Someone please back me up, 200+ HP KA....

[dubstyles240]

A friend of mine had a 97 auto for a long while, and he finally finally got rid of it for 5500.

He bought a 98 5 speed with sway bars, strut bars, I/H/E/ JWT cams, JWT cam gears, Z32 VLSD, and hi flow cat. He bought this for 5K!!!!!!! Amazing right? The 97 he sold was all bashed up, and the 98 is black, and in great condition. I cant believe he got such a nice deal....

anyways.. he told me that the guy before him gave him dyno sheets that showed 205 whp, and 210 tq. I didnt say anything there, but I know that this CAN'T be possible can it??? I dont see any possible way that with those minimal mods, hes pushing any more than 150 whp.

Someone please back me up!

[:: orion ::]

It's BS...he may have a KA dyno showing more than 200rwhp, but it's with notrous, or a turbo, or something...no way it's N/A.

A 2.4 liter limited to ~7000rpm cannot do much more than ~180rwhp without a power adder...I've never seen more than 171rwhp.

- Brian

[keepingthe240]

Oh geez.. i know how to get 200 hp @ the rear with no nitrous or turbo. Suprising enough, no one has mentioned it on nico or fresh alloy. But ha, no one listens to me anyway! And don't ask me how 'cause i'm still *** about that guy on my profile.

[180fan]

It's possible but you'd need quite a bit of work on it. Didn't Nissan Motorsports squeeze ~250 out of a KA24E that was NA with ITB's?

[:: orion ::]

... i know how to get 200 hp @ the rear with no nitrous or turbo.

Enlighten us, Bob.

Again, under the parameters of less than 7000rpm and no more than say...2.5 liters (a bored out KA). A fuel injected street motor, not a NASPORT KA-E.

- Brian

[:: orion ::]

Crank Horsepower = (AP * CR * VE * CID * RPM) / 792001.6 Where:

AP = atmospheric pressure in psi CR = compression ratio VE = volumetric efficiency CID = cubic inch displacement RPM = revolutions per minute

- - - - - -

Let's fill in a few things, assume a stock block KA and 100% VE, for ease:

AP = 14.7, CR = 9.5, VE = 100%, CID = 146, RPM = 5000, 7000

HP @ 5000rpm = (14.7*9.5*1*146*5000)/ 792001.6 = ~128

HP @ 7000rpm = 180 HP...that's crank, not RWHP.

- - - - -

Now let's bump the compression and bore it to 2.5:

HP @ 5000rpm = (14.7*11*1*150*5000)/ 792001.6 = ~153

HP @ 7000rpm = 214 crank HP

Assume 15% driveline loss, and you'd be at 186rwhp @ 7000rpm.

Now, we know the KA doesn't breathe well enough top make max HP at 7000rpm, and 100% VE is a high estimate, so this is generous.

And we've been through this before..I know I've posted that formula in the past.

So as I said "dubstyles"...your friend is full of it, or was told bad info...or the sheets were converted to RWHP using the coast down % driveline #s. Some dynos can do this...

- Brian

[keepingthe240]

It's rather easy to explain and you would agree if i said how. It's not really for the do-it-your-selfer though. I'm not saying though!

[TrunkMonkey]

It's rather easy to explain and you would agree if i said how. It's not really for the do-it-your-selfer though. I'm not saying though!

this is kind of childish don't you think? either post what you think you know, or stop posting all together.

-demetrius

[:: orion ::]

Allow me to quote...myself:

Quote »Enlighten us, Bob.[/quote]Put up or shut up, man.

I think you're full of it. Prove me wrong, please.

- Brian

[deviousKA]

To me it seems Orions post was an reply to the credibility of the above mentioned setup with 205whp or whatever. Respectfully it is correct, that does not mean it is his opinion on rule of thumb for these engines because there many ways to change the variables in the formulas. Under 7k those numbers are correct with mediocre modifications (like those listed).

Bob, Replying with nonsense basically as an argument is a waste of time, 200hp isnt exactly a large feat, how about you "finish" this engine of yours and then you might have something new to talk about.

[keepingthe240]

dev ..200whp is no big deal. I never said is was. I have an automatic and i doubt i'll swap it over, but you never know.orion...you wanta cough up some money?? Someone gotta pay russ's bill. I know of another part that can be custom built for the nissan that'll add at least 2-5hp for $8.00(retail) and it's not computer related.If no one has cash...oh well! If i said how (to get to 200), everyone would say.........WELL DA !! but it has a plus side to it (the way i'd do it).......case closed

[dubstyles240]

anyone else a little annoyed with sideshowbob by now? post it!

[InsanityInc]

I'm going to have to call BS on those equations. I've seen stock KA's that put out 130+whp, and there's no way in hell a stock KA is anywhere CLOSE to 100% VE.

[TrunkMonkey]

I'm going to have to call BS on those equations. I've seen stock KA's that put out 130+whp, and there's no way in hell a stock KA is anywhere CLOSE to 100% VE.

wow. maybe you should reread what he said.

