the legend of the NA KA....

[Sean1978]

Every "I want to build a NA KA or SR" thread I read someone seems to chime in about 300HP ITB powered KA engines in Nissan race trucks or SOCH ITB cars built cheap as hell. can anyone actually show me a picture or a dynop sheet for such an engine? I have never seen a 300HP NA KA anywhere. I always here about a "friend of a friend' that had one or about some nismo racetruck....

anyone have any hard links to one of these "NA KA MONSTER" engines or are they just an internet myth?


the only ITB powered DOHC engine I have seen is the one that the guy on here posted last month, it's pretty cool but it only has like 180hp...

[JVD]

Making that kind of power with a KA is not worth it anyways. You will end up spending a lot more than a good turbo setup to reach 300hp. Also, from what I remember the engines you are talking about are all out race engines. ie. they had to be rebuilt after each race. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

JVD.

[Sean1978]

I'm not trying to build an engine like that myself, I have a turbo SR in one of my cars and a stock KA in my other, I'm just curious to actually see one of these engines..

[Chernobyl]

Google around for SCCA GT2 cars.

S14 bodies with SOHC KA monsters built by Robello and the likes. Lots of old school L-series tricks are used, since the blocks are not-so distant descendants.

[Cashizslick]

NA = the expensive way to go slow.


However, i'll admit that it does take a GREAT deal of skill to build and tune a powerfull NA motor.

[Sean1978]

I found this pic so far, looks like a ITB KA24E with carbs... correct me if I'm wrong I'm no expert. looks sweet, however couldn't find specs. I'm still looking for a DOCH car..
http://race-cars.com/carsales/other/1062560599/1062560599pu4.jpg

[e1_griego]

Uhhhhh....that's an l-series, and a 6 cylinder. Not a ka-e at all.

Alex

[Irukandji]

yeaaaaaahhhhh

6 throttle bottles....meaning 6 cylinders..... aka... not a ka

there is a whole damn forum for this stuff... no need to make your own thread.

[Steeles]

NA = the expensive way to go slow.


However, i'll admit that it does take a GREAT deal of skill to build and tune a powerfull NA motor.

just ask BMW. they make some of the most insanely powerful NA engines in street cars.

[S14DB]

just ask BMW. they make some of the most insanely powerful NA engines in street cars.
Have you ever seen one on a dyno? Not that impressive...

[Steeles]

yes I have. my uncle owns an 06 M3, my dad has an 06 750. I've driven M3s and Mcoupes. I am well aware of what the engines can do. and those aren't even their big engines. I'm dying to get behind the wheel of an M5 or M6. 500hp V10.

[Chernobyl]

http://www.rebelloracing.com/

Their website doesn't show much, though.

[that180guy]

NA = the expensive way to go slow.


However, i'll admit that it does take a GREAT deal of skill to build and tune a powerfull NA motor.

tell that to spoon, or 13 second 170whp honda civics....or the guys at rebello:rawk:

[sideview_180sx]

tell that to spoon, or 13 second 170whp honda civics....or the guys at rebello:rawk:

you are also comparing apples to oranges. Where as all of those motors don't put out the amount of torque, nor have the same rod/stroke ratio to deal with. All the honda/toyota/bmw enginesa are all designed differently. However one must remember the amount of r&d going into making a sporty NA engine or a heavy duty lugger.

[that180guy]

^^ you are correct, as for the engine designs are differnt. i was just saying that;
calling a NA build the expensive way to go slow just because its horsepower to dolla ratio is low, compared to say a turbos is the same kind of comparrison.
im just saying, imho, the comparission of na and turbo(which alot of ppl do) doesnt work as drinking beer then drinking milk.

[Sean1978]

Uhhhhh....that's an l-series, and a 6 cylinder. Not a ka-e at all.

Alex

oops... pwned myself:duh:

I was in a rush after work when I posted that... still, nobody has any links to a 300HP ITB KA monster? even IF it's an all out race motor? or...

maybe we need to call these guys..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Mythbusters.jpg/300px-Mythbusters.jpg

[drift freaq]

yeaaaaaahhhhh

6 throttle bottles....meaning 6 cylinders..... aka... not a ka

there is a whole damn forum for this stuff... no need to make your own thread.
well thats not really considered 6 throttle bodies,reason is they are being fed off a single float bowl and joined jet setup per carburetor. Technically thats triple 2 barrel sidedraft carburetors i.e. Webers!!
Italian Carburetors, those and Mikuni Solex's used to the rage on 2000 roadsters, 510's/610's/710's and 240/260/280z's back in early 70's through mid 80's . Classic L series engine setup.

[fliprayzin240sx]

Wheres Bory when you need him? He knows bout these GT2 KAs cuz he actually works as a pit monkey. He said they make between 300-350whp with a 10K redline depending on the spec. But at the same time the engines cost somewhere between $10-15K each. He said that they would go tru 2-3 engines per race depending on warm-up, qualifying, and the race itself.

Edit: I take that back...hes working in GT3...Hes actually trying to sell a GT3 engine, just cant remember if its a SOHC or DOHC
http://www.zilvia.net/f/member.php?u=16036

[BigVinnie]

Well right now I am discussing the production of a fully counter weighed crank with Paul Saintclair (NISMO core and gt developement). From what I understand the core and GT series internals are soooo far from stock OEM the whole entire bottom end of the KA is redesigned. I asked for a price quote on the crank alone and lets just say it's well over 5000 big ones. That doesn't include the redesigned rods, bearings, or pistons needed to complete the smooth harmonic, low friction 9000+ RPM redline.
The only way the KA can achieve that 300+CHP is due to it's additional redline that is complimented with the newer internals to drag the power band far enough before it would severly dyno dip. ITB's don't necessarily make that power although it is nice to just pull atmospheric pressure direct into each chamber with extremely short runners to compliment that high end power.
If you want to build a streetable NA KA it will cost about $5000 in parts and build, it will still use a half weighted crank, and only achieve about 250CHP at 5900RPM with mildly aggressive cams (JWT), ecu tune, and high compression pistons at 11.1:1 CR (of course pump gas @ 106 octane or better), (yeah, yeah I didn't forget the bolt on's).
I did see an earlier post that Rebello built those race trucks....... Lets clarify, those trucks are from the core truck team. The first proto type was designed by ED Pink, and NISMO (KA internals), Rebello is the artist that built the engine. No there not streetable at that CHP, and the timing is soooo far advanced you wouldn't like the gas mileage or idle either....

[chmercer]

BTW you wont ever find an dohc motor built like that because the only reason they use the sohc KAs is because that is the best motor that is allowed in that class (allowed because it came stock with carburators in some old truck). dohc never came stock with carbs so its not allowed. if scca would allow DOHC motors nobody would ever be dicking around with crappy single cams

[infinitexsound]

dohc is allowed...... daymn u ray for calling me out.... itb or single TB same diffrence... go to a event SCCA club racing event and check out the cars.... i would take pics of the engine but that wouldnt be nice...
talk about idle yeah very high idle and etc etc etc...

big vinnie is right tho that shit is expensive.... i dont know too much about the DE since we basically got it.. and my boss doesnt talk to much about it either.. but as for the sohc info is there just SEARCH.... i think sohc has the info i gave it to him....

and ray no....... new motor broken in on the dyno and practice sessions and then qualify, replace the oils.. with racing fluid.. then race... but if the motor starts acting up then we replace it over nite with a spare... DE'a are new in road racing but not in offroad... NISMO sells the parts.... i got a rough idea of how much they sell them for ... and its around 18k for just the longblock..

[BigVinnie]

BTW you wont ever find an dohc motor built like that because the only reason they use the sohc KAs is because that is the best motor that is allowed in that class (allowed because it came stock with carburators in some old truck). dohc never came stock with carbs so its not allowed. if scca would allow DOHC motors nobody would ever be dicking around with crappy single cams

That is all false info. Not one KA came stock with carbs on truck hardbody/frontiers (D21 series). The system used is a DPI (Dual point Fuel Injection). 1986 was the last year that carburation was used on NAPS-Z 2.4litre hardbody d21 trucks. 1986.5 was the change to DPI mostly for the purpose of smog emissions, and better use of fuel economy. Solex developed a dual manifold for carb or ITB setup onto the SOHC KA motor. The sidedraft carburation is the same set up used since the 1968 L-16 (mikuni, or weber). Tweak it of Australia sells the ITB's with injector ports so that you can bolt the ITB's up to the Solex with some minor modifying. The Solex can infact be used for the DOHC's but the flange will need to be cut and fabbed for the DOHC. Rebello can sell you the solex mani's and can fab them for DOHC if you want it (IMO you can get a lincoln electric ARC welder at Home Depot for $300 and do your own weld work).
KA's came in the 240sx before the D21 hardbody, the naps-z (it's predecessor) came in the 720/D21 trucks, and there are minor differences between the 2 engines (front, or rear sump, smaller bearings used on the crank and cap of the naps-z, naps-z also used an 8valve head instead of the KA 12valve. DOHC's are allowed in the scca, it has nothing to do with the carburation.
KA boost freaqs use naps-z pistons on SOHC KA's for high boosting.
SOHC's are still good engines if you know anything about solid lifter assembly's....

[infinitexsound]

yeah talkinn about the gt3 class... anyhow new motors are under development.. but u gotta run a SIR...aka a restrictor... if u caught some of the mid-oho runoff championships on SPEED, u probably would of saw the engines and cars running these motors.....

[SoSideways]

yeah talkinn about the gt3 class... anyhow new motors are under development.. but u gotta run a SIR...aka a restrictor... if u caught some of the mid-oho runoff championships on SPEED, u probably would of saw the engines and cars running these motors.....

You talking about the 3 S13 coupes?

[Sean1978]

so, there aren't any high powered NA KA's except exotic race built engines that use a pretty much custom bottom end? no such thing as a 200WHP NA KA that uses a standard bottom end?

[chmercer]

my bad, thats what i had heard from my scca friend.

haha, na ka sucks, so slow, so slow.

[chmercer]

so, there aren't any high powered NA KA's except exotic race built engines that use a pretty much custom bottom end? no such thing as a 200WHP NA KA that uses a standard bottom end?

stock bottom end deffinitley not. maybe with nitrous

[sideview_180sx]

I have the July 2005 issue of over rev magazine. On an apparent 60-shot of a wet nitrous system. The sohc KA they used put down 211hp/4000rpm and 286Tq/3800rpm. When in doubt use nitrous! Then again, this isn't daily driven hp either. There are reasons that smoe engines just aren't as developed as others. More often then not, it's cost associated with bringing out the hp people want, and the likelyhood that it would be reliable. For example the mazda6 that race in speed TC have engines that are more overly built, just to make 270hp to compete with the TSXs and 3-series in that class. They had to bend their own rules in order to make it competetive. You could think of the KA in regards when comparing it to honda/toyota/bmw 4-cyl engines. Simply put they are not comparable.

