this is what I was talking about earlier...-chet
High rev KA turbo
-
jon ormesher
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:19 pm
- Car: playing guitar and harmonica, working (fixing) my 240 and my freinds 240's, driving...
Is prelude a fast car ?? 
2001 Prelude SH 0-60 : 7.2sec1995 240SX 0-60 : 8.0sec2000 S2000 0-60 : 5.7sec(0.5sec +/- error due to diff engine inl. )
I hope your friend is not not driving automatic. ( otherwise he is really sucks !! )
I bet both of you slow down after 2nd gear. Try 3rd and 4th and he will be gone.
Like ADANHU metion in his Solo1 figure, is clearly fact that s2000 is hell a fast car, and good handling too.
Well, is understand why some of you hate and deny some Honda's engines and cars capability. You guys just can't face the fact. I don't like Honda either, because RWD is cool, and Honda don't have RWD !! (besides NSX and S2000)
And I can't believe some of you trying to say high HP car run slower on track ....hmm.... :Werd
:nono
2001 Prelude SH 0-60 : 7.2sec1995 240SX 0-60 : 8.0sec2000 S2000 0-60 : 5.7sec(0.5sec +/- error due to diff engine inl. )
I hope your friend is not not driving automatic. ( otherwise he is really sucks !!
)I bet both of you slow down after 2nd gear. Try 3rd and 4th and he will be gone.
Like ADANHU metion in his Solo1 figure, is clearly fact that s2000 is hell a fast car, and good handling too.
Well, is understand why some of you hate and deny some Honda's engines and cars capability. You guys just can't face the fact. I don't like Honda either, because RWD is cool, and Honda don't have RWD !! (besides NSX and S2000)
And I can't believe some of you trying to say high HP car run slower on track ....hmm.... :Werd
:nono
-
AkaiRPS13
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:28 am
- Car: Kyoumi wa kuruma ya bujitsu ya nihongo desu.
"and NO torque.....its hard to beat cars that have a nice wide torque band....ever go into a sharp corner on the race track where neither 2nd gear or 3rd is good..so you keep it in 3rd..and use the torque to pull you out of the hole......it makes racing easier...cause if you BOG the s2000 down......you lose lots of time....cause it has no bottom end to it...."
this only really happens on cars with not sporty transmitions. my crx had crap for torqe, in that situation you would use second in a higher revving car and use the HORSEPOWER to pull you out of the curve. and the s2000 is geared so close that that would never happen anyways. you use a close geared tranny for high hp cars with more gears to make up for the lost high speed capabillitys and in high torque applications you use taller gears to take advantage of the senario you just spoke of.
the KA is a TRUCK MOTOR ! it is stupid to say that TRUCK MOTORS are faster than sports car motors. It is not debatable. The numbers speak for themselves(and im not talking about the storys of "oh yea well my friend and I were.......", im talking real testing by auto manufacturers and racing teams). Truck motors are car manufacturers least expencive way of putting torque into pickups like the hardbody. if they were honestly faster than the sportscar motors then why would nissan spend more money on making the sportscar motors?
Im not talking about making it rev to 10 grand. 8 was optimistic, and 7250 sounds more realistic. destroking would be cool but really expencive. so if my ka flys apart from revving to 7250 after i do all that stuff (cams, ecu, maybe custom intake manifold) ill just buy a CA (and then obsess over getting it to rev to 8500! ah hahahahahah! J/K :P ) .
for a street car torque is cool and makes it easyer to drive but no question hp more than torque means speed.
this only really happens on cars with not sporty transmitions. my crx had crap for torqe, in that situation you would use second in a higher revving car and use the HORSEPOWER to pull you out of the curve. and the s2000 is geared so close that that would never happen anyways. you use a close geared tranny for high hp cars with more gears to make up for the lost high speed capabillitys and in high torque applications you use taller gears to take advantage of the senario you just spoke of.
the KA is a TRUCK MOTOR ! it is stupid to say that TRUCK MOTORS are faster than sports car motors. It is not debatable. The numbers speak for themselves(and im not talking about the storys of "oh yea well my friend and I were.......", im talking real testing by auto manufacturers and racing teams). Truck motors are car manufacturers least expencive way of putting torque into pickups like the hardbody. if they were honestly faster than the sportscar motors then why would nissan spend more money on making the sportscar motors?
Im not talking about making it rev to 10 grand. 8 was optimistic, and 7250 sounds more realistic. destroking would be cool but really expencive. so if my ka flys apart from revving to 7250 after i do all that stuff (cams, ecu, maybe custom intake manifold) ill just buy a CA (and then obsess over getting it to rev to 8500! ah hahahahahah! J/K :P ) .
for a street car torque is cool and makes it easyer to drive but no question hp more than torque means speed.
" the KA is a TRUCK MOTOR !... "
Hey, Akai, I don't like the word "Truck Motor" !!
We should just say KA is a high torque street engine, with splenty raceable HP that need to be tune well.
With some port & polish, valve job, flywheel, intake runner/manifold, header, higher CR piston, lighter rod, balanced crack shalf and etc.... I believe motor is capable of 190-210 hp, having redline at 7.5k
You going all n/a ?
Hey, Akai, I don't like the word "Truck Motor" !!
We should just say KA is a high torque street engine, with splenty raceable HP that need to be tune well.
With some port & polish, valve job, flywheel, intake runner/manifold, header, higher CR piston, lighter rod, balanced crack shalf and etc.... I believe motor is capable of 190-210 hp, having redline at 7.5k
You going all n/a ?
Exar-Kun wrote::withstup
true that. also, not to be a nit picking *****, but the really high output F-1 days used turbos, renault had a 1200hp 2.8l twin turbo F-1 engine
-chet
"its all about what YOU want the car to do."
