I'd really like to see the dyno too. I'd be shocked (but pleased) if that made 210hp at the crank. That list has been on their website for ages and I've never actually seen anyone dyno or buy that engine.Ajax wrote:That list seems short for 210 ponies. Not even any ECU tweaks. Or I suppose with custom ground cams it could be a very peaky 210...I'd want to see dyno first.
I think people need to start thinking outside the box to truely understand the power gains when compression and the proper cc injection is matched.Honestly the stock ecu can be used to make 210 HP EASILY on a ka24Look at other big block engines that are prime examples such as the honda JDM H22a. It makes 200 HP at the crank with all stock bolt ons, on 10.0:1 CR and 300cc injectors on the same stock ecu tune that is used on there usdm models with a lower compression of 9.5:1 and smaller injectors.The scion/Toyota TC (2AZ-FE) uses a 88.5mm piston and a 96mm stroke (mimicking Nissan's KA platform) it ran 1 point higher in compression at 9.6:1 (instead of the KA's 9.5:1) and makes 5 more HP (BHP160). So an easy way for you to see HP for every point added with a stock tune is about 5HP for every point gained in CR.Just a thought I would add to show countless possibilities. So I can easily see a KA making 210 BHP on a stock ecu with 300cc injectors and 10.5:1CR.Yet no dynoAjax wrote:That list seems short for 210 ponies. Not even any ECU tweaks. Or I suppose with custom ground cams it could be a very peaky 210...I'd want to see dyno first.
neverlift wrote: and I think he was wanting to get 240 to the wheels. 4grand is way more than a budget turbo build.
that is the most flawed argument i've heard in a long time. the engines might have the same displacement, stroke, CR, but there is so much different about the engines that there is no direct correlation between CR and HP.Bigvinnie wrote:The scion/Toyota TC (2AZ-FE) uses a 88.5mm piston and a 96mm stroke (mimicking Nissan's KA platform) it ran 1 point higher in compression at 9.6:1 (instead of the KA's 9.5:1) and makes 5 more HP (BHP160). So an easy way for you to see HP for every point added with a stock tune is about 5HP for every point gained in CR.
How would that be? Do you notice that the EPA/Federal government regulate certain rules that are for cars/engines in the U.S to follow strict guidelines?That means when you get an engine with relatively the same rod stroke ratios in comparison, even cam specs will fall relatively the same as well as ecu tuning in order for vehicles to pass smog at the strictest emissions standards, as well as streetability and idle. I don't find it to be flawed at all.Besides in all reality it makes sence adding an additional .1CR, is pretty much the equivelant of 1 additional HP per cylinder, if infact the 2 different engines can show pretty much the same ecu tuning (comparable ignition and fuel maps to pass smog in all 50states).cdlong wrote:that is the most flawed argument i've heard in a long time. the engines might have the same displacement, stroke, CR, but there is so much different about the engines that there is no direct correlation between CR and HP.
wasn't it a blue coupe with ITBs and running on a small diet of nitrous. it was featured in a mag not too long ago.PrimeS14 wrote:i know of a person who built a SR20det motor as a NA and made 300+ bhp. a lot of work went into it but in the end it was a reliable roadracing car.its possible! i have the SR motor in my car right now...that thing sucks. way too many parts not reliable enough.so if anyone knows of someone who has a KA i would like to start on my project. i will be building it with 12 or 13:1 compression with a destroked ,knife edged and lightened crank. ITBs and a complete new fuel system. i'll proabably end up using the EMS to tune withas well.i dont know if i'll make the 250 hp target but i'm sure i'll get pretty damn close.
True, but it is still a 16valve pentroof design head. Your only going to change the flame front slightly no matter what type of engine it is at that displacement (or at least, at almost the same bore size). Granted that bolt on's could in effect change or alter much of the power output, it still has to be streetable. Fact still remains, that particular Toyota/Scion engine makes (160BHP) on 87octane...cdlong wrote:i still haven't seen any proof.
combustion chamber design, intake and exhaust manifolds, exhaust can all be changed slightly to add or drop 5 hp independant of compression.
its actually all motor on 100 octane.hypertek_sideview wrote:wasn't it a blue coupe with ITBs and running on a small diet of nitrous. it was featured in a mag not too long ago.
sr20det crap? Are you high? very easy to make power with good tuning. only things that "suck" are oilpump, and valvetrain. maybee u just had a lemon.PrimeS14 wrote:i know of a person who built a SR20det motor as a NA and made 300+ bhp. a lot of work went into it but in the end it was a reliable roadracing car.its possible! i have the SR motor in my car right now...that thing sucks. way too many parts not reliable enough.so if anyone knows of someone who has a KA i would like to start on my project. i will be building it with 12 or 13:1 compression with a destroked,knife edged and lightened crank. ITBs and a complete new fuel system. i'll proabably end up using the EMS to tune withas well.i dont know if i'll make the 250 hp target but i'm sure i'll get pretty damn close.
have you built one?JesusLikesKFC wrote: sr20det crap? Are you high? very easy to make power with good tuning. only things that "suck" are oilpump, and valvetrain. maybee u just had a lemon.
It wasn't at zilvia, it was over at club240.com. It seems that thread gets around to several forums. Nothing but positive remarks for 200CHP on stock CR makes just as much power as a stock sr20det on 7psi of boost.BIG_T wrote:200chp is easy bigvinnie has a write up on it at zilvia (i think) dynoed and everything. no true engine mods just bolt ons and ecu tune with 93 octane
that's the first time i've seen some put in the effort to show the accomplishments of the KA and post a dyno. technically not proof, but i'll take it. i didn't doubt that it could be done, just that no one bothered to show how. i'm suprised by how simple it is.Bigvinnie wrote:http://www.club240.com/forums/...30440
Interesting stuff. Do you have any opinions on the new Brian Crower cams for the KA24DE? Much better price than the Jim Wolf stuff. I'm just not knowledgeable enough about cam specs to know if these would be worth the $$$.Bigvinnie wrote:
It wasn't at zilvia, it was over at club240.com. It seems that thread gets around to several forums. Nothing but positive remarks for 200CHP on stock CR makes just as much power as a stock sr20det on 7psi of boost.
I haven't delt with any Brian Crower cams, so I really couldn't tell you. But if the Durations are more true to there duration than what Jim wolfe claims to there cams, that could be the cam that makes or breaks Jim Wolfe cams.On average the Jim Wolfe cams make about 8WHP on OBD1 KA24de's to my knowledge. How the overlap is provided through there duration is really were the power will be made. If Brian Crower cams are true to there duration you probably would be better off.BadMojo wrote:Interesting stuff. Do you have any opinions on the new Brian Crower cams for the KA24DE? Much better price than the Jim Wolf stuff. I'm just not knowledgeable enough about cam specs to know if these would be worth the $$$.
http://www.briancrower.com/mak...shtml
JWT cams are not a true 275*. After about a 270 duration the engine isn't very streetable and idle runs like shiat. Last I recall from memory the JWT cams durations are measured way below that.3dKa24 wrote:
It also looks like JWT S1 have a longer duration than the crower "stage 2" 275/275 compared to 264/264 , and have a slightly higher lift .390 compared to .375 so the valves open more and for a longer amount of time which would give the S1 an advantage in the flow department.