[BigVinnie]

I have the July 2005 issue of over rev magazine. On an apparent 60-shot of a wet nitrous system. The sohc KA they used put down 211hp/4000rpm and 286Tq/3800rpm. When in doubt use nitrous!

You are talking about PNG's ride, it also uses an automatic and not a stick shift.....

[RBS14]

I know for a fact that the 300+ hp n/a DOHC ka's are real because I have talked with the builder of them. The ones for the Baja trucks. Rebello builds them. They "redline" at 8500rpms but see 11.5k rpms when the trucks are in the air some times. Don't waste your time trying to build something like that, you'll never get there. They have nearly unlimited funds, and more importantly (something severely lacking here), knowledge.

[Johny5]

please, everyone, shut the fuck up with na ka threads seriously. this shit is getting old. you guys are chasing a dream, i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines. DROP IT PLEASE.

[lilredstiffy]

I can't remember anyone even making over 175whp on a na ka.

pipe dreammssss

[Zemus]

I agree, if you want 200+ hp, turbo the KA or get somthing else that is turbo. If you really look in the forum, you can find people that did crazy NA KA's. Most are eather failed projects, or give disipointing results. I forgot his name but their was a member on the forum before who gave a nice lil recipy for a KA22, It involves a block from some older nissan motor, with a KA24 Head, a 9k redline and about 200HP, but this here we are talking hardly streetable and requiring a dry sump.. I mean we are talking get almost everything custom, but their are little trick im sure you can do. Instead of everyone posting about "where are these motors" try this:


USE GOOGLE

YOU SEARCH

COME ON!!!!

Google has a TON of them, their are like 2000000000485904856084 of them in 510's

Stop using forums as such a wheelchair
Stand up, and do it on your own.

[Sean1978]

USE GOOGLE

YOU SEARCH

COME ON!!!!

Google has a TON of them, their are like 2000000000485904856084 of them in 510's

Stop using forums as such a wheelchair
Stand up, and do it on your own.


thanks for posts like this, part of the reason why I seldom post on zilvia....

anyway I read threads on this forum every day, have done so for over 2 years. I don't plan on building a high power NA KA, I'm just curious about what some of the engines I have heard about entail. I posted this topic for discussion's sake. I was curious as to what makes up the NA KA race engines that people talk about constantly and I have never seen a specific topic addressing the subject. thanks for contributing to the conversation with an informative post....

i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines. DROP IT PLEASE.

I doub't I'll ever own a 1200HP RB31DET, that does that mean I can't enjoy talking about such an engine with fellow enthusiasts on nissan forum?

[BigVinnie]

you guys are chasing a dream, i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines.

Well I'm not. I've owned my 240sx for under a year now, spent only $750 in performance parts, not including the $1200 to get the car running right on OEM parts. In under a year the engine will be stripped and put together with internal goodie's under $1000. Yes living in Cali, building up an NA that is smoggable , and steetable is the only alternative us californians are left with. Seriously once it's built I don't have to be one of those idiots that pays $300+ to a smog tech if I had decided to go SR20det or KA-T.
NA is a full proof way for most of us californians to fool the smog techs. We don't have options like most other people in other states. It's an investment well worth it, when your not forkin out thousands withinn a few years on a smog tech........ I have friends that went KA-T that aren't legit and are riding on expired tags talkin' " like yeah man when I get them bills I can pay the smog tech".
NA KA is a reality for most of us Californians.

[infinitexsound]

big vinnie yeah im with u on that.. but it isnt hard to suck some more power out of the motor... ive been searching alot and came across quite a few places where u can buy DIY performance parts... its all the know how and the effort PM me if u want some info..

[that180guy]

please, everyone, shut the fuck up with na ka threads seriously. this shit is getting old. you guys are chasing a dream, i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines. DROP IT PLEASE.

THEN DONT READ IT.:gives: :gives:
and post, your the one wasting bandwith shitting in a legit thread that a guy posted about. this guy actually wants to know how NA tuning works n such, not sum punk kid who blatently wants NA horsepower and wants to kno what to buy. and what the fuck are you talkin about? guys spend the dough to build their sr's, then why the fuck not build NA? zilvia is a forum for ppl to discuss about our 240s. so if dont lik DONT FUCKING CLICK ON THE LINK.

[infinitexsound]

http://tinypic.com/jrvhqo.jpg

[Flybert]

Well I'm not. I've owned my 240sx for under a year now, spent only $750 in performance parts, not including the $1200 to get the car running right on OEM parts. In under a year the engine will be stripped and put together with internal goodie's under $1000. Yes living in Cali, building up an NA that is smoggable , and steetable is the only alternative us californians are left with. Seriously once it's built I don't have to be one of those idiots that pays $300+ to a smog tech if I had decided to go SR20det or KA-T.
NA is a full proof way for most of us californians to fool the smog techs. We don't have options like most other people in other states. It's an investment well worth it, when your not forkin out thousands withinn a few years on a smog tech........ I have friends that went KA-T that aren't legit and are riding on expired tags talkin' " like yeah man when I get them bills I can pay the smog tech".
NA KA is a reality for most of us Californians.

NA KA power will get you pulled over more than stock SR with stock exhaust. NA KA is the worst in cali. You guys get pulled over more than SR people that's for sure. And what's this about thousands on smog techs for SR people? It would take about 8 years for me to spend $1000 on smogging SR. That is chump change in comparison to that length of time. Get over it. NA KA isn't a safe alternative in cali at all. Your cars are louder. PERIOD. Now if you argued that it was a cheap and fun alternative than SR, that I can understand but it aint gonna keep you under the radar at all.

[Sean1978]

arg... my NA KA race engine thread has been reduced to another KA vs SR thread... I give up.

[Johny5]

yes, i actually have a high compression ka motor right now and its fucking LOUD. my open wastegate ka-t was more quiet than this.

[BigVinnie]

NA KA power will get you pulled over more than stock SR with stock exhaust. NA KA is the worst in cali. You guys get pulled over more than SR people that's for sure. And what's this about thousands on smog techs for SR people? It would take about 8 years for me to spend $1000 on smogging SR. That is chump change in comparison to that length of time. Get over it. NA KA isn't a safe alternative in cali at all. Your cars are louder. PERIOD. Now if you argued that it was a cheap and fun alternative than SR, that I can understand but it aint gonna keep you under the radar at all.


NA KA build up's are fun, just as fun as it is for a guy that likes to go boosted and internally build as well.
There are advantages to staying NA. Shure turbo charging produces additional power at an affordable price. I appoligize for saying people are stupid for spending extra cash on smog checks in Cali (my perogative), point was, I've done it and plan to do it no more.
Regardless of what people say... Weither an NA KA makes 170whp or even 210whp fact is NA engines are better for longevity, and track use, NA engines make smoother power bands, NA engines can use better effeciency of fuel dumping and atomizing fuel/air (better gas mileage). Some people don't mind spending the additional money on an NA engine as long as it makes the person that built it (comfortable and at a piece of mind)......
If you like your SR good for you, your perogative, but like I said I am comfortable with what I have and what I build...... besides it doesn't matter how much power you have at the wheels especially for those that don't know how to use it on the track (and I see it all the time). Thanks for saying my exhaust is loud, thats how I like it......

[S14DB]

...NA engines can use better effeciency of fuel dumping and atomizing fuel/air (better gas mileage).
Umm... Can you back that up?

[BigVinnie]

Umm... Can you back that up?


Yeah, to some instances.....
When an srdet or KAdet uses 370cc injection to make 205BHP (assumed and boosting can be made to make more), and you can get a High cr, mildly aggressive cam, and retuned ecu KAde and keep it on 270cc injection there will be a huge difference in the amount of fuel that would be dumped during the injection cycle.
Infact on a KAdet that doesn't have a retuned ecu (oem KAde), chances are the engine will get worse gas mileage from retarding the distributor.
But then again that is more just theory, there are are low boost turbo set up's that supposedly get great gas mileage as well.

[S14DB]

I have no clue what you just said cause that can only make sense to you. Injector size has nothing to do with efficiency cause you just run a smaller pulse width with the larger injector.

Turbo's will always make more hp/mpg due to them taking waste gas from the exhaust to compress the intake air. Effectively increasing the VE of the engine.

[BigVinnie]

Turbo's will always make more hp/mpg due to them taking waste gas from the exhaust to compress the intake air. Effectively increasing the VE of the engine.

So your saying that a higher CR engine (than stock CR) doesn't compensate for MPG, only turbo's do? The higher the CR, the more o2 becomes compressed in the chamber making more power with less fuel, correct? It's known that raising the CR on NA can infact increase power while optimizing MPG without retuning the ECU. There are some draw backs such as raised NOX levels that would need to be controlled with increased fuel dumping (but little things like that can be easily worked out).

[brainfood]

well thats not really considered 6 throttle bodies,reason is they are being fed off a single float bowl and joined jet setup per carburetor. Technically thats triple 2 barrel sidedraft carburetors i.e. Webers!!
Italian Carburetors, those and Mikuni Solex's used to the rage on 2000 roadsters, 510's/610's/710's and 240/260/280z's back in early 70's through mid 80's . Classic L series engine setup.


Love the webbers!!! I owned a '68 510 with a built L16 with headwork and cams. It had dual webber 40's it was a blast to drive. Its the same reason I havnt gone ka-t sure I could get an extra 100whp for $1200-1300 which is great but I can keep it nearly stock and beat on it harder and enjoy it more. I use it to drift and I keep up with all the sr guys just fine and in the mountains I am just as fast as higher horsepower cars plus I have a lot more fun because I can be in the gas more and I have a lot more low end. It makes the car more enjoyable and if it wasnt so expensive I would build a high compression ka and rock that for a while even 180whp would be great I have about 130 now. Its all preference, and dont get me wrong I love turbo motors I owned a full built 3/s that made well over 500hp with minimal lag and it was fun too but I never drove it that hard because it was way to fast for the street without some serious penaltys :) I could go either way and will prob. swap for an sr in the future but I love my n/a ka for now.

[Jeff240sx]

Look guy. Hypothetically I give you the best-case scenario. 200whp (extremely hard to get and rough on the street) and you get the stock 30mpg.
Now.. my car - no hypothetical involved here - makes 320whp, and gets 24mpg.

Your imaginary car: 6.67 hp per gallon. Or .15 gallons per hp.
My current car: 13.3hp per gallon. Or .075 gallons per hp.

Which is more efficient? Sure - you get better mileage overall. But that's not the debate here. Per your words - the debate is efficiency, which the real turbo car beats the imaginary car forcefully.

Now - what happened here is that you came to this post with convoluted thoughts and misinformation. And I came here with empyrical evidence. And you got owned.
-Jeff

[jmauld]

Your imaginary car: 6.67 hp per gallon. Or .15 gallons per hp.
My current car: 13.3hp per gallon. Or .075 gallons per hp.

