Vid of my Launch Control Setup (title corrected)

[Dattebayo]

All of you CA18 haters have never driven or tinkered with a CA powered car, so STFU. You know nothing.

You friken as$holes think you you know all because of reading the displacement number. You need to sit own and read up on some built CA18 track numbers rather than spout your ignorant bullsh*t on the formus.

Also, the S14 is not heavier than an S13. They are the same within 50 lbs or so, the no-options model S14 actually being LIGHTER than the no-options S13 equivalent.

[float_6969]

I can see this turning into an SR vs. CA thread pretty quickly. Let's not go down that road...

[PoorManQ45]

Why won't it be making power? The whole point of this system is to increase the power when you launch the car so that it doesn't bog off the line.

So what you're saying is that your engine doesn't have enough displacement to spool the tiny turbo that you have?

Why do you need this setup? I am not understanding your reference saying "at idle with no load". An engine's exhaust flow is not relative to load. It is relative to RPM x CC. So please explain that a little better.

Oh, and it's childish to change posts because they question you.

[float_6969]

So what you're saying is that your engine doesn't have enough displacement to spool the tiny turbo that you have?

No. Never said that. It spools this turbo way too fast. This turbo isn't staying on the car. I'm just using it for a turbo comparison, CA T25 vs. SR T25 vs. S15 SR T28. Once that comparison is done, the motor will have an HKS turbo kit that uses a T04E-50 Compressor in a .50 housing with an O-trim wheel in a .48 housing. Although that turbo should spool decently well, it won't have a whole lot of grunt off the line. So the launch control will allow me to easily make enough power to launch quickly and consistently with much less effort.

Why do you need this setup?

I don't need it. I don't need a car either. I could walk everywhere. I have it because it's a built in function of my standalone, it's easy to hook up, and will help me launch more consistently at the drag strip and autoX's.

I am not understanding your reference saying "at idle with no load". An engine's exhaust flow is not relative to load. It is relative to RPM x CC. So please explain that a little better.

An engine's exhaust flow IS relative to load. What you're saying is that at 3K rpm I'm moving the same volume of gas at 10% throttle and 100% throttle. If you think that's true, you need to do some research on how a traditional throttle plate, spark ignition, internal combustion engine works.

If this was a diesel, then it WOULD move the same volume of air at 3K rpms @ 10% throttle and 100% throttle.

This concept is the whole purpose of a launch control system. Unless you're using a pretty small turbo, it's hard to get enough gas volume moving through the turbo sitting at the line to get it to build any boost. This system limits the revs so that you can put the throttle all the way down, but the motor only revs to where you've programed it to. With the throttle all the way down, you can now have boost sitting at the line, waiting for the light to change on the tree. This allows for much harder launches and more consistent reaction times.

Oh, and it's childish to change posts because they question you.

They didn't question me. They were right. It's not an anti-lag, it's a launch control. I repeatedly agreed and admitted that I was wrong for posting it with that title. If I was being childish, I wouldn't have put (title corrected) in the corrected title.

I changed the title because I was wrong, and I didn't want to confuse ppl.

And are you really in a position to come in here and accuse me of being childish? You're PMQ.

[PoorManQ45]

An engine's exhaust flow IS relative to load. What you're saying is that at 3K rpm I'm moving the same volume of gas at 10% throttle and 100% throttle. If you think that's true, you need to do some research on how a traditional throttle plate, spark ignition, internal combustion engine works.

If this was a diesel, then it WOULD move the same volume of air at 3K rpms @ 10% throttle and 100% throttle.

Huh? On a typical system the TB is connected via a linkage to the accelerator pedal. The TB should be open 100% when the pedal is on the floor. Under load the timing can be advanced or retarded, depending on engine design. The amount of fuel is relative to the spark advance vs rpm.

What you are doing is basically making each cylinder run so poorly that the engine can't physically spin any faster.

I did that with my motorcycle too, on accident. One cylinder was too rich at higher rpms and would start missing so badly that the over cylinder(two cylinder, other carb tuned properly) couldn't overcome this force and the engine was limited to a certain RPM.

Again, I will ask, what is the advantage of this system over a properly sized turbo with a proper RPM limiting circuit? By proper, I mean limit the opening of TB prior to 1st gear engagement. You can program both spark advance and fuel increase/decrease.

And are you really in a position to come in here and accuse me of being childish? You're PMQ.

If you're the one that edited my post, then yes.

[float_6969]

Huh? On a typical system the TB is connected via a linkage to the accelerator pedal. The TB should be open 100% when the pedal is on the floor. Under load the timing can be advanced or retarded, depending on engine design. The amount of fuel is relative to the spark advance vs rpm.

Yes the TB is connected via linkage and I have 100% throttle when the pedal is on the floor. Yes, I program what the timing is based on RPM and engine load (MAP sensor). Yes, the spark advance has an effect on the AFR and so the amount of fuel injected is dependent on that.

What you are doing is basically making each cylinder run so poorly that the engine can't physically spin any faster.

