</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AceInHole @ May 21 2002,7:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteBegin--DSC+May 21 2002,6<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DSC @ May 21 2002,6<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>3)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That link has been dead for about 8 months now <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>
To get 230rwhp n/a you could have spent less money for a more reliable turbo pushing 250++rwhp. Though you didn't say you were going to try it...I just thought I'd add that in.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
A reply of mine from an earlier thread (http://www.zilvia.net/f/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=9884;st=25)
244 bhp is very possible with the SOHC:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you don't NEED new rods and pistons to raise the compression ratio. Shaving the head a bit and cloverleafing it would do just fine to raise your C/R to around 10:1 or 11:1. You're going to be digging into the head anyways since most of your power is gonna come from porting/ polishing/ larger valves, so you might as well just make the head your main point.
anyways, i like the whole infatuation with Cold Air Intakes... when the best intake for the SOHC would be individual throttlebodies <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'> that and camS, when there's only one.
To get 244hp at the crank and maintain streetability:
igotsboth's (FA member) rebello engine:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">block .o4o over, rotating assembly balanced, head surfaced, mild porting, moderate, livable cam with hydraulic lifters, valve train spring tension balanced (if you ever take the plugs out of your KA, notice how, when you rotate it by hand, it will "kick" as the exhaust valves close, evening out the intake/exhaust spring pressures creates a much smoother rotating head assembly), decked head, higher comp, eyebrowed pistons. Nissan comp sidedraft manifold, with dual 45mm Mikunis. More is possible out of the NA KA, but it just plain gets expensive. </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
That's right, 100hp/L. SCC can KMFA (another anacronym for ca18guy)
EDIT: you don't even NEED high compression to get that much out of the KA24E:
Quoted from igotsboth himself:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More true to the fact, my real world KA has 9.5:1 compression, runs on pump gas, 7200 RPM red, idles like a champ, powerband: low end torque, high end horsepower(read the dyno sheet nearer to the beginning of the thread), someone give me a link to their turbo engine for comparison sake, I truly am curious. Carbs:MIKUNIS nothing else...stays in tune 44s, 39 chokes.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
244hp NA from the same engine running a turbo to get 244hp will have MUCH better response, and end up being a much better cornering machine because of it.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I won't argue with that. Given the same HP and TQ I'd take n/a over turbo in a heartbeat. You just can't beat the n/a's predictability and throttle response.
Like someone said (probably you ace), there would be nothing worse than your turbo kicking in through a corner. The sudden jolt in power would send you spinning if you were anywhere near the car's cornering limits.
But I stand by what I said in that with turbo you can get more HP for less $$.