-Jeff
You're not comparing the correct numbers. For this comparison, you need to look at WOT. Your car isn't making anywhere near 300hp when you're not making boost.

Do this one. I had a turbo 1.6L engine that made 205whp. It got 35mpg on the highway, but 5mpg while on a road course. For comparison. My 240sx makes 154whp, gets 26mpg on the highway and 12mpg while on a road course. Which one is more efficient?

[BigVinnie]

You're not comparing the correct numbers. For this comparison, you need to look at WOT. Your car isn't making anywhere near 300hp when you're not making boost.

Do this one. I had a turbo 1.6L engine that made 205whp. It got 35mpg on the highway, but 5mpg while on a road course. For comparison. My 240sx makes 154whp, gets 26mpg on the highway and 12mpg while on a road course. Which one is more efficient?

That was my point some people don't understand WOT..... Maybe under 3000RPM does a turbo system become more effecient than an NA. NA engines do tend to use more fuel under 2600RPM, while FI engines can lean out a bit using turbo's on low boost at lower RPM's.

[nissantuner22]

I'm not trying to build an engine like that myself, I have a turbo SR in one of my cars and a stock KA in my other, I'm just curious to actually see one of these engines..

BigVinnie, its like I can't enter a thread about N/A motors without you spitting out information about yours over and over again. You ridiculed me in my SR20DE thread, saying how swapping in a motor with less displacement was a waste of money. This thread rox sox, in the fact you spent a HUGE amount of money on your N/A KA.

Well I'm not. I've owned my 240sx for under a year now, spent only $750 in performance parts, not including the $1200 to get the car running right on OEM parts. In under a year the engine will be stripped and put together with internal goodie's under $1000.

This thread is about 300 hp cars. Not yours.

No offense, just stay on topic.


Sean, there is some good information in this post. Not to many pictures like you asked for though. Have you tried searching the datsun forums? those guys run crazy KA motors sometimes, someone there might have a pic or 2.

[thinkmonkey]

God I can't stand this hating man, some people just want to talk about an NA KA because that is what they want! I still run my relatively stock KA and I personally ALWAYS rather have an NA motor over a turbo motor if I could have my pick. Why? Throttle response, linearity, sound. No one will ever convince me that a any turbo motor sounds better than the best NA motors. Carrera GT V10 is pure sex. Any Ferrari V12? Aston V12? Have even heard the Mazda 787b? Those motors sounds so pure and passionate, something that turbo motors are robbed of and cannot recoupe. No turbo motor can come near to the sound of a finely tuned NA intake.

That said, if I decide that i want more power I will go the KA-T route because I like the motor for it's torque and robustness. With the intercooler mounted behind the radiator and a good ball bearing turbo you can almost forget about turbo lag, and I would not aim for anything over 300hp. I am happy with my motor right now though, and with the new timing set (got a twin cam, I suggest you pull the motor for it...) it runs beautifully. How I will miss that intake note one day though.

-Dave

[BigVinnie]

BigVinnie, its like I can't enter a thread about N/A motors without you spitting out information about yours over and over again. You ridiculed me in my SR20DE thread, saying how swapping in a motor with less displacement was a waste of money. This thread rox sox, in the fact you spent a HUGE amount of money on your N/A KA.

That was my point in your thread, it will cost you more money with your sr20 NA to achieve the power I will already make with the KA. NA building as most say is an uphill battle, you might as well make it easier on yourself using larger displacement to benefit some power. Fact is if you are going to make this by any means a (competition) you would lose, I will still overall spend less money than you building up my KA as you would to your SR and I would benefit from using the power earlier in the power band.



This thread is about 300 hp cars. Not yours..

True but the point is I answered some questions to the best of my ability which is all the thread starter wanted.....


No offense, just stay on topic..

I'm not offended, I'm not taking any of this personal. You could of P.M'd me if you have beef with something I said in your thread.... You went off topic....

Also to Jeff, how do you explain the loss in fuel that needs to be used as PSI increases as well as cylinder temprature? In order to prevent detonation to highly volitile O2 that is being compressed additional fuel is used in the process to actually drop cylinder temp (but I guess you coming from Florida doesn't care to understand how NOX and smog emissions works). Fuel actually being heavier and denser than O2 will make it harder to compress. You can use a lower injection bandwidth at lower RPM, but as you boost higher PSI to make more power the bandwidth will have to increase as the RPM/to power level gets larger, as well as engine temprature. It isn't the fuel saver you say it is when you push your engine into higher RPM's or WOT. If FI engines conserved fuel through out the entire power band then there would defenitely be alot more FI engines on the road (especially with our fuel crisis we have today). Do you ever ask your self why the fuck are there crappy Hybrids?

Jeff my thoughts aren't convoluted, I actually read what took people years of research to accomplish.....

[Jeff240sx]

I'm not going point by point to be a jerk - just don't want to miss something.

Also to Jeff, how do you explain the loss in fuel that needs to be used as PSI increases as well as cylinder temprature? In order to prevent detonation to highly volitile O2 that is being compressed additional fuel is used in the process to actually drop cylinder temp (but I guess you coming from Florida doesn't care to understand how NOX and smog emissions works).

Loss in fuel? If fuel goes into the combustion chamber, it's combusted. Not lost. So.. due to this glaring mis-wording, I really dont' know what you're talking about.
Cylinder temperature during driving (not on a dyno) isn't changed due to pressure, unless the intercooler is unefficient. Otherwise, I've yet to see a good intercooler fail to regulate charge temp to within 10*F of ambient.

Fuel actually being heavier and denser than O2 will make it harder to compress.

Again.. there's a communications breakdown here. You can't compress a liquid. Period. So I dont' know what this is about.

You can use a lower injection bandwidth at lower RPM, but as you boost higher PSI to make more power the bandwidth will have to increase as the RPM/to power level gets larger, as well as engine temprature.

This is another Mushmouth-ish bit. I don't know what this is about, but I'll take a shot. First, it's pulsewidth, not bandwidth. And ya, as you raise horsepower, be it by pressure (PSI, as you state), or by natural revs of the motor, the fuel must be added to make said power. Power = Air x Fuel.

It isn't the fuel saver you say it is when you push your engine into higher RPM's or WOT. If FI engines conserved fuel through out the entire power band then there would defenitely be alot more FI engines on the road (especially with our fuel crisis we have today). Do you ever ask your self why the fuck are there crappy Hybrids?

This is pretty easy to answer. Hybrids save more fuel than a forced induction setup. And the other side of that is that turbos are too expensive to use for pure fuel economy.

And.. someone else's quote:
You're not comparing the correct numbers. For this comparison, you need to look at WOT. Your car isn't making anywhere near 300hp when you're not making boost.

Here's the deal though, I hit boost EVERY time I step on the throttle. I make 2-5psi boost just leaving a stoplight and driving to 3000rpm. I also hit your WOT (zero vacuum) at 2000rpm, EVERY time I step on the throttle.
Myself, and any other random guy driving his car on the street, drive roughly equivalently. I hit 320hp the same number of times he hits 155hp. And, as I accelerate to 3000rpm, I pull 200+hp from 2500-on, at partial throttle. He hits 100hp from 2500-on (or something) at partial throttle.
It doesn't matter about the fact I don't hit WOT. I hit your WOT without thinking or trying. And.. get better efficiency in the rest of my driving. Think about it - your exhaust gasses are wasted out your exhaust pipe, and your engine works to suck air in. That's why only at WOT and 5k+ rpm you hit zero vacuum. My exhaust gasses spool a turbine, which is attached to the compressor via a propeller shaft. The compressor sucks the air (rather than the engine doing it), and then pushes it into the engine (not compressed during say, highway driving). And, at 2k-onwards, my car is at your WOT (zero vacuum), at partial throttle. Your wasted gasses are put to work on my car, and doing the engine's most important job (being an air pump). You need to understand that I am getting "free" energy that's put to work on my car, and that all else equal, my harnessed exhaust doing something that your exhaust isn't - makes my engine more efficient.
-Jeff

[DMCS14]

I just read over this thread, why would you post here to insult people for pursuing na power.

Originally Posted by Johny5
please, everyone, shut the fuck up with na ka threads seriously. this shit is getting old. you guys are chasing a dream, i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines. DROP IT PLEASE.


Do you feel required to read every thread on this forum? Did the title make you think it was going to be about something other than NA powered KAs? YOu shut the fuck up and don't post since nobody gives a damn what you have to say.

You can't compress a liquid. Period.
Ummmmm.....did you graduate from high school?


I want to build an NA ka because I want to experiment with all different types of making power. Now I want to build one just to show everyone it can be done. Turbo engines are fun, but I don't like to wait for the turbo to spool. I think a high horsepower Na ka would be alot more fun to drive.

And so I post something useful
http://www.paeco.com/files/2006Catalog.pdf

[KA24DESOneThree]

When it comes to KA, I don't think any of us can really say anything that hasn't been said. I've done my research and 175 wheel seems to be a relatively realistic street-driven goal. Going for more means an almost excessive amount of money.

Since we are so trapped in our quest for naturally aspirated horsepower, I think the only logical path is to achieve the greatest balance between response and drivability. (And in California... legality.)

[infinitexsound]

oh k well what ever......... ill add something thats beneficial to all of us...

alot of people think u have to always go ITB to make some serious numbers in NA.. and thats not always the case... http://www.rossmachineracing.com/uni_intakeparts.html

if you know what ur doing.. and wanna pursue something at that site is a DIY intake mani very well priced... and top feed fuel rail cores.. all youd have to do is figure out a way to tap the cores for AN fittings and figure out the bore size for what ever injector youd like to use... basically a cheap alternative VS goin ITB...

[BigVinnie]

I'm not going point by point to be a jerk - just don't want to miss something.

Loss in fuel? If fuel goes into the combustion chamber, it's combusted. Not lost. So.. due to this glaring mis-wording, I really dont' know what you're talking about.
Cylinder temperature during driving (not on a dyno) isn't changed due to pressure, unless the intercooler is unefficient. Otherwise, I've yet to see a good intercooler fail to regulate charge temp to within 10*F of ambient.
Again.. there's a communications breakdown here. You can't compress a liquid. Period. So I dont' know what this is about.
This is another Mushmouth-ish bit. I don't know what this is about, but I'll take a shot. First, it's pulsewidth, not bandwidth. And ya, as you raise horsepower, be it by pressure (PSI, as you state), or by natural revs of the motor, the fuel must be added to make said power. Power = Air x Fuel.

You can compress liquid it is just denser than 02, but it defenitely isn't a solid compound.....

As stated by Edub1 of the NICO forums KA-T section:
Application Note: You CAN be too Rich
By Klaus Allmendinger, VP of Engineering, Innovate Motorsports
Many people with turbochargers believe that they need to run at very rich mixtures. The theory is that the excess fuel cools the intake charge and therefore reduces the probability of knock. It does work in reducing knock, but not because of charge cooling. The following little article shows why.