Quote »Let's fill in a few things, assume a stock block KA and 100% VE, for ease:[/quote]Quote »Now, we know the KA doesn't breathe well enough top make max HP at 7000rpm, and 100% VE is a high estimate, so this is generous.[/quote]-demetrius

[InsanityInc]

Maybe you should comprehend what I said:

According to your equation, a stock KA24DE with 100%VE will peak at 128RWHP. Therefore, a stock KA24DE with less than 100%VE (we can probably safely assume about 65% at best), would have far less than 128RWHP. However, I've seen a number of newer stock KA's that put down 130+ RWHP, meaning they magically have more than 100% VE in stock form.

That, or your equation is bunk. Guess which is more likely?

[mackdaddy240]

Sorry bobby but Theres no simple way to get over 200NA whp on a ka24de. Even if you did internal work, which is not simple, meaning HC pistons w/ 2.5l over, port and polished head, & cams, plus bolt ons like bigger intake manifold, jwt ecu, exhaust, flywheel, pulleys exc. You'd still be stretching just get get into the 200 whp range, with all of this you might be over 200 but thats not simple and its going to cost you a ****load of money!!And even if you did know a way which you don't because your probably still running a most likely stock automatic ka with a intake and a muffler with a neon in it. You should post any briliant ideas you might have because thats what this sites all about, not just trying to piss everyone off by saying you know something and then not telling so I'd sugest not posting anymore.Thanks.

dev ..200whp is no big deal. I never said is was. I have an automatic and i doubt i'll swap it over, but you never know.orion...you wanta cough up some money?? Someone gotta pay russ's bill. I know of another part that can be custom built for the nissan that'll add at least 2-5hp for $8.00(retail) and it's not computer related.If no one has cash...oh well! If i said how (to get to 200), everyone would say.........WELL DA !! but it has a plus side to it (the way i'd do it).......case closed

[InsanityInc]

actually, 200whp isn't anything that spectacular for an N/A KA. Sure, it'll take some parts, but nothing particularly fancy. About all you'll need is a new intake manifold and I/H/E(3"), and you'll be right around 200whp. The intake manifold really is key in order to bring the breathing capability of the engine more in line with it's camshafts.

There are a few people floating around the forums with ITB/Carbed KA's that are making more than 200. Somebody showed an ITB race KA not too long ago that had 300 whp(and around 300ft/lbs down low, so it was probably in a truck for some kind of offroad racing), so take that for what you will.

[:: orion ::]

Maybe you should comprehend what I said:

According to your equation, a stock KA24DE with 100%VE will peak at 128RWHP. Therefore, a stock KA24DE with less than 100%VE (we can probably safely assume about 65% at best), would have far less than 128RWHP. However, I've seen a number of newer stock KA's that put down 130+ RWHP, meaning they magically have more than 100% VE in stock form.

That, or your equation is bunk. Guess which is more likely?

Hey, not "my" formula...it's the commonly accepted formula used for HP calculators an such, and it's pretty accurate.

And I dunno what math you did...but if you look at a stock KA dyno, it shows about 130rwhp at 5500.

Do the math backwards, figure out the VE: It's about 90% at peak HP...which is typical.

(I'm gonna agree with the math rather than your opinion...)

100% VE at stock HP peak (5500) is 144rwhp...not likely in stock form, but easy to do with I/H/E.

I guess we need an intake manifold to REALLY get the power up...hehe.

- Brian

[InsanityInc]

Heh, you really think a stock engine gets anywhere near 100%, or even 90% VE? You're sorely mistaken. 65% is about the average(and that's at the TORQUE peak, horsepower has little to do with VE directly). Generally lower for larger engines (really, really low for some old, large engines, like 30% or less).

Also, most KA's with decent milage make 160+whp with I/H/E, and they're definitely not over 100%VE. Not to mention that a N/A KA is never going to achieve good VE at a decent RPM with the stock manifold, it's a physical impossibility.

Not to mention that your equation is supposed to be crank HP, which makes it off even further.
Modified by InsanityInc at 2:51 AM 11/2/2004

[bigmook]

all these math equations are great when all the variables are the same. but in life the variables will never be the exact same.. im not contradicting anybody but there are so many variables that no one formula will calculate horsepower. i have a stock '95 240, its auto, just the base line. im attending school in houston and we have two dynos at our disposal. i dynoed my 240 last may, and with a dyno room temp of about 110 degrees, i put down consistant numbers of 138 rwhp at about 5600-5800rpm, and tourque numbers of 147ft.lb. at 3900-4100rpm. it is easy to see that with small mods 200 rwhp would be easaly reached. there are tons of equations to find out rwhp but with so many variables these equations are just not trust worthy.

[:: orion ::]

Not to mention that your equation is supposed to be crank HP, which makes it off even further...

Correct...I got caught up trying to make a point and "slipped"...my bad.

