WDRacing wrote:Most of the SR's people are getting that are actually JDM are 1991 to 1995. So the head casting should be of the same, shall we say, technology. I've done some reading on quench. It's important for a completely tuned and balanced engine. Not somthing most people on these forums should ne concerned about. If you want big boost you have to lower compression. If you don't have the money for pistons and rods then a head gasket will allow you to raise the boost a bit without the fear of destroying your engine at anything greater the 10 psi.

I personally would design my engine with quench in mind. But I'm building an engine to except over 30 psi at high rpms. So the little things would help me out more then the average Joe.

WD

Regardless of the motor, when you increase the chances of detonation, then anything to reduce the chances are important. Quench is one of these. Lowering compression is another one. Frankly, a good, one, but changing to a thicker headgasket is a poor way to do this in comparison to using lower compression pistons. Quench is important on any motor that is asked to perform under extreme conditions. It also has effects on emmissions, but that's outside this discussion. If I were you, I'd pay attention to anything that reduces the chances of detonation. 30 PSI is pretty extreme and there are much better ways to lower compression than thicker headgaskets.

BTW, 10 PSI is mild for most stock import motors as long as the tuning is good. Even with the KA's 9.5:1 Compression, 10 PSI is relatively safe as long as you can get enough fuel to the motor to keep up with the amount of air that the motor ingests. Getting up over 15 psi, I may consider lowering the compression, but I would not use a thicker headgasket, unless I was compensatiing for material lost is I had the block and head milled.

Tony Starks wrote:After thinking things through I've come to the conclusion that for me it comes down to what's more readily available,bang for the buck,and also performance purposes.From what I understand the SR20DET has a nice amount of hp from the factory,BUT the KA24DE has torque.

Besides I can get what I need at any parts store if anything goes wrong.

HP is a more important number to consider when it comes to acceleration and speed. HP is derived from torque and RPM. While torque is the force that actually accelerates a car, the RPM the torque is made at makes a huge difference in how effectively the torque can be used. Transmissions act as a leverage systems for the motor. While a given motor that makes more torque at a lower RPM can accelerate faster at that RPM at the same gearing, a motor that makes less torque at a higher RPM may be more effective since you will be able to stay in a lower gear longer. Lower gearing allows quicker acceleration. In cases where the HP is more on a car that has lower torque, chances are there is more torque being transmitted to the ground. Most factory car gearing is based on speed rather than the powerband of a motor for marketing reasons, so chances are the motor will redline at just over 60 mph in second gear. So on a motor with higher RPM, chances are the gearing will be lower and consequently, should be making at least the same amount of torque at the wheels as a motor with the same HP that has a lower redline.

C-Kwik wrote:HP is a more important number to consider when it comes to acceleration and speed.While a given motor that makes more torque at a lower RPM can accelerate faster at that RPM at the same gearing, a motor that makes less torque at a higher RPM may be more effective since you will be able to stay in a lower gear longer. Lower gearing allows quicker acceleration. In cases where the HP is more on a car that has lower torque, chances are there is more torque being transmitted to the ground. Most factory car gearing is based on speed rather than the powerband of a motor for marketing reasons, so chances are the motor will redline at just over 60 mph in second gear. So on a motor with higher RPM, chances are the gearing will be lower and consequently, should be making at least the same amount of torque at the wheels as a motor with the same HP that has a lower redline.

I understand what torque is and I understand how hp is measured.Maybe it's the way that you're wording things or maybe it's just me but what exactly are you saying here?and about the 1st thing you said I have to disagree:torque=accelerationhp=speed

I could be wrong,but I still don't know where you coming from

Once you've had torque, you never want to go back, why rev to get more power when you can just smash the gas in whatever gear your in and the car goes. I'd love to drive a viper, I hear you can get squirrely when taking off in 3rd gear! When it comes to a drivable car, torque is king. When it comes to the drag strip, torque a big help. Take the s2000 for example. 240 hp!! Runs 1/4 miles in what? like 5.9 or something, but then a rolling start in the car is like 9 seconds. To drag a S2000 you have to rev it to like 7 or 8 thousand. That sucks, just get an engine thats always ready to go. KA has torque. Torque is great. If your thinking about any other engine, drive the car for a while with the KA and feel the torque, or if you want to know what real torque is, drive some domestic iron, and try to image that power in a car that is like 500 to 1000 lbs lighter! KAT is the way to go.

a good turbo like an HKS GT3037 or an INCON GTBB37 can give your SR a wider powerband, so you dont have to rev the motor to death, in order to make good power.

those are bigger than stock turbos, so if anything youll have to rev more to get the power those turbos produce. which is more hp, but they will add to lag.

Tony Starks wrote:I understand what torque is and I understand how hp is measured.Maybe it's the way that you're wording things or maybe it's just me but what exactly are you saying here?and about the 1st thing you said I have to disagree:torque=accelerationhp=speed

I could be wrong,but I still don't know where you coming from

Lets see if I can make this more clear. I was under time constraints when I posted earlier and I was out of time, so I didn't have links to pages that explain this really well. But take a look at this page. It explains quite well what I meant to say.

http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html

here's my theory. A chevy guy walked into the home of the design person who was about to put a 2L into a rwd car and took his french toast and grits and ***** smacked him (and proceeded to eat the grits and french toast). Then told him he would be back the next morning to ***** smack him and eat his french toast and grits if he hadn't thought of a better idea.