First let’s look at the science. Specific heat is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg of material by one degree K (Kelvin, same as Celsius but with 0 point at absolute zero). Different materials have different specific heats. The energy is measured in kJ or kilojoules:

Air ~ 1 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Gasoline 2.02 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Water 4.18 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Ethanol 2.43 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Methanol 2.51 kJ/( kg * deg K)

Fuel and other liquids also have what's called latent heat. This is the heat energy required to vaporize 1 kg of the liquid. The fuel in an internal combustion engine has to be vaporized and mixed thoroughly with the incoming air to produce power. Liquid gasoline does not burn. The energy to vaporize the fuel comes partially from the incoming air, cooling it. The latent heat energy required is actually much larger than the specific heat. That the energy comes from the incoming air can be easily seen on older carbureted cars, where frost can actually form on the intake manifold from the cooling of the charge.

The latent heat values of different liquids are shown here:

Gasoline 350 kJ/kg
Water 2256 kJ/kg
Ethanol 904 kJ/kg
Methanol 1109 kJ/kg

Most engines produce maximum power (with optimized ignition timing) at an air-fuel-ratio between 12 and 13. Let's assume the optimum is in the middle at 12.5. This means that for every kg of air, 0.08 kg of fuel is mixed in and vaporized. The vaporization of the fuel extracts 28 kJ of energy from the air charge. If the mixture has an air-fuel-ratio of 11 instead, the vaporization extracts 31.8 kJ instead. A difference of 3.8 kJ. Because air has a specific heat of about 1 kJ/kg*deg K, the air charge is only 3.8 C (or K) degrees cooler for the rich mixture compared to the optimum power mixture. This small difference has very little effect on knock or power output.

If instead of the richer mixture about 10% (by mass) of water would be injected in the intake charge (0.008 kg Water/kg air), the high latent heat of the water would cool the charge by 18 degrees, about 4 times the cooling effect of the richer mixture. The added fuel for the rich mixture can't burn because there is just not enough oxygen available. So it does not matter if fuel or water is added.

So where does the knock suppression of richer mixtures come from?

If the mixture gets ignited by the spark, a flame front spreads out from the spark plug. This burning mixture increases the pressure and temperature in the cylinder. At some time in the process the pressures and temperatures peak. The speed of the flame front is dependent on mixture density and AFR. A richer or leaner AFR than about 12-13 AFR burns slower. A denser mixture burns faster.

So with a turbo under boost the mixture density raises and results in a faster burning mixture. The closer the peak pressure is to TDC, the higher that peak pressure is, resulting in a high knock probability. Also there is less leverage on the crankshaft for the pressure to produce torque, and, therefore, less power.

Richening up the mixture results in a slower burn, moving the pressure peak later where there is more leverage, hence more torque. Also the pressure peak is lower at a later crank angle and the knock probability is reduced. The same effect can be achieved with an optimum power mixture and more ignition retard.

Optimum mix with “later” ignition can produce more power because more energy is released from the combustion of gasoline. Here’s why: When hydrocarbons like gasoline combust, the burn process actually happens in multiple stages. First the gasoline molecules are broken up into hydrogen and carbon. The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air to form H2O (water) and the carbon molecules form CO. This process happens very fast at the front edge of the flame front. The second stage converts CO to CO2. This process is relatively slow and requires water molecules (from the first stage) for completion. If there is no more oxygen available (most of it consumed in the first stage), the second stage can't happen. But about 2/3 of the energy released from the burning of the carbon is released in the second stage. Therefore a richer mixture releases less energy, lowering peak pressures and temperatures, and produces less power. A secondary side effect is of course also a lowering of knock probability. It's like closing the throttle a little. A typical engine does not knock when running on part throttle because less energy and therefore lower pressures and temperatures are in the cylinder.

This is why running overly-rich mixtures can not only increase fuel consumption, but also cost power.



So as stated fuel can compress (that is what causes heat and for it to burn, compression causes HEAT) with the O2 charge and infact is used in the process of cooling the intake charge.

Excusse my defenition of bandwidth it was the wrong term. Pulsewidth is the correct term.


This is pretty easy to answer. Hybrids save more fuel than a forced induction setup. And the other side of that is that turbos are too expensive to use for pure fuel economy.


Actually hybrids are more expensive to build than FI setup's. It was also proven that hybrids aren't that effecient to the EPA's estimated 40+MPG. Hybrids are getting what your basic 1.6litre NA honda engine's could perform too at about 29~31MPG

Infinitexsound thank you for that site I was looking for those plenum parts. I do ARC welding in my garage and I have been doing some conceptual designs for my NA company (NO Joke Tuning). The prices they are asking are a little expensive with shipping though, I have a buddy at a steel mill that can fab me those parts at a fraction of the cost.

[Pank]

Ummmmm.....did you graduate from high school?

uh, I did, and you cant compress a liquid.

in fact, here is a high school science lab activity that shows that you cant:

http://workbench.concord.org/web_content/unit1/1-08StatesOfMatter.html

and nothing you posted shows that you can compress a liquid.

[BigVinnie]

When it comes to KA, I don't think any of us can really say anything that hasn't been said. I've done my research and 175 wheel seems to be a relatively realistic street-driven goal. Going for more means an almost excessive amount of money.

Since we are so trapped in our quest for naturally aspirated horsepower, I think the only logical path is to achieve the greatest balance between response and drivability. (And in California... legality.)

Well out of all the dyno's you have ever seen on NA KA's none have ever shown a cam and ECU combo. In the spring I will install the JWT cams, and I am learning to tune Biki ROM. Total it is $1000 in parts.
if I'm still not happy (in with the super tech 10.5:1 pistons, with raised head gasket to drop compression to 10.1:1 to use 91 octane).
If you didn't notice if a 240sx has 175WHP, that is more BHP than your typical sentra SE-r specv. I would say that is relatively good numbers for an old outdated NA engine.

[infinitexsound]

pank u might want to take that back.........

[S14DB]

pank u might want to take that back.........
or what?

[infinitexsound]

cause water can be compressed thats all =)... could u explain why ocean water at the bottom is more densed then the water up top?

[BigVinnie]

cause water can be compressed thats all =)... could u explain why ocean water at the bottom is more densed then the water up top?


OH Shizzle!!!!!!!!!!!
Infinitexsound just schooled you guy's!!!!!!! But H20 doesn't burn as well a gasoline in the combustion chamber. There are things like hydrostatic lock when you deal with H20. H20 is the hardest liquid to burn in the compression chamber............. Infact it really doesn't burn but rather vaporizes upon ignition.
Anyone ever hear of a thing called a steam engine?????? They were made before gasoline engines, and made a shit load of torque, but I guess most of you don't know much on the history of the internal combustion engine.......

[S14DB]

so, liquid gasoline burns?

[BigVinnie]

so, liquid gasoline burns?

Yes it can combust, burn or do otherwise (explode) when mixed with O2, and compression. I know you are smart enough and being sarcastic so break out (the smartass book) and start clownin' otherwise. I believe I proved myself pretty well. "Liquids" can compress with atomization, "solids" don't...........

Well not so true either, under intense compression with solids and gasses you can make diamonds with your ass crack (just kidding, being sarcastic and off topic).................

Gasoline is a liquid...You ever hear of a byproduct called HYDRO carbons that are produced from the lack of aspiration from advanced timing at the distributor, it caused me not to pass smog legally.........

[S14DB]

so gasoline doesn't have hydrocarbons in it? you can only get them when it's burned?

Why can't you compress a solid?

[Pank]

OH Shizzle!!!!!!!!!!!
Infinitexsound just schooled you guy's!!!!!!! But H20 doesn't burn as well a gasoline in the combustion chamber. There are things like hydrostatic lock when you deal with H20. H20 is the hardest liquid to burn in the compression chamber............. Infact it really doesn't burn but rather vaporizes upon ignition.
Anyone ever hear of a thing called a steam engine?????? They were made before gasoline engines, and made a shit load of torque, but I guess most of you don't know much on the history of the internal combustion engine.......


are you trying to tell me a steam engine is an internal combustion engine?
also, you're not "compressing a liquid" if it instantly turns into a gas. when you vaporize fuel in the combustion chamber, it is very very very small droplets, this effectively increases the surface area, allowing them to ignite explosively, which is why you get a larger, shorter expenditure of energy, instead of the comparitively "slow burn" you get when you light a pool of gasoline on fire. When the stroke of the piston moves near TDC, it is not compressing both the air and fuel equally, it is compressing the air, which is compressing around the fuel droplets.

yes, a liquid can be "compressed". gasoline and water, however, while being a liquid, have very VERY little space in between their atoms. Their atoms can slip and move past eachother freely (hence it being a liquid), but have very very very little space between them.

and to the guy above me, a solid cant be compressed because they have no space between their molecules.


I hope you payed attention in class, because i didnt, and i still know you're wrong.

[BigVinnie]

so gasoline doesn't have hydrocarbons in it? you can only get them when it's burned?

Why can't you compress a solid?

What are you turning this into the learning channel???J/K
Hydrocarbons are in gasoline, but technically they should be burned off in the combustion process. Advancing timing at the distributor without advancing the cams can lead the engine too choke, providng hydro carbons which is a molecule left from the composition of gasoline.
You can compress a solid, but not in an internal combustion engine, hense my sarcastic joke about diamonds......

[Pank]

well, with diamonds, the volume is the same, the intense heat and pressure just caused a chemical change in the makeup of the substance, so, no, you cant compress a solid.


edit:// i just thought about how funny it would be if the SR vs. KA argument was replaced with science arguments for the rest of Zilvias life.

[BigVinnie]

well, with diamonds, the volume is the same, the intense heat and pressure just caused a chemical change in the makeup of the substance, so, no, you cant compress a solid.

But that joke with the ass crack and diamonds was pretty funny........
AWH whatever you guy's don't understand............
Lets get back on topic to NA 300+HP KA's

[thinkmonkey]

Ok Pank, I do have to correct you. Yes you can compress a solid, just as you can compress a liquid. For practical design purposes, water is considered an incompressible fluid, that is, its density does not change with pressure. The reason anything is compressible is due to how close the atoms are packed together. If you think about air, it is highly compressible because there
is considerable spacing between the atoms, so it is relatively easy to force the atoms closer together. When you have a liquid, the atoms are much closer together and considerable pressure is required to make them any closer. Solids will compress some as well, but it takes significant pressure. Temperature also plays a factor in density (and thus compressibility), just ask your chemistry teacher about the ideal gas law.

Anything will compress.

-Dave

[Pank]

Ok Pank, I do have to correct you. Yes you can compress a solid, just as you can compress a liquid. For practical design purposes, water is considered an incompressible fluid, that is, its density does not change with pressure. The reason anything is compressible is due to how close the atoms are packed together. If you think about air, it is highly compressible because there
is considerable spacing between the atoms, so it is relatively easy to force the atoms closer together. When you have a liquid, the atoms are much closer together and considerable pressure is required to make them any closer. Solids will compress some as well, but it takes significant pressure. Temperature also plays a factor in density (and thus compressibility), just ask your chemistry teacher about the ideal gas law.