Score:

Insanity: 1Orion: 0

Heh, you really think a stock engine gets anywhere near 100%, or even 90% VE? You're sorely mistaken. 65% is about the average(and that's at the TORQUE peak, horsepower has little to do with VE directly). Generally lower for larger engines (really, really low for some old, large engines, like 30% or less).

Now here's where you are sorely mistaken...

Modern 4-valve engines have very good VE compared to the days of old...

From here...

Quote »Normally aspirated engines typically run anywhere between 80% and 100% VE[/quote]There are tons of other site claiming similar #s...most agree that peak TQ for a stock street motor occurs at roughly 90% VE.

Also, most KA's with decent milage make 160+whp with I/H/E, and they're definitely not over 100%VE. Not to mention that a N/A KA is never going to achieve good VE at a decent RPM with the stock manifold, it's a physical impossibility.

+100% VE is not uncommon for a mildly modded motor.

Provide me with some links or credible info that back up your statements...

Otherwise, opinions are like a$$holes...everyone has one.

- Brian

[InsanityInc]

100+% VE is only attained in naturally aspirated form in race engines that have specifically tuned exhaust and intake systems so that the intake air rebounds and creates a slight forced induction (across certain RPMs), and lowered backpressure produces a heightened scavenging effect, which creates a low-pressure zone in the cylinder for air to come in more effectively. However, reaching 100% VE is no small feat, and generally requires changing just about everything on the engine (intake manifold, air filter, exhaust manifold, exhaust tubing, camshafts, ports, etc). Very few engines are going to come from the factory with anywhere even close to 100% VE. Supercars probably come very close, high-end VVT engines (like a Type-R) are also close to 100%. However, something like a KA which is designed with a low-end manifold resonance probably has about 70% right at the peak, and maybe 60-65% around the exact peak.

Take a Mustang GT(pre-05) and a 350Z for example. Mustang GT has a DOHC 4.6L engine, 350Z has a 3.5L, yet they make almost the exact same torque. The 350Z also still has room to make gains in volumetric efficiency (people have gained power from modifying them). The 350 probably has around 90% from the factory, assuming this, the mustang only has roughly 68% VE. Differences in the reciprocating masses of the engines and things like that would cause a slightly higher real VE than calculated, but as you can see by comparing these kinds of engines (you have to compare the torque, since it has a direct relationship to the amount of fuel you're burning), many engines do not operate at a good VE, and thus have more power to be had from modding them.

[dubstyles240]

i find it best not to argue with Orion, he usually has an answer to everything KA.... and he always has credible links to back himself up.

[InsanityInc]

plus, it's not even a new engine that we're talking about, it's over 10 years old.

[:: orion ::]

Hey, no arguing here...we're just debating the finer points of (the nerdy part) of engine tuning.

And I don't have all the answers...I appreciate the vote of confidence "dubstyles", but I'm not always right.

That being said..."InsanityInc" has some good points, but until I see a formula that can allow us to derive VE from dyno charts, this is all speculation anyway.

Until we can get some real world, actual data...it's just a bunch of opinion.

- Brian

[InsanityInc]

you can't derive VE from torque, or vise versa in any accurate way (and especially not horsepower, as far more factors come into play for it), which is the problem. The only real way to test VE is to measure emissions, because that tells you how much fuel/air is being drawn in.

[keepingthe240]

Your v/e figures are all wrong in this post. Check out http://www.streetandstripmotor...d.asp to get the right figures.

Heh, you really think a stock engine gets anywhere near 100%, or even 90% VE? You're sorely mistaken. 65% is about the average(and that's at the TORQUE peak, horsepower has little to do with VE directly). Generally lower for larger engines (really, really low for some old, large engines, like 30% or less)..

Modified by InsanityInc at 2:51 AM 11/2/2004

[keepingthe240]

Mackdaddy..... lol, i'm in my mid 30's. You can ask( 240sx2nr95) he's met me a few times at our local meets. I'm the one with the red dented fender (well duh). I've built several 500+hp(streetable) small block chevys from '86-'97. To everyone else........ THe 200hp is with the stock intake(with machine work) A custom intake manifold would hurt your low end tq. I don't think any of you have built up an "all motor". There are ways to get around using hi compression on the street w/o using race fuel. I can think of 2 and neither would work with multi carbs.

[InsanityInc]

er... that link doesn't go anywhere that says anything about VE...

Also, bob, I tend to get the impression that very, very few people have tried an N/A build with a KA. Turbos are far more JDM TYTE !!1!11eleven

But, the stock intake manifold is pretty much utter ****. The runners are far too long to do anything useful at high RPMs, and it has the butterfly valves, and the way it is you'll have to make 200+ torque in order to make 200 horsepower, which is doable, no doubt, but you'd be far better off taking a hit of 8-10 ft lbs of peak torque to gain it just about everywhere else.

[corn322]

Insanity, when is your friend going to start making these intake manifolds.