No. Maybe if I describe the process in detail you'll understand what's going on. I'll give you 2 examples. 1st example: I'm pulling up to the tree at Heartland Park Raceway in Topeka KS (my local drag strip and road course). I stage up and depress the accelerator pedal. From experience, there is a very small window of RPMs that I have to maintain to launch properly. When that motor was in my old S13, it was about 3400-3450 RPM's. Maybe I just suck, but trying to maintain RPM's in a 50RPM window is hard to do. Not impossible, but hard to do. As the lights drap, if I don't have the RPM's in that range, the motor will bog if I'm below that range, and if I go over that range, I have to slip the clutch a lot to keep the wheels from spinning when I launch.2nd example:I'm pulling up to the tree again and stage. This time I have the launch control activated. I depress the clutch and put the accellerator pedal to the floor. (The following numbers are made up because it's winter here so I can't program it yet) I've programmed the system to limit RPM's to 3K RPM's and the timing is retarded 10° from standard, giving me a total timing of 18°BTDC. This amount of timing retard causes the combustion process to start late enough that the exhaust valves open just before the combustion process is finished. This small amount of extra energy is passed out of the combustion chamber, past the exhaust valves, through the exhaust mnifold, into the turbine housing, and past the turbine blades, causing them to spin faster than they would if the engine wasn't running any timing retard and was just limited to 2K RPMs. This allows the compressor to spin fast enough to create 10psi of manifold pressure. Without the timing retard the compressor will only create 2psi of manifold pressure. With this process started I can simply dump the clutch and have a perfect launch every time the lights drop.

In the video I purposely programmed the unit to run at about 3K RPM's and 35° of timing retard, giving me a total timing of 7°ATDC. This causes the combustion process to start SO late that the exhaust valves open a few moments after the spark has fired. This obviously causes A LOT of exhaust energy to be wasted out of the exhaust. This allows for A LOT of boost pressure to be created at a very low RPM. (Show me a turbo setup that creates 18psi @ 3K RPM on a CA18DET without this system and I'll show you a turbo setup that runs out of air way before the 7500RPM redline) I would never run the system setup like that on a normal basis. It was purely for entertainment purposes, but the system will still do that to some extent even when it's properly setup.

Again, I will ask, what is the advantage of this system over a properly sized turbo with a proper RPM limiting circuit? By proper, I mean limit the opening of TB prior to 1st gear engagement. You can program both spark advance and fuel increase/decrease.

I can limit the TB opening in 1st gear via my right foot. It's not a very accurate or consistent system. The launch control system makes this whole process accurate and consistent. This makes launching the car much more predictable and repeatable.

If you're the one that edited my post, then yes.

I didn't know your post had been edited. IDK why anybody did that, it certainly wasn't me. I know I don't post in Gen-Chat much, but I'm not the type of Moderator that would edit someones post in my own thread.

[Dattebayo]

It could be a case of the mysterious disappearing post...

[PoorManQ45]

In the video I purposely programmed the unit to run at about 3K RPM's and 35° of timing retard, giving me a total timing of 7°ATDC. This causes the combustion process to start SO late that the exhaust valves open a few moments after the spark has fired. This obviously causes A LOT of exhaust energy to be wasted out of the exhaust. This allows for A LOT of boost pressure to be created at a very low RPM. (Show me a turbo setup that creates 18psi @ 3K RPM on a CA18DET without this system and I'll show you a turbo setup that runs out of air way before the 7500RPM redline) I would never run the system setup like that on a normal basis. It was purely for entertainment purposes, but the system will still do that to some extent even when it's properly setup.

Now that makes sense. I thought you were going to run it like that on the strip.

Now another question: The amount of gas that escapes the combustion chamber is going to cause a much higher pressure in the exhaust. How will this affect the reliability of the turbo?

[raremotive]

Now that makes sense. I thought you were going to run it like that on the strip.

Now another question: The amount of gas that escapes the combustion chamber is going to cause a much higher pressure in the exhaust. How will this affect the reliability of the turbo?

Short answer. Yes it does.

[PoorManQ45]

How much are we talking here?

Basically you have an explosion in the exhaust. I figured that would blow something up pretty quickly

[RCA]

Why won't it be making power? The whole point of this system is to increase the power when you launch the car so that it doesn't bog off the line.

Man, what's with all the CA hate?

Well this thread is turning pretty technical but what I am trying to say is this...

You line up, and your two step goes off and makes all that noise (sounds and looks bad a*s)...Alot of people will be thinking, "Whoa, this thing is going to move" and then they get a 14sec qrt mile. They will be disappointed. That is what I meant when I said:

Wait, that is a 1.8L...

You are going to let allot of people down...

As for the two step making power...

I wouldn't think it does. But I will agree that it helps your launch and that will make your times faster and more consistent, but more power... Na.

[float_6969]

How much are we talking here?

Basically you have an explosion in the exhaust. I figured that would blow something up pretty quickly

The explosion occurs in the combustion chamber, it's just that the exhaust valve is opening while the expansion of that explosion is still occurring. An anti-lag system used on rally cars is more like an explosion in the exhaust, and those turbo's will last at least one rally race.