Anything will compress.

-Dave


I was thinking more along the lines of actual practicality inside a combustion chamber, but you ARE correct. And i havent been in highschool in a long time :(

[Pank]

cause water can be compressed thats all =)... could u explain why ocean water at the bottom is more densed then the water up top?


because the water at the bottom is a hell of a lot colder, and has a higher saline content? ;)

[infinitexsound]

because the water at the bottom is a hell of a lot colder, and has a higher saline content? ;)
thats not the point were talkin about liquid............ atoms always have space between them....... no matter what theres space... if u compress atoms then theres pressure... same thing with fuel.... but what ever im a dumb ass dont quote me im just drunk from drinking and chasin tail all nite this is the end of my post on this subject..

[that180guy]

Well out of all the dyno's you have ever seen on NA KA's none have ever shown a cam and ECU combo. In the spring I will install the JWT cams, and I am learning to tune Biki ROM. Total it is $1000 in parts.
if I'm still not happy (in with the super tech 10.5:1 pistons, with raised head gasket to drop compression to 10.1:1 to use 91 octane).
If you didn't notice if a 240sx has 175WHP, that is more BHP than your typical sentra SE-r specv. I would say that is relatively good numbers for an old outdated NA engine.

same route i was going, i wass thinking about the super tech pistons, but 10:5 is too much for 91 pump gas. but rasing the head didnt occur to me to lowere the compression. so what headgasket are you planning on using? or for a raise of that magnituded i would assume a custom one off piece?

[S14DB]

When did 10:5 become to much for pump gas? There are many cars that come from the factory with that CR.

[90RS13]

I was about to say, these people want a high powered N/A but are scared of high compression? And someone said none of the N/A KA dyno had cams and ecu tune......false. I've seen KA dyno with cams,ecu,ehxaust,header, and intake, and they never break mid 170's. I like N/A's and all, but you just can't expect big numbers without big $$.

[BigVinnie]

When did 10:5 become to much for pump gas? There are many cars that come from the factory with that CR.

10.5:1 is too much for Cali pump gas 91octane...... I seem to have a hard time finding a 92 or 96 for that matter. But I do hear that there are gas stations in LA, and the sandiego area that carry 98octane. Although when I go to LA I haven't seen any station's.
My friend and I were running his L28 on 91octane, the compression was brought up to 10.6:1 with a milled head, 91octane is horrible for anything around that compression, the engine gets horrible knock and ping.......
As for lowering the compression I was going to use a multi layered cosmetic headgasket. They do have them available, I just don't remember the shop off the top of my head........I'll look it up today when I get off work.

[BigVinnie]

I was about to say, these people want a high powered N/A but are scared of high compression? And someone said none of the N/A KA dyno had cams and ecu tune......false. I've seen KA dyno with cams,ecu,ehxaust,header, and intake, and they never break mid 170's. I like N/A's and all, but you just can't expect big numbers without big $$.

Well I would like to say that you are full of shit. This dyno didn't use much at all just headers, ecu tune, and a cat back. NO performance cams it pulled a little more than 165WHP. So your telling me that Jim WOlF cams and a CAI are only going to make a 5WHP gain when add....LOL try more like between an additional 15~18WHP that would put it well over the mid 170's that you claim that you have seen.( it would make about 200BHP if you do the math @ the 15% degredation loss with all those modifications. It's also only $1500 in parts total)
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/BigVinnie/KA24dedynoJimwolf.jpg

SORRY FOR DOUBLE POSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[originalsin]

NA = the expensive way to go slow.

However, i'll admit that it does take a GREAT deal of skill to build and tune a powerfull NA motor.


not if its done right... i see high hp na setups as much more reliable than a turbo setup. i know a guy locally that has a beat 91 civic hatch, and ran 12's last year with a b20/vtec setup. and that was before cam and ignition tuning, his suspension wasent totally dialed in either, but serious n/a cars are no joke

[Jeff240sx]

Since when do I get corrected on a bullshit technicallity? Oh - always, because when people lose their ground to stand on - they result to misdirection and argueing moot points.

You can compress water, or almost any material. However, it requires a great deal of pressure to accomplish a little compression. For that reason, liquids and solids are sometimes referred to as being incompressible. For all practical purposes related to ANYTHING IN THIS THREAD, a liquid in uncompressable. Ya DMC, I graduated highschool. And you can't fucking compress a liquid with an engine. And why is the water at the bottom of the ocean more dense than at the top? Here's a graph taken from the U of Michigan.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Water/images/sm_density_depth.jpg
Now.. does this look like constant compression? Does this look like increasing compression? Does this look like anything more than .03g/ml increase? And.. this is taking into account the temperature of the water, the salinity of water, and the TRILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER ABOVE IT. Go fuck yourself if you think water is compressable to any point that makes it even worthy to bring up.

Next:
Vinny, I don't understand why you posted the hyper-technical A:F post. And seeing as little of it has anything to do with what you quoted from me "power = air x fuel", ya, we all know that running too rich is bad. How do we know? because there's a point where you flood the cylinders and the car won't start. This is a pretty infantile point, and unnecessary to copy some engineer's discertation on latent and specific heat.
However, if we had a fuel that was easier to ignite, we could add more fuel to the same ammount of air, and make a ton more power.. As you know/stated/proved, more gasoline = harder to combust. That's why there's methanol, which can run at 6.0:1 a/f, and makes around 20% more power. And, nitromethane, which can run at 1.7:1 and makes 120% more power. So.. it's just a limit of gasoline.

Onto page 3:
I believe I proved myself pretty well. "Liquids" can compress with atomization
No.. you didn't. When you "atomize" something.. which should read "vaporize", then you've changed the state of the substance. In this case, from an uncompressable liquid to a highly compressable gas. Not even close to compressing a liquid.
Solids can be compressed to the same extent that liquids can. You apply 100,000 tons of pressure to a machined rod, and you have a forged rod that's been compressed 1 x 10^-6 inches. Does this have anything to do with this discussion? No, just another failed arguement that's resorted to bs technicallities.
And, I'm with Pank here. Don't tell me that a steam engine is internal combustion anything. Want to know what the steam engine's successor is? Certainly not the IC engine. It's the nuclear reactor and nuclear engine used in submarines.

So.. summation? Don't pull bullshit technicalities during a discussion about what occurs in an engine. It pisses me off, and shows a distinct lack of knowledge on your part when you have a whole post to nitpick, and only point out the one minutia. Everything is compressable with millions of pounds of pressure per square inch. Good thing there's only 180psi in our motor, and can't compress anything we've discussed.
Of course too high of A:F is bad with gasoline. We've known this, and it didnt' take an engineer's excerpt to drive that point. For NA, using a different fuel method would certainly be the way to go.
Vinny - I dont' think I've seen a daily driving NA KA at 200hp. I've seen a 185hp dyno, and I think that with just cams, that's all you'll hit too.
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

Ok.. to the emerging subject of Vinny's 200hp goal.

10.5:1 CR is required, if not higher. ECU tune. Not JWT if it were me - it'd be Enthalpy's ecu. I know how much more power it made on my KA-T over the JWT.
Then you'll need an intake, header, exhaust, cams, cam gears to dial them in for the 3-5hp it'd be worth. Ignition system so you can open up the plug gap and get the most of your fuel. Will it make 200whp? I don't know. It'd be close.. 200 +/- 5hp I'd guess. There's alot of headwork you can do, a light port and polish, valve job, oversized valves. If you got dual springs and retainers, and forged rods, you could rev to 8k provided the cams made power up there (the JWT cams I took to 7500 all the time.) Now you will be over 200whp. And, you could still do up some form of shorty intake manifold or ITBs, and make a bit more. But do I see it making even 225whp? No. And how much got spent? Just ballparking - $1000 for I/H/E. $500 for Enthalpy ECU. $400 on ignition box, wires and plugs. $700 on cams and cam gears, $350 on valves, $350 on springs and retainers. $500 on PNP and valvejob. $400 on pistons, $500 on rods, $300 for seals, gaskets and bearings to replace during the rebuild.
Total: $5000 ish. Make 225whp? Again, I really doubt it.
-Jeff

[drift freaq]

ok lets sum this up. Trying to get high hp out of a dual cam KA? One name Alex Chang! He tried, used JWT cams and ecu with a few other things barely got 200HP.
Next, The KA24DE head does not lend itself well to porting. Why? It basically is a thin walled, short runner, siamised port head. Not a lot to port there. It's actually why its s decent turbo head.IMHO.
Now the Single cam KA is great for porting with seperate runner ports and more material being able to be removed. One of the reasons you see the SCCA guys opting for the single cam over the dual cam engine.
Now as far as Vinnie's issue with high comp on pump gas goes. Yes Vinnie a L28 with high compression will not respond well to current pump gas i.e. ping city.
Though, modern high compression engines have an advantage here. Its called computer controlled FI and ignition. With the computer controlling this stuff it can adjust the air fuel mixture much more finely than the old school fuel injection from a late 280z or carburetors(which basically just dump slight atomized fuel in). Hence new high compression engines can run on lower octane gas the previously was possible. The computer combined with the injection achieves a much finer atomization process of the fuel thereby getting much better combustion results burn wise. Add to that the computers ability to retard or advance timing through a knock sensor and you have the ability to run a high compression engine, on todays pump gas.
Our 240's computers do this rudimently though not to the degree that that current new cars are capable of.
Hence the 300HP NA high compression(10.5-11.0:1) V6 in the 350z and G35, that runs on 91 octane pump gas here in California.

[Jeff240sx]

My head was ported. I always say light port and polish because the head is so thin. But, there were alot of casting marks in the head that got knocked out, some rough edges rounded out, and then a full-on polish.
I've made alot of posts about this in the past.
-Jeff

[drift freaq]

My head was ported. I always say light port and polish because the head is so thin. But, there were alot of casting marks in the head that got knocked out, some rough edges rounded out, and then a full-on polish.
I've made alot of posts about this in the past.
-Jeff
point taken, though you do agree not a lot to port. I do wonder Jeff though, how much porting helped you, in the forced induction situation.

[90RS13]

Well I would like to say that you are full of shit. This dyno didn't use much at all just headers, ecu tune, and a cat back. NO performance cams it pulled a little more than 165WHP.

First off, why get so hostile when someone makes a post you don't agree with? Just show them why you think they're wrong in a civilised manner. Why would you call me a liar just because I've seen a dyno making less power than what you think it should?

Anywho, that dyno seems very optimistic to me for only header,cat-back, and tune. If it's a DE That's 155 base or around 132 whp. That means the mods had to do about...Exhuast-15whp, header-9whp, tune-9whp. They could do it, but that's about the very top end of what you can expect on a KA. Most won't make that much. The dynos I've seen weren't nearly that good like, the pdm car with intake,pully,header,cam, and tuning..

