Reasons for power??

[AceInHole]

So I'm looking through posts the other day, and some stock numbers for the KA pop up.  Of course, I start thinking, "well, those numbers don't apply to me", but then wonder yet again, why??

Assuming 15% driveline loss, my 142.6rwhp would equal something like 164hp at the crank.... not exactly the 155hp it was rated at.  Does a new intake filter really add 9hp??  Let's assume it doesn't.  We should also assume that I don't get 10% driveline loss, because that would just be a different miracle to explain.

Moving on with the story, I was just getting out of my car after class, and I noticed the manufacturing sticker on the driver's side door area, and noticed my car is really a '94.  More specifically, it was made 4/94.  So, I start wondering, maybe I have S13 cams that were left over from S13 KA production??

Of course, there's always the possibility the previous owner swapped cams for me, which is still cool, but are there any other early S14 owners out there that think their car has just a little extra "go"??

[MorganS13]

i always thought S14s had the most aggressive cams other than '91s? &nbsp;my 93 sure as hell doesn't have anything special in it &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unhappy.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':unhappy:'>

[AKADriver]

Sometimes things just happen that way. &nbsp;A well-maintained car will often pick up power as it gets older.. tolerances in the engine loosen up a bit, reducing friction. &nbsp;That doesn't fully account for a 9hp gain, but slicker lubricants, the better air filter you mentioned, etc. will.

Lighter than stock wheels will also reduce driveline loss. &nbsp;15% is after all just a ballpark figure.

[sykikchimp]

91-93 all carried the same cams.. &nbsp;I've checked the FSM's.

[Kreator]

later 93s i think used less aggressive design. it was still more aggressive than the s14s though. That's what i picked up from FA.

As for the hp gain... AKADriver mentioned lubricants, so i was thinking if you are using very good synthetic oil, that might play a role as well. Like 1-2 hp i'm guessing.

[AceInHole]

For motor oil I use valvoline durablend... it's only part synthetic.
The tranny oil hasn't been changed as far as I know... I can only imagine what changing to new/ better tranny oil would do (which I'm going to do when I replace the clutch soon). &nbsp;
It's still a wonder I have just as much or more power than BPU S14's.

In all seriousness, it makes me think I could get away with just performing NA upgrades and forgetting about the turbo project...

[AKADriver]

Another thing to keep in mind, and it sounds stupid, but what kind of dyno were you on? &nbsp;Different dynos will read differently.

[anthony240]

yeah, that run was a fluke!! for all we know you probably had your foot on the roller helping!! hehe, just kidding freak. how many miles on the car? I'm guessing you're not the original owner, any way you can get in touch with the previous owner? probably got a port job. cams may be a possibility also. you only dyno'd that car once? run it again.

[AceInHole]

the dyno run was done at pruven performance:
http://24.60.241.1/dynoday/images/PJdyno_jpg.jpg
http://members.aol.com/a7r/dynochart240.jpg

That was the best of 3 runs. &nbsp;IIRC the other 2 runs were within 1hp. &nbsp;It was done during a group dyno session, and of all 240's present, mine pulled those numbers. &nbsp;
It was done after I had already had the car for about 5 months. &nbsp;If you figure I did 40k miles that year (from the day I bought it to the same day this year), 5/12 x 40k = 16.67k + the original 83k = 99.67k miles, or roughly 100k miles on the car (which seems about right since I recall having 90k+ miles on the car... most likely high 90k's).
As the sheet says, it's SAE corrected.
The run was done as a baseline to compare to the eventual turbo'ed KA (whenever I attempt to finish that), so really I'm not expecting to dyno again untill I have the turbo installed.

[Potatoskins02]

good god that's a lot of torque. well i really can't explain the hp but i just wanted to add that i pulled 141 rwhp with just an intake i wouldn't mind an explanation myself....... but that torque is insane.

[Grandpa]

Is your timing advanced at all? That could provide a decent gain. My car is stock besides timing, air filter, and some weight reduction, and it pulled pretty well on my buddy's stock '95 S14.

As far as NA vs Turbo, there is another thing to consider. I come from f-body origins, and American engines seem to vary widely from the factory. The more powerful engines from the factory respond less to basic mods.

-john

[logo20]

Isn't 15% drivetrain loss an stimate, maybe you're just losing 10%?

[AceInHole]

1. Yeah, my timing was slightly advanced.
2. Yeah, the [email protected] x 1.15 = 175 tq. It does seem like a lot of torque, but if you're getting 141hp to the wheels you should have a similar peak, or less torque dropoff.
3. 15% is an estimate. You generally see anywhere from 15% to 20% as the driveline loss estimate. 10% is probably not ridiculous, but in my opinion it's unlikely. In either case, 10% or 20%, one component of my car (driveline or engine) is in spectacular shape for the amount of miles on it. 8.7% loss would pretty much leave my car bang-on to the stock #'s, so factor in the timing and intake filter and it's possible that 10% makes sense.
4. Travis' explination is carbon deposits on my pistons, although if there were carbon deposits actually raising my compression, i'd hope they're on the head side of the combustion chamber, or else i'd be sacrificing a small bit of piston weight (not that carbon deposits would stay put on a moving piston anyways).

I'm guessing the lesson learned is that regular maintenance (or a freak engine) pays off more than some basic mods??

[Potatoskins02]

well i guess you are right about the torque it's more of a flat curve peaking at 144.

[CoasTek240]

thats awesome ace...gotta a q? of the topic a bit, you mentioned u use partial synthetic.. is there a reason? price?... can u misx partial with full?

[AceInHole]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CoasTek240 @ Nov. 20 2002,12:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">thats awesome ace...gotta a q? of the topic a bit, you mentioned u use partial synthetic.. is there a reason? price?... can u misx partial with full?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
from what i've heard full synthetic doesn't have the detergent properties that natural oil does. &nbsp;from what i've seen from draining partial synthetic, it's dirtier than full synthetic, which at least makes me think that the synthetic blend picks up dirt/ debris where full synthetic doesn't. &nbsp;of course, the blend might be the reason there's that much dirt/ debris.....

looks like i'll have to look it up more. &nbsp;for a while that's really been the only reason, thinking i was getting the best of two worlds.