IMO a launch control setup is less detrimental to the turbo and should last quite a while. When we talk about effecting the reliability, I think it's more along the lines of instead of the turbo lasting the life of the motor, it lasts a few years.

[float_6969]

Well this thread is turning pretty technical but what I am trying to say is this...

You line up, and your two step goes off and makes all that noise (sounds and looks bad a*s)...Alot of people will be thinking, "Whoa, this thing is going to move" and then they get a 14sec qrt mile. They will be disappointed.

Where are you getting a 14 second 1/4 mile from? I'm not keeping that CA T25 on there. Did you see this post?

...This turbo isn't staying on the car. I'm just using it for a turbo comparison, CA T25 vs. SR T25 vs. S15 SR T28. Once that comparison is done, the motor will have an HKS turbo kit that uses a T04E-50 Compressor in a .50 housing with an O-trim wheel in a .48 housing. Although that turbo should spool decently well, it won't have a whole lot of grunt off the line. So the launch control will allow me to easily make enough power to launch quickly and consistently with much less effort...

If I can't run any better than a 14sec 1/4 mile with that HKS turbo, I'm in need of some driving lessons.

[RCA]

Where are you getting a 14 second 1/4 mile from? I'm not keeping that CA T25 on there. Did you see this post?

Because it is a CA and it won't be making enough power to make all that noise justifiable.

[PoorManQ45]

Ut oh, now the flaming occurs.

Flame on!

Hey float, how does it feel to have motorcycles with bigger engines then you

[Space Monkey]

Hey float, how does it feel to have motorcycles with bigger engines then you

For how funny that sounds, it is more often than one thinks...

[Chaotic_Warlord]

Just out of curiosity... Why did you opt for CA18 instead of the RB20? Both engines are old, both engines run roughly the same price for the parts for the swap, neither engine are considered mainstream enou for the kid down the street to have one in h is car. however the RB is an RB and as such is an inline 6 w/ a turbo and is capable of making more power than the CA with less work. Not to mention an RB20 sounds way sexier than the CA does on the other end of the exhaust. Just my .02 cents and just askiing out of curiosity. Now I do understand that the CA is available in our junkyards as it was an option in the Z31 and the S12 making it easier to pass at your local DMV, while the RB never came here and as such is not in our DMV's databases, is this why you went with the CA or was there a deeper reason.

[Dattebayo]

Because it is a CA and it won't be making enough power to make all that noise justifiable.

Dude, please shut up when you don't know what are you talking about... You don't know a damn thing about CA18DETs. That HKS turbo could put that thing near 300HP, dingus.

however the RB is an RB and as such is an inline 6 w/ a turbo and is capable of making more power than the CA with less work.

It requires just about as much work to make either very powerful. The CA actually has more support than the RB20. You do understand they make about the same power with the same boost, right?

I do understand that the CA is available in our junkyards as it was an option in the Z31 and the S12 making it easier to pass at your local DMV

OK, 4 things:The CA18DET was never available here in the states. I don't know where you are getting this "easier to make pass emissions" thing.

The CA was never available in the Z31.

The SOHC CA was available in the S12 here in North America, but it's not the same animal as the DOHC. Don't compare them.

Please check your facts before posting them up like you know what you are saying.

[float_6969]

Because it is a CA and it won't be making enough power to make all that noise justifiable.

LMAO. There isn't any response to that. It's just pure stupidity. Do some research on the CA. Check out forums based in the UK and Australia. The CA is a VERY popular motor in those countries and it's for a good reason. It's a well proven motor. It makes good power, is small, lightweight, and reliable. Anyone who says a CA can't make power is someone who knows nothing about the CA, it's as simple as that.

Ut oh, now the flaming occurs.

Flame on!

Hey float, how does it feel to have motorcycles with bigger engines then you

LOL, not the first time I've heard that, and one of my co-workers motorcycle DOES have a bigger motor than me, but the little CA still gets the job done.

Just out of curiosity... Why did you opt for CA18 instead of the RB20? Both engines are old, both engines run roughly the same price for the parts for the swap, neither engine are considered mainstream enou for the kid down the street to have one in h is car. however the RB is an RB and as such is an inline 6 w/ a turbo and is capable of making more power than the CA with less work. Not to mention an RB20 sounds way sexier than the CA does on the other end of the exhaust. Just my .02 cents and just askiing out of curiosity. Now I do understand that the CA is available in our junkyards as it was an option in the Z31 and the S12 making it easier to pass at your local DMV, while the RB never came here and as such is not in our DMV's databases, is this why you went with the CA or was there a deeper reason.

I chose the CA for weight and reliability. You can argue that it's not that much lighter than an SR, but I've seen an SR swapped S13 and CA swapped S13 side-by-side, and the CA OBVIOUSLY has WAY less weight on the front of the car than the SR does. I think the weight differences being spread around the net are inaccurate.

As for making more power, that's not neccissarily true. If you're going to argue displacement or cylinders, we should all be swapping 10L V12's into our cars. As I said before, I chose the CA for weight and reliability. It also happens to