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y77/MatthewWells/DOHC_stage2.jpg


It doesn't say if they had a cat-back, but I've never seen someone get a header before and exhaust with a KA but even if it's without, adding a cat-back and getting 15whp would bring you to 176whp. About what I said Is the highest I've seen.

If you think you can make power easier than I think you can, woo hoo. That's your opinion, but no reason to get mad just cause I don't agree with you.

[Jeff240sx]

^^ Thinking Vinny's pull was 3rd gear?

Drift Freaq - I don't have any numbers on the porting - because I did so much all at once (cams, porting, lower compression, flywheel, ect).
But... I think it helped immensely. Cams and low comp slugs should lower the bottom end on our car. Big exhaust (3" turbo-back) should also lower the low-end torque a bit. My car was SO fast off the line, even other people (maxtype240), who owned a stock-internal KA-T, with flywheel and pullies and more boost than myself, was impressed at just how well the low-end on my car was. Once he built his motor.. he said it didn't have the pep mine did. I've yet to ride in another KA-T that has NEARLY the low-end that mine did... stock or otherwise. The only thing that I did that most don't do is the PNP. Everything else should have made my car less efficient. The only cars I've ever had to run down were AWD cars that could launch (R32 golf modded). I kept with scooby WRXs out of the hole, and just raped them when boost and cam rpms came into play.
-Jeff

[chibo]

10.5:1 is too much for Cali pump gas 91octane...
If that's the case than the M5 wouldn't be sold there, as it has a stock compression ratio of 12.0:1
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v180/chibo/fender.jpg
The black beast in the background there has over 2000 miles on 91 octane with no problems at all :keke:

[that180guy]

let me reiterate.
10:5 is TOO MUCH FOR A KA to be ran on 91 pump gas.this is due to the design of the motor. low oct + high comp ka = kaboom city or a shit load of tunning for no reason.
plenty of motors out there can run sky high compressions and run 91 pump, but NOT A KA

just as drift freaq said,
so READ before you post chibo

Drift Freaq,
- doesnt also the design of the motor itself also come into play? i know on the sr20de forums, the guys talk about how the design of the sr block has thin cylinder walls and its water jacket design doesnt disapate heat as well as lets say a B16 motor. KA also itself has thin cylinder walls. and a weak head

[BigVinnie]

Originally I wanted to use 11.1:1 pistons, put it more on the level of the F20 honda engine. But then it runs into issues such as NOX emissions (which the F20 runs on a different emissions system so does the bimmer, I still use OBD1). The question isn't can the KA run on 91 octane with a compression of 10.5:1 (probably yes, will it pass smog... NO, would I have to worry about knock and ping...Maybe with the stock timing @20BTDC)... The key to designing a NA KA is also to fool the smog tech IMO. The greater the CR the greater risk of the engine not passing NOX. I've been studying this crap for a year to get it down right. Timing has much to do with passing smog as well as building an engine to new CR specs. You simply can't just build something and think it will pass. All that is aloud for me to pass smog in timing is +/- 3 degress from the 20BTDC (thats all I get to play with)....

Thinking Vinny's pull was 3rd gear?


That isn't my dyno that is Scotts dyno, I'll find the link so you can see for yourself. He had high 14's in the 1/4mile, better times than the Acura RSX type-s, or the Sentra SE-R specV..... Now his engine is turbo charged......

Found it!!!! I rated it at 165. I guess the dyno was really 169...........
http://www.geocities.com/wssnider/240sxDYNO.html

[Jeff240sx]

let me reiterate.
10:5 is TOO MUCH FOR A KA to be ran on 91 pump gas.this is due to the design of the motor. low oct + high comp ka = kaboom city or a shit load of tunning for no reason.
plenty of motors out there can run sky high compressions and run 91 pump, but NOT A KA
KA also itself has thin cylinder walls. and a weak head

So.. you're telling me that the motor dictates the compression it can run? Ha. Haha. What a joke. Go read a book about tuning - then come back and join the grown-ups in this discussion.

And.. the KA has thin cylinder walls versus an SR.. but - the KA's is iron, not some aluminum-magnesium conglomeration. Strength for strength, I'd bet the thick weak metal and thin strong metal are nearly the same.
Weak head? Compared to what? You have a weak head. Come to this discussion with proof and not assclownery, or go join the kiddies over at NICO.
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

Originally I wanted to use 11.1:1 pistons, put it more on the level of the F20 honda engine. But then it runs into issues such as NOX emissions (which the F20 runs on a different emissions system so does the bimmer, I still use OBD1). The question isn't can the KA run on 91 octane with a compression of 10.5:1 (probably yes, will it pass smog... NO, would I have to worry about knock and ping...Maybe with the stock timing @20BTDC)... The key to designing a NA KA is also to fool the smog tech IMO. The greater the CR the greater risk of the engine not passing NOX. I've been studying this crap for a year to get it down right. Timing has much to do with passing smog as well as building an engine to new CR specs. You simply can't just build something and think it will pass. All that is aloud for me to pass smog in timing is +/- 3 degress from the 20BTDC (thats all I get to play with)....

If you're so concerned with smog - why not just find a 'nice' smog tech? Install a 2nd cat? I don't know what's legal there or not, but it seems that they can't complain about a 2nd cat?
-Jeff

[that180guy]

So.. you're telling me that the motor dictates the compression it can run? Ha. Haha. What a joke. Go read a book about tuning - then come back and join the grown-ups in this discussion.

And.. the KA has thin cylinder walls versus an SR.. but - the KA's is iron, not some aluminum-magnesium conglomeration. Strength for strength, I'd bet the thick weak metal and thin strong metal are nearly the same.
Weak head? Compared to what? You have a weak head. Come to this discussion with proof and not assclownery, or go join the kiddies over at NICO.
-Jeff

i never said that, i said it contributes. unless you can tell me otherwise that the design of the motor does not contribute to how it functions in situations

[atom]

So.. you're telling me that the motor dictates the compression it can run? Ha. Haha. What a joke. Go read a book about tuning - then come back and join the grown-ups in this discussion.


WTH are you talking about, of course it does. A lot of shit can affect an engine's resistance to pinging including combustion chamber design and piston speed, none of which the KA is particularly efficient at.

[BigVinnie]

If you're so concerned with smog - why not just find a 'nice' smog tech? Install a 2nd cat? I don't know what's legal there or not, but it seems that they can't complain about a 2nd cat?
-Jeff

Great a second CAT added so that I kill the performance that I wanted added.... I did talk to a smog tech. With the stroke, timing, and compression (11.1:1) I would have to use a gasoline/ethanol mixture to pass and lower the NOX emissions. I like the idea of 10.1:1 anyways, it's better than stock........

[S14DB]

Run a all metal not ceramic cat. There are 1000hp skylines passing smog in Japan. Even better #'s than stock.

http://projectnissan.com/shopping/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=3&idproduct=1

[90RS13]

Found it!!!! I rated it at 165. I guess the dyno was really 169...........
http://www.geocities.com/wssnider/240sxDYNO.html

You just said exhaust, header, and tuning....you never metioned he was using 104 octane fuel. You can tune timing alot more aggressively with 104.

[BigVinnie]

You just said exhaust, header, and tuning....you never metioned he was using 104 octane fuel. You can tune timing alot more aggressively with 104.


104octane will shift the timing a bit, but by the smallest margin (probably a couple donkey's). I don't think it is the performance enhancer that you think it is to be. The purpose of higher octane fuels is to prevent knock and ping, (actually lowering the knock signal a bit). Shure it freed up a little room as far as timing, but then again that is mostly the ecu tune, and when I mean by the smallest margin probably like 5HP at the most was gained using that fuel.

[BigVinnie]

Run a all metal not ceramic cat. There are 1000hp skylines passing smog in Japan. Even better #'s than stock.

http://projectnissan.com/shopping/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=3&idproduct=1


Whats wrong with using my catco hiflow?????
http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/7979/catcocat0029ot.jpg
Sorry for the double post.....

[S14DB]

It's ceramic and trades flow for efficiency. Converts worse than stock.

[BigVinnie]

It's ceramic and trades flow for efficiency. Converts worse than stock.


I see for flow and efficiency use the metal instead.......... Ceramic is cheap though........

[Jeff240sx]

WTH are you talking about, of course it does. A lot of shit can affect an engine's resistance to pinging including combustion chamber design and piston speed, none of which the KA is particularly efficient at.

Again, you fucking people are simply irritating me with this bullshit. Is this the cause of the detonation? No. Is this a contributing factor to the intensity of the detonation? Yea. The initial detonation is determined by the tune, and can be completely tuned out with proper air/fuel mixtures, and timing. Once you have tuned out the detonation.. who fucking cares what the KA does or doesn't do. Will you detonate with an off-the-shelf tune on a wild KA? Sure. And you'll do it with every other motor in the same circumstance. Can you custom tune an ECU and eliminate all detonation at a given power level. Yep. Can we stop being so matter-of-fact "WTH are you talking about" when your point doesn't fucking matter?
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

Great a second CAT added so that I kill the performance that I wanted added.... I did talk to a smog tech. With the stroke, timing, and compression (11.1:1) I would have to use a gasoline/ethanol mixture to pass and lower the NOX emissions. I like the idea of 10.1:1 anyways, it's better than stock........

Great.. a second cat that can be removed when not smogging. Unless, you know, that's your job, to drive from smog shop to smog shop all day every day. What the fuck is wrong with you? Could you not get my point, or are you just being arguementative for the sake of it?

And.. I don't mean talk with a smog tech. I mean find one of those who seem to pass more cars than usual, for a small fee.
And.. S14DB gave you a perfect example. Platinum is the best catalyzer for exhaust emissions. Ya, it's expensive. But so is the $5000, 225hp motor that I laid out last page. Can you not pony up the extra cash for a metal cat and pass smog?
Because right now.. you have a few issues. 1) You either don't understand or don't give a damn what people with more knowledge on the subject than you have to say. 2) You seem to be deluded with thoughts of a 300whp KA, yet need it to be cheap. And 3) You seem to need to pass smog legitamately (with a sniffer, not a 'nice' smog tech), and the cheapness from issue 2 is preventing that, too.