A honda guy walked into Nissan hq and ***** smacked the guy thinking about putting a medium sized engine into a nissan and told him "why do that when you can half *** it and make them wait 4-5k for power?" and the Nissan guy agreed.

Nope, didn't make this up in 2 seconds, not at all, I spent hours, days even, coming up with this complicated theory.

StephNic wrote:A honda guy walked into Nissan hq and ***** smacked the guy thinking about putting a medium sized engine into a nissan and told him "why do that when you can half *** it and make them wait 4-5k for power?" and the Nissan guy agreed.

O.k.

sapix @ RHIT wrote:Take the s2000 for example. 240 hp!! Runs 1/4 miles in what? like 5.9 or something, but then a rolling start in the car is like 9 seconds. To drag a S2000 you have to rev it to like 7 or 8 thousand.

uh... 5.9 seconds 1/4 mile??? Not even in the 1/8th mile... try 14+ seconds stock

did I type 5.9 for 1/4, opps, that was a typo, its 5.9 for 0 - 60 (or around that), Sorry for the miss information, I'm suprised it took so long to be noticed. Oh well, 0 - 60 not quarter mile. sorry.

StephNic wrote:here's my theory. A chevy guy walked into the home of the design person who was about to put a 2L into a rwd car and took his french toast and grits and . . .

A honda guy walked into Nissan hq and ***** smacked the guy thinking about putting a medium . . .

Nope, didn't make this up in 2 seconds, not at all, I spent hours, days even, coming up with this complicated theory.

Um.. you lost me at "chevy"....

And why are we still talking about S2000s? Sure, they make the power on a 4 cylinder, but they have to rev so freakin high! High revs is not the way to make power, what is the life expectency on those things??

if your drag racing it, maybe a day

flip240 wrote:Um.. you lost me at "chevy"....

And why are we still talking about S2000s? Sure, they make the power on a 4 cylinder, but they have to rev so freakin high! High revs is not the way to make power, what is the life expectency on those things??

Uh ever seen Champ or F1 cars before. They're only 2.65L turbo or 3.0L NA respectively and they easily make 1000 rwhp. I'm not saying that this is practical for a street car and granted street cars don't run methanol or alcohol but high revs has it's benefit. You're right about the longevity of the engine. High revs puts a huge strain but the reward is high.

the s2k is actually capable of going to 10k safely, but they put the redline at 9k because the power drops off at 9.2k, and they want the engine to be just as reliable as any other cars engine. I trust that Honda engineeers (they are the best, just my opinioon) know what theyre doing.

S2000 is a great car, it just can't be drag raced easily because you have to drop it from such a high engine speed. Its very rough on the tranny. Hi Revs is great for racing cars, but they also replace the engine after like every race in champ and f1 cars. If you've got the budget to do that thats awesome, but...

isn't this about SR20DET vs KA24DET reliability? wow, we get way off topic. With proper management, either can be just as reliable. It comes down to preferance. I was thinking about a CA18, but after driving the car with the KA24E, I decided I didn't want to give up any displacement. Whatever you pick, good luck and have fun.

sapix @ RHIT wrote:S2000 is a great car, it just can't be drag raced easily because you have to drop it from such a high engine speed. Its very rough on the tranny. Hi Revs is great for racing cars, but they also replace the engine after like every race in champ and f1 cars. If you've got the budget to do that thats awesome

The car was designed to be dropped from high RPMs. It makes no fuss when you drop it from 6-7k, barely chirps. Champ and F1 cars rev like bikes, 9k is nothing to a champ car. I've seen S2ks run over and over again, try not to say a car can't be drag raced if you haven't run one, or watched one run a few times.

I'm sorry for the misinformation, but I had heard S2000s made poor drag cars due to the need of the high RPMs. Guess sometimes you have to think about where you hear the information, and I don't know where I heard that crap about the S2000.

S2000 sucks at dragging....low 15 to high 14 is weak for a 240hp RWD car. My old civic has 160 HP + 75 shot of nitrous ran faster than the S2000. I think the S2000 was meant for drifting, since you don't have to shift much due to the fact that it has a great high RPM. 9K RPM...WOW!!!

Or not for drifting. Until recently when Honda redone the suspension on the new year. The little adjustment done what top tuners couldn't do.

AznRide wrote:S2000 sucks at dragging....low 15 to high 14 is weak for a 240hp RWD car. My old civic has 160 HP + 75 shot of nitrous ran faster than the S2000. I think the S2000 was meant for drifting, since you don't have to shift much due to the fact that it has a great high RPM. 9K RPM...WOW!!!

The problem is that to get 240 HP out of the S2K, you need to get through all the RPM's first. The 240 HP is made at 8300 RPM. The Torque peak is at 7500 RPM. Once it gets going though, it is quite fast. The car was designed around handling. I doubt engineers had drag racing in mind. Abuse it a bit in first and you'll get low 14's.