Engine: StandardYear : 1986Size : 1.5 litre Cylinder : 4Aspiration :normal Max Boost: -Max Fuel : -Fuel : 91 RON Hoursepower @ rpm : 92 @ 6000 Torque @ rpm : 89 @ 4500
Engine: Formula OneYear : 1986Size : 1.5 litre Cylinder : 6Aspiration :turboMax Boost: 54psiMax Fuel : 200 litersFuel : 102 RON Hoursepower @ rpm : 994 @ 12000 Torque @ rpm : 490 @ 9750
Engine: Formula OneYear : 1989Size : 1.5 litre Cylinder : 6Aspiration :turbo Max Boost: 36.3psiMax Fuel : 150 RONFuel : 102 RON Hoursepower @ rpm : 610 @ 12000 Torque @ rpm : 280 @ 10000 -> 994hp@12000rpm with 54psi. You will dream about this number in your KA engine..
The most impressed me is putting 32% fuel into mechanical energy.
Read this article, it might enlighted you.http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos....html
-
AkaiRPS13
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:28 am
- Car: Kyoumi wa kuruma ya bujitsu ya nihongo desu.
Exar-chan you need to go out and buy yourself a muscle car. :pface kidding ! but you know an Z32 might be right up your alley. big torque down low and a montorous sounding 3.0 liter V-6.
that thing on the honda turbo F1 was so cool!
gyfer you are right. i dont like it ether and i hate it when other people say it so im sorry but it had to be said. It does need to be tuned. its a "fixer-upper" if there ever was one. and if there wasnt such easy access to engines like the CA id be looking for a way to de-stroke this baby, get it to rev to 8, and boost to 14 psi. im almost temped to do that anyway. just to prove those SR guys wrong. rooting for the little guy is so much fun(or in the KAs case the guy that nobody believed in).Quote »You going all n/a ?[/quote] no but i dont have anything against n/a. turbo just seems like the more advanced way of doing things. but im already missing the feel of a high revving n/a engine.
y'know somebody should make a KA manifold with shorter runners and like mass manufacture it and stuff. that would be cool.
that thing on the honda turbo F1 was so cool!
gyfer you are right. i dont like it ether and i hate it when other people say it so im sorry but it had to be said. It does need to be tuned. its a "fixer-upper" if there ever was one. and if there wasnt such easy access to engines like the CA id be looking for a way to de-stroke this baby, get it to rev to 8, and boost to 14 psi. im almost temped to do that anyway. just to prove those SR guys wrong. rooting for the little guy is so much fun(or in the KAs case the guy that nobody believed in).Quote »You going all n/a ?[/quote] no but i dont have anything against n/a. turbo just seems like the more advanced way of doing things. but im already missing the feel of a high revving n/a engine.
y'know somebody should make a KA manifold with shorter runners and like mass manufacture it and stuff. that would be cool.
but you can't really mechanical change the design of the engine. Is still a KA no matter what. While you pushing KA into 7.5k, you might as well do it on SR or CA into 8.5k rpm. KA is just not for really high rpm revving.
I wish I have 1.6 toyota 4a-ge block. Class A spec, running 240hp max in n/a , with 11000rpm redline, streetable....hmm....And drop it into AE86 ( celica/collora RWD ), with 2200lbs weight, and 50/50 , the car will be a monster. And with turbo..... :icesangel
I wish I have 1.6 toyota 4a-ge block. Class A spec, running 240hp max in n/a , with 11000rpm redline, streetable....hmm....And drop it into AE86 ( celica/collora RWD ), with 2200lbs weight, and 50/50 , the car will be a monster. And with turbo..... :icesangel
-
Movingviolation240
- Posts: 1862
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
- Car: Big boost and flying are 2 of the 3 things I can't turn down
jon ormesher wrote:hmmm,.. simple solution. destroke the ka to 2.2 and build it. then you dont have to have 2 page long discussions/arguments.
Don't forget put a head on with better valve angles, intake manifold, combustion chamber, exhaust, cams, ect......
destrokeing 200cc's is no small acheivement either......
arkai, I had a 300ZX....it was 230hp to the rear(non turbo), then it got WAAAAAY to expensive to maintain while going to school(like, you have any idea what it costs to change the ****ing water pump on those??!?!?!)
anyways, I liked it a lot, but the car itself was way too heavy. I totally agree the KA is in need of tuning, but you cant beat the torque band(flat, per my dyno) even most american muscle car guys go "dayum...thats ****ing sweet."
anyways. stuff. my personal favorite engine right now resides in te ferrari F40. 2.8l twin turbo v-10 with 485 hp...
not tooo shabby.-chet
anyways, I liked it a lot, but the car itself was way too heavy. I totally agree the KA is in need of tuning, but you cant beat the torque band(flat, per my dyno) even most american muscle car guys go "dayum...thats ****ing sweet."
anyways. stuff. my personal favorite engine right now resides in te ferrari F40. 2.8l twin turbo v-10 with 485 hp...
not tooo shabby.-chet
-
jon ormesher
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:19 pm
- Car: playing guitar and harmonica, working (fixing) my 240 and my freinds 240's, driving...
Quote »Don't forget put a head on with better valve angles, intake manifold, combustion chamber, exhaust, cams, ect......[/quote]
thats why i said destroke the ka then build it. yea its no small task but neither is making consistent high revving power out the KA. destroke and build and it will be solid, rev higher, and still make the torque.. blah...
thats why i said destroke the ka then build it. yea its no small task but neither is making consistent high revving power out the KA. destroke and build and it will be solid, rev higher, and still make the torque.. blah...
you wanted links?E-mail me, I will send you a ZIP file full of car links.-chet[email protected][email protected]
Find Your Forum!