Anyway, you can do whatever. I'm probably not going to post here unless somebody quotes me. But - at your current rate, you'll never hit your car's max power, because your beliefs and lack of willingness to put money in the right places (better single cat or removable 2nd cat for smogging).
-Jeff

[Omarius Maximus]

I don't understand why you people are so obsessed with horsepower. No matter how fast your car is, there will always be someone who has something faster. Ultimately, you only need enough horsepower to have "fun" with. Think about it; nowadays a van like a Honda Oddyssey can out accelerate a stock 240, but then again when do you see Oddysseys flying around at WOT? The same goes with true sports cars. Rarely have I seen M3s, Corvettes, etc actually making use of their power on the street. So why build a motor to compete with cars or people who want nothing to do with you? 99 percent of motorist are trying to get from point a to b in a calm fashion. Thats why a stock 240 will out accelerate even the fastest cars, simply because the owners of those cars aren't interested in going fast(most of the time). Horsepower is subjective from a driver's perspective, so there's no point in saying "go turbo, more horsepower"

[BigVinnie]

Great.. a second cat that can be removed when not smogging. Unless, you know, that's your job, to drive from smog shop to smog shop all day every day. What the fuck is wrong with you? Could you not get my point, or are you just being arguementative for the sake of it?

And.. I don't mean talk with a smog tech. I mean find one of those who seem to pass more cars than usual, for a small fee.
And.. S14DB gave you a perfect example. Platinum is the best catalyzer for exhaust emissions. Ya, it's expensive. But so is the $5000, 225hp motor that I laid out last page. Can you not pony up the extra cash for a metal cat and pass smog?
Because right now.. you have a few issues. 1) You either don't understand or don't give a damn what people with more knowledge on the subject than you have to say. 2) You seem to be deluded with thoughts of a 300whp KA, yet need it to be cheap. And 3) You seem to need to pass smog legitamately (with a sniffer, not a 'nice' smog tech), and the cheapness from issue 2 is preventing that, too.

Anyway, you can do whatever. I'm probably not going to post here unless somebody quotes me. But - at your current rate, you'll never hit your car's max power, because your beliefs and lack of willingness to put money in the right places (better single cat or removable 2nd cat for smogging).
-Jeff


All I can say is that you have some personal issues that seriously need to get worked out..... I guess being anal is one of them.......
If I installed a second CAT the referee wouldn't even smog me do to the visual inspection. There is no way in hell I am paying a $1000 dollars for a metal CAT. It benefit's more for FI engines that are making over 300HP and make excessive fuel dumping to make that power, something which my NA won't be making.
The CATCO CAT was rated the best CAT for effeciency and price, was much more affordable than random Technology with the same benefits (random costed $300, I welded flanges on the CATCO and bought it for $50). I still use my AIV system that keeps my CAT nice and hot to run at maximum effeciency............ Just installed a new egr also it sucks up exhaust gasses just fine.........

[BigVinnie]

Whatever man. Life goes on and I can't continue to get pissed at your madness.

[atom]

Again, you fucking people are simply irritating me with this bullshit. Is this the cause of the detonation? No. Is this a contributing factor to the intensity of the detonation? Yea. The initial detonation is determined by the tune, and can be completely tuned out with proper air/fuel mixtures, and timing. Once you have tuned out the detonation.. who fucking cares what the KA does or doesn't do. Will you detonate with an off-the-shelf tune on a wild KA? Sure. And you'll do it with every other motor in the same circumstance. Can you custom tune an ECU and eliminate all detonation at a given power level. Yep. Can we stop being so matter-of-fact "WTH are you talking about" when your point doesn't fucking matter?
-Jeff

How the fuck does it not matter? For the most power NA (which is what this thread is about genius) you should have the highest compression for the optimal timing for any given RPM without detonation, not the other way around. If you need to reduce timing for a tune N/A you're losing power. Oh jesus, this is N/A tuning 101 where the fuck have you been..........

[S14DB]

Wait, you tune your C:R not you timing?

[atom]

Wait, you tune your C:R not you timing?

If you are pinging on your target octane and you are serious about building the engine then yes a lot of times you're better off tearing the engine down and lowering hte compression than retarding the timing a sizable amount.

[Jeff240sx]

If I installed a second CAT the referee wouldn't even smog me do to the visual inspection.
I said I didn't know Cali laws. Was just offering a suggestion. Dunno why they'd have an issue with you using 2 cats on an old car.

The CATCO CAT was rated the best CAT for effeciency and price, was much more affordable than random Technology with the same benefits (random costed $300, I welded flanges on the CATCO and bought it for $50).

Catco and random tech cats are rated by % of stock cat efficiency. I think they're both around 95% of stock, which isn't bad. But - for the ammount of money you will lay out, not paying off a smog tech and/or not spending a few hundred dollars extra to pass emissions you so desparately need to pass.. is a poor idea.
Or.. buy a 2nd KA and swap before smog. It's much, much easier to pass smog than you're making it out to be. It's just a bit of a PITA.
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

If you need to reduce timing for a tune N/A you're losing power. Oh jesus, this is N/A tuning 101 where the fuck have you been..........

HA! A) There's a point of diminishing returns. If you are right about this (and tearing down the motor to reduce compression), few people have 2-3 or however many sets of pistons to tune CR as would be required. And.. for the extra power you'd extract after a couple 4-hour teardowns and few sets of extra pistons... ha.
This works on a race team. But.. this isnt' a race car, or a race team. It's a guy in Cali who probably wants to drive daily, and do this for as cheap as possible. You seem to lose the scope of this conversations in your drive to be correct. It's a poor method of debate.

B) You lose power by reducing timing. On a KA, probably no more than 5hp ever. By dropping compression, you lose 5% per point. Or.. 7-10hp depending on is power level at the time of 'tuning for CR' rather than retarding timing.
-Jeff

[jmauld]

Loss in fuel? If fuel goes into the combustion chamber, it's combusted. Not lost. So.. due to this glaring mis-wording, I really dont' know what you're talking about.

Actually, not all of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber is combusted. Maybe in an ideal engine it is, but we aren't driving formula1 cars.

Here's the deal though, I hit boost EVERY time I step on the throttle. I make 2-5psi boost just leaving a stoplight and driving to 3000rpm. I also hit your WOT (zero vacuum) at 2000rpm, EVERY time I step on the throttle.
Myself, and any other random guy driving his car on the street, drive roughly equivalently. I hit 320hp the same number of times he hits 155hp. And, as I accelerate to 3000rpm, I pull 200+hp from 2500-on, at partial throttle. He hits 100hp from 2500-on (or something) at partial throttle.
I understand what you're saying here, but if you're talking about hp efficiency, this is all irrelevant. WOT, under load is the only place it counts. I'm not pulling anything out of thin air here, I've given you REAL numbers.

You need to understand that I am getting "free" energy that's put to work on my car, and that all else equal, my harnessed exhaust doing something that your exhaust isn't - makes my engine more efficient.
-Jeff
You need to understand that you are not getting free energy. Powering a turbo puts a significant load on an engine.

[Gnnr]

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s29/smilies-3475.png

[Jeff240sx]

Actually, not all of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber is combusted. Maybe in an ideal engine it is, but we aren't driving formula1 cars.
Just pulling another technicallity? Because when you consider his "you add fuel to cool the combustion chamber, so it's lost" vs. my "you add fuel to the combustion chamber, it cools the chamber and then is combusted".. who is correct.

I understand what you're saying here, but if you're talking about hp efficiency, this is all irrelevant. WOT, under load is the only place it counts. I'm not pulling anything out of thin air here, I've given you REAL numbers.
No.. it's not irrelevant. Two average drivers driving averagely, my car hits load and makes boost, while his car hits load and is still pulling vacuum. At 3k rpm he is making 100hp, I'm making 200hp. At any point in the powerband, I'm making more power, except highway driving. And, when I get 5mpg less for making nearly 2x the power across the board, I'm more efficient.
A turbocharger doesn't change a torque curve, it simply adds to it. So, a KA vs. KA-T have nearly the same curve, which is why that at all rpms with load on the engine, the KA-T is making more power.

You need to understand that you are not getting free energy. Powering a turbo puts a significant load on an engine.
I said "free" energy. Read my post, and then don't tell me what to understand. Sure, there's more backpressure, but at least the backpressure is doing something... your backpressure just means that you need a better exhaust.
It's not really a significant load. There was an article somewhere that did the math between a turbo and a supercharger on a 2.2L Prelude. The supercharger required 55horsepower to churn out 250hp on the 2.2L. The turbo required 14hp to make the same power.

I'd like to see the meaningless technicallities get dropped from this thread. Figure out what is and isn't worth arguing about - and don't bring up worthless points.
-Jeff

[jmauld]

Just pulling another technicallity? Because when you consider his "you add fuel to cool the combustion chamber, so it's lost" vs. my "you add fuel to the combustion chamber, it cools the chamber and then is combusted".. who is correct.
Technicality? No, I was just under the impression that we wanted incorrect information to be corrected here?

The additional fuel cools by carrying the heat out of the exhaust. At which point it's lost. Although, one could argue that it isn't lost, since it allows the engine to utilize higher boost pressures and make more power. BTW, this is part of the "expense" of owning a turbo car, which you call "free". (note, I'm am by no means suggesting it isn't worth it.)

***Other stuff removed since you are ignoring the real data that I presented to you***

[Jeff240sx]

Technicality? No, I was just under the impression that we wanted incorrect information to be corrected here?

The additional fuel cools by carrying the heat out of the exhaust. At which point it's lost. Although, one could argue that it isn't lost, since it allows the engine to utilize higher boost pressures and make more power. BTW, this is part of the "expense" of owning a turbo car, which you call "free". (note, I'm am by no means suggesting it isn't worth it.)

Are you kidding me? You have typed this to say that fuel enters, drops the cylinder temperature, and exits through the exhaust, bypassing the combustion cycle and slipping out of the exhuast valves - while they're closed - and is therefore lost.
Now.. what happens is that X ammount of fuel in injected into our combustion chamber as dictated by our ECU tune. The ECU doesn't have a way to say 'hey - cylinder head is hot. lets add more fuel'. There is nothing that increases fuel in order to reduce the combustion temperature.
Anytime you increase the ammount of fuel in the engine, each droplet has a specific ammount of heat it can absorb, and it does. This heat absorption cools the combustion chamber, but as long as your engine is running, the fuel still needs to be combusted and the exhaust valves need to open before it carries the heat away and out the exhaust.
When you have atomized fuel and a spark.. you get an explosion. So.. say it with me. "No fuel that enters the combustion chamber is wasted". It gets combusted - and there's no formula or way (that I know of, at least) to know how completely (or partially) the excess fuel was combusted.

***Other stuff removed since you are ignoring the real data that I presented to you***

And.. you can go ahead and be a jackass, but I quoted and replied sincerely to each of your three points. I didn't ignore anything, and you provided no real data. So go fuck yourself for this comment.
-Jeff

[jmauld]

Are you kidding me? You have typed this to say that fuel enters, drops the cylinder temperature, and exits through the exhaust, bypassing the combustion cycle and slipping out of the exhuast valves - while they're closed - and is therefore lost.
Now.. what happens is that X ammount of fuel in injected into our combustion chamber as dictated by our ECU tune. The ECU doesn't have a way to say 'hey - cylinder head is hot. lets add more fuel'. There is nothing that increases fuel in order to reduce the combustion temperature.
Anytime you increase the ammount of fuel in the engine, each droplet has a specific ammount of heat it can absorb, and it does. This heat absorption cools the combustion chamber, but as long as your engine is running, the fuel still needs to be combusted and the exhaust valves need to open before it carries the heat away and out the exhaust.
When you have atomized fuel and a spark.. you get an explosion. So.. say it with me. "No fuel that enters the combustion chamber is wasted". It gets combusted - and there's no formula or way (that I know of, at least) to know how completely (or partially) the excess fuel was combusted.


