I figured you meant you were already running on that and were going to bump it specifically for the cams.Vkoslak wrote:even with 11.1:1 compression ratio?
I just went and looked at the cams. There is a difference in the back end of them. The 98 has a groove ring around it and where the journal is its slightly bigger around. The 92 last journal looks the same as the rest of the journals.DjPantsSpecR wrote:really, youre getting that 98 cam to work? i thought i heard of it being okay, but there was something stupid like the number on journals on it was wrong or you need to screw in the oil plug a little more, but maybe im thinking of altima cams....
watchout when intstalling that 98 exhaust cam, because they clock those differently since in 98 they switched over to the single row chain. this is just me typing and trying to remember at the same time, but in those years they switched the cams so they are installed with the pins and the dots on the gears at the same angle, as opposed to 12 oclock and 3 oclock like on all previous KADEs. i think its actually 12 oclock adn 12 oclock, but i dont entirely remember, its jsut something to look out for, id hate to see someone with bent valves becasue i know ive bent 12 at once.
so you probably already figured out what you need to do, but i want you to look into that if you havent. ands its good to ehar to got the sohc pistons in, thats something i still couldnt afford to do yet, hence the 30 dollar intake manifold....
It's that opinion why when people bump up compression without using proper injector size to more advanced timing than stock don't make phenomenal numbers with the KA. Advancing the timing on the KA with bumped compression will actually effect scavaging more than likely dropping A/F ratio below 15.1:1 @ 5800RPM, using the stock 270cc injectors with an 10.5:1 or higher compression, timing will more than likely need to be retarded to prevent detonation from such a lean mix. Second problem is the knock sensor. Unless you can shut off the knock flags or run closed loop disabled I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMEND THE SLIGHTLY LARGER INJECTION. I believe to obtain optimum VE A/F should be around 12.3:1?, which is a close to slightly rich, but it would make optimim power and scavaging at the higher RPM that would be needed, without effecting too much knock.At 10.0:1 270cc injectors are maxed out, and don't show very much peek power than stock. With higher CR's cylinder temprature rise actually lowering the HP output. If you plan to keep the KA a low rev engine 270cc's are fine. But if the objective is to make peek power passed(or up to) 6500RPM, a larger injector would be needed IMO.I spoke with a rep at RC and a few builders at other performance shops, if the effect is to make more peek HP it was recomended to do away with the 270cc injectors, especially if you want to make more power with rev and advanced timing.InsanityInc wrote:I have little doubt that you'll need bigger injectors once you do this.
Well, you might want to look into ECU retunes, because chances are you're going to severely outperform the fuel that 270cc injectors can do. They'll only be good to about 180 crank horsepower or so.DjPantsSpecR wrote:tuning out some top end fuel should be a cakewalk with an SAFC though..... while expensive, the SAFC neo does look to be a more decent tuning tool with 16 adjustment points. however, a wideband, injectors, and this unit would easily cost a grand....
Depends on the FPR. They make ones that let you adjust all kinds of stuff. Though, burning software will probably be easier and get better results anyhow.DjPantsSpecR wrote:im aware of this, i was refering to getting injectors rebuilt by either RC (ideal) or doing some SAFC tuning with 370s as these are much easier to get a hold of....
i really should start burning my own chips. devious is giving this to us for free, and not enough people are taking advantage.
i dont know about an adjustable FPR. i always consider this option, but what if i dont wanan run so lean in the low rpms? my narrowband reads nothing until about 4-5k, so i dont wanna go too much leaner. i dont know my **** about fprs really, but is it possible to adjust them for no vac (wot) and vac?
Class? I'm at work. I tend to screw around on the internet a lot while thinking.DjPantsSpecR wrote:shouldnt you be in class or something?
lets go to page three.
I'm not sure you should use that as a basis for doing it, since the proof of power production is what will attract people to go NA instead of turbo. If you can put down 5-20 less WHP with a very cheap NA setup as opposed to a fairly complex and expensive turbo setup, then you will create a whole lot more business.DjPantsSpecR wrote:i would only offer this on the grounds that i get it dyno'd head to head with the xcessive manifold and i show all-motor gains. for this fact alone this project is a long ways off, but i wanna know if its even something i should waste my time with if i might only sell 10 or so. i can think of like 6 people who love N/A KAs
You are right. I fubared on the ratio. No need for me to correct, you corrected it for me.....In reading further on the effects of scavaging and timing I believe that 12.3:1 is the required ratio to make more power in top end passed 40ATDC ignition timing. With stock injectors and raised compression that would be very hard to accomplish. When I did the calculator formula for cc injection on NA engines it stated that for 270cc injection 200 HP at the crank would be maxed for engine VE. If the injectors were increased to 282cc injectors which would be required for the higher compression that injection would be good for upto 230 HP at the crank.I believe that Top End performance set the example of maxed out 270cc injected 210 Crank HP KA24de that they sell, With minor internal work and every bolt on the engine. Looking at A/F ratio charts on some KA's with just bolt ons A/F ratio's were around 13.3:1 ~14.3:1, this was on stock compression. So using the stock injection on a higher compression would change the ratio to a much larger air content being much higher than stoich. Possibly assuming anywhere between 15:1~16:1 which would mean an extremely high octane would need to be used and timing would need to be retarded as if it were a turbo charged engine at something like 9~12ATDC at idle. There is a formula that can be used but I don't remember it off the top of my head.InsanityInc wrote:er... vinnie, I think you added numbers to the wrong side or something.
14.7:1 is stoich, 10:1 is very rich.
Though, I definitely agree with the larger injector sentiment. I do agree that it's probably the cause of people not being able to see gains from the KA on the top end.
It would be great if you included a complete package deal with this manifold such as a biki rom, and injectors. You could technically sell manifold,injectors, and biki for a little under $1500. If you could show that it makes a 30+WHP gain over stock I believe that you could have the perfect setup to sell to us KA guys still using stock compression. The majority of the problem with most KA guys is that they don't think outside the box (they always think the problem is the KA engine, it's not since it used all the same engineering as the old L series engines). The majority of the problem isn't the KA engine itself or the bolt on's, it's the lack of power that is produced from a smog emission tuned ecu (horrible timing and fuel maps, the damn thing floods fuel at WOT). Stock cam placement and cams are fine since the CA engines used the same duration and overlaps and were extremely rev happy with power for little 1.6, and 1.8litre engine.DjPantsSpecR wrote:thats exactly it though. when have you ever heard of a cheap N/A set up having anything on an expensive turbo set up. i know thats not what you meant to say, or at least how im taking it, but unfortunately this is the truth thus far:
A cheap turbo set up rarely makes less power than an expensive N/A set up.
200 wheel horse.... for under 2k? it sure beats buying an SR, and no one will argue about autoX in an N/A KA.
I never said beat, I said came close to. Even if you're 10-20whp down from a KA turbo (in other words, around 200whp), then it looks very attractive in comparison to the much more expensive, time-consuming and problem-prone turbo setup.DjPantsSpecR wrote:thats exactly it though. when have you ever heard of a cheap N/A set up having anything on an expensive turbo set up. i know thats not what you meant to say, or at least how im taking it, but unfortunately this is the truth thus far:
A cheap turbo set up rarely makes less power than an expensive N/A set up.
200 wheel horse.... for under 2k? it sure beats buying an SR, and no one will argue about autoX in an N/A KA.