer-equipped under-engine chamber eventually flows to a stylized side-mount muffler. It adds up to a claimed 124 crankshaft horsepower (116 previous) at 13,500 rpm, and 130 hp with full ram-air effect. It's now down just 2 hp from the Euro model, and we expect about 105 horses at the rear wheel.

[Lee Stohr]

I was curious what hp the previous generation Kaw made, and I found this at Motorcycleusa -
"As with the previous gen ZX-6R, ECU tuning on 2007 U.S. and Canadian models has strangled the top-end power by closing the exhaust powervalve at high revs to meet noise regulations. The European model makes a claimed 123.3 ponies, a healthy boost of almost 7hp, plus it allows the engine to pull stronger up top, making its peak power 1500 rpm higher. This might be sad, but only if we didn't know how to trick the ECU to default to the Euro spec settings with a free 5-minute mod."

Gotta love 'stock' rules