There is only one ratio that will allow 100% of the air and fuel to be consumed during a combustion event. In a turbo car, you tune the engine to run a little richer then with a N/A car. The term rich means that there is more gasoline then can be consumed by the combustion. That extra gasoline gets pushed out the exhaust with the other by-products of combustion. It carries heat out with it.



And.. you can go ahead and be a jackass, but I quoted and replied sincerely to each of your three points. I didn't ignore anything, and you provided no real data. So go fuck yourself for this comment.
-Jeff
Seriously, if you leave your attitude at the door, then maybe I wouldn't have assumed that you were being a smartass.

We can go back to that discussion if you are willing to discuss it without the attitude. Personally, I find it kind of interesting, but I'm not willing to discuss it with someone that has their head stuck up their ass.

[Jeff240sx]

We can go back to that discussion if you are willing to discuss it without the attitude. Personally, I find it kind of interesting, but I'm not willing to discuss it with someone that has their head stuck up their ass.

If you'd not pull stupid shit and say "other stuff removed because I'm ignoring" your lack of data, I wouldn't have an attitute towards you. If you want to start the petty jabs, I'll go right along. But DON'T FUCKING TRY to blame me for your insult.

Do I get mad at these discussions? Yea, because I try to make things as general as possible so everyone can understand (and save myself time), yet people come in and start getting technical about a generalization I made and say I'm wrong - without giving reason why. Sure, I may miss one of the mechanics of something (because I'm making a post, not writing a novel), but overall the general subject is correct. Except now there's 18 people I have to reply to over something that's so assinine to bring up in the first place.

With that said - here's my reply to the subject at hand.

There is only one ratio that will allow 100% of the air and fuel to be consumed during a combustion event. In a turbo car, you tune the engine to run a little richer then with a N/A car. The term rich means that there is more gasoline then can be consumed by the combustion. That extra gasoline gets pushed out the exhaust with the other by-products of combustion. It carries heat out with it.

This is one of those sub-arguements that stem from a generalization - because there's less than 20 people on this forum who can figure out what the hell we're talking about. So, my generalization and lack of wanting to type a 15 page synopsis of this subject has led us this far.

All cars run rich, as the stoichiometric ratio cannot run a car except during idle or cruise and no load is on the car. But to imply (as I've been arguing against) that fuel isn't ignited and exhausted is flawed. And.. the gasoline either combusts, or it doesn't. It's an all-of-nothing event in the combustion chamber. But using the term combustion' in a chemistry-type definition, then yes, not all of the gasoline will combust (combustion meaning breaking the hydrocarbon (c8h18 for octane) into CO2 + H2O with the addition of oxygen and an ignition source. But, all gasoline is burnt off, which is why cars running rich just spit out soot and other carbon emissions (carbon monoxide and other partial-combustion products, all of which the emissions sniffer test checks for). No liquid or vaporized fuel is expelled. What goes in the cylinderhead explodes. That's all I've been saying.
-Jeff

[Zemus]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports055.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports056.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports024.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports023.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports026.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports063.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports034.jpg

Pics NOT found by me found by "ronmastas" on ziptied, said its a friends car and makes 280HP on the engine dyno.. so I take it thats to the flywheel...

[PoorMans180SX]

That is a frickin' sweet car... Sorry I'm not entering the KA debate, I just wanted to say that car is awesome!!!

[Jeff240sx]

Yes, 280 on an engine dyno is flywheel hp. It's around 240whp.
SOHC have been being built by Rebello at 250-300whp for many, many years. Just - unstreetable.
Good find though.
-Jeff

[OJmobileII]

You guys should really be talking to Datson guys and oldschoolers. There the ones that really know how to build a KA and have done it etc. And Singel cams with make the better power, and yes singel cams are good. Look at the racing world most of the fastest cars are singel cam pushrod etc

[OJmobileII]

SR20forum.com and Nico, KA-T etc are better because people dont go throwing out crap all over the place and try to help people.

IM NOT GOING NA BUT I LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS NEEDED,because im turbo and thats what im into, And no you dont need a honda motor to make power, every motor wil make power. Its all in how you go about it and how it will respond.


Now its proven that the singel cam is better for NA power because you can port the head alot more than the daul. And you dont need to rev to 1111,1111RPM to make power. If a Bigblock V8 can rev to 8,000 plus im sure a little 4 banger can also. I mean comon people are saying it cant be done with out knowing. Or looking it up, Ive looked it up and have found out some good info. But really dont post if you dont know. Im not 100% sure, so im not going to share mis information like most people do on here.

[allmotorKA]

According to the internet, that 510 has the KA24E head with a Z24 block. I believe it was David Nelson of Washington that owned that 510. He used the Nissan Motorsports intake manifold but it is shortened and the angle was slightly changed to fit the 510. It has 44mm Mikuni carbs and a Nissan Motorsports cam (not sure which one). He claimed 270 flywheel hp at 7300 rpm so I'm guessing he used the R5 race cam. Max torque was 245.

Many 510 owners claim their Rebello motors are 240+ crank hp that is STREETABLE...ie idles fine, running stop light to stop light...killer, autocross...better than turbo. Don't hate, this is what many 510 owners have sworn by.


I'll look for some more links...

[OJmobileII]

Can you send me a link to were you found this info? Or datson sites?????????

[Sean1978]

nice.. this thread is finally going in the direction I intended it to...

[irax]

adding aditional Cats in california is not legal... just thought you guys should know...having custom cats are... only if your PRE OBDII.

[allmotorKA]

Here is a link to a thread in freshalloy:

http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB9&Number=95241&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

If you read from the 14th post down, you will see another person claim 244+ flywheel HP at 6600RPM and 217 ft-lb at 4700RPM on his NA KA. He also states later in the thread that CR was 9.5:1, Redline was 7200 RPM, and ran on pump gas. Sounds streetable to me. You will also see the pissing match that insued later...sort of like this thread did earlier.

[BigVinnie]

Many 510 owners claim their Rebello motors are 240+ crank hp that is STREETABLE...ie idles fine, running stop light to stop light...killer, autocross...better than turbo. Don't hate, this is what many 510 owners have sworn by.


I beieve it! 510's and KA's kickass....

[OJmobileII]

Bigvinnie ive seen you post on countless forums about NA etc, and you were talking to somone about a 2.8 and he was getting a motor built at a shop building KAs. Do you recall what shop is doing all this motor work with KAs?

Im not looking to go NA really, Im looking to go NA with a hefty Nitrous shot. I talked to IVAN the 240 god. Since my buddy is good friends with him and he said he was able to spray a 175 shot on a stock motor. But it blew at 250shot but lasted a little bit. Now he was blowing up a KA and beating it to hell to see what happens and doing some RnD work.

Nitrous loves high compression and Ive been around LS1s, and my buddy has a 13:1 4.6 spray motor cobra. It is a all spray mod motor with up wards of a 400 shot on a daul stage. It can be driven on the street and he takes it out on weekends. It just needs race gas etc....... I also read you were spraying at one point but you got sick of bottles etc.



I would like to know what you think of the K and how it was on spray etc, If anyone tells me that High compression and nitrous is bad, im not going to listen and thats the end of the story so dont go there. I do have a whole turbo setup and the side and it would be good for 400plus but I really would like a spray car that is quick on motor etc

[sideview_180sx]

Here is a link to a thread in freshalloy:

http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB9&Number=95241&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

If you read from the 14th post down, you will see another person claim 244+ flywheel HP at 6600RPM and 217 ft-lb at 4700RPM on his NA KA. He also states later in the thread that CR was 9.5:1, Redline was 7200 RPM, and ran on pump gas. Sounds streetable to me. You will also see the pissing match that insued later...sort of like this thread did earlier.

I also noticed he outright said it was a robello engine. obviously it has had some work done. pissing contest must end, just buy a robello engine and be done with it.

[someguy_240]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/aznromeox/jdmdirectimports024.jpg

which header is this? and for the record ive seen 220hp dynod kae's (more like a hybrid datsun/nissan frankenstein motor) and seen them first hand they are streetable. unfortanetely i dont have my friends ka dyno because he threw it away after he sold his 510.

sorry for gettin jus a bit offtopic but i dont think ive seen that header? anyone help?

*** ok found out it was a rebello header
found info about david nelsons car but im not sure if i can post from a different forum

[Jeff240sx]

9.5:1 cr + 7200rpm and 244bhp (200whp-ish) means it's the $5000 motor I laid out on page 3 (or 4), with every bolt-on imaginable, and cams.
Sure it's streetable. But it's not the 300bhp motor that was mentioned in this thread.
-Jeff

[atom]

I beieve it! 510's and KA's kickass....

http://www.ermish-racing.com/510parts/partshome.htm

Click on engines....carbed twin cam.

The Bay Area 510 people I've met recommend them. They supposedly have a nice 250HP street setup with Z22 bloc, single cam head, and 44mm mikunis.

[OJmobileII]

Nice info......... Were are all these Datson guys? I hear about these cars alot but dont see them.

[infinitexsound]

http://www.ermish-racing.com/510parts/partshome.htm

Click on engines....carbed twin cam.

The Bay Area 510 people I've met recommend them. They supposedly have a nice 250HP street setup with Z22 bloc, single cam head, and 44mm mikunis.
thats troy's shop in fremont.. i just drove around there.. couple days ago... first thing u see when u make that left turn is nothing but 510's wagons 2 doors 4 doors... thats like nissan central in that industrial park... not hard to get to either.... right off the 880 freeway.. 12 valves are nice.. but more valves are better..

[allmotorKA]

which header is this? and for the record ive seen 220hp dynod kae's (more like a hybrid datsun/nissan frankenstein motor) and seen them first hand they are streetable. unfortanetely i dont have my friends ka dyno because he threw it away after he sold his 510.

sorry for gettin jus a bit offtopic but i dont think ive seen that header? anyone help?

*** ok found out it was a rebello header
found info about david nelsons car but im not sure if i can post from a different forum

I think he made his own...the rebello header did not fit his 510.

[Gnnr]

Damn thats a sweet 510. Any good 510 forums websites anyone know of? :D

[someguy_240]

I think he made his own...the rebello header did not fit his 510.

yeah my bad, i read it wrong. thanx

[infinitexsound]

Damn thats a sweet 510. Any good 510 forums websites anyone know of? :D
dimequarterly

[andrewmp6]

that pic was a l28 and a high power n/a youll have to run high compression and higher octane fuel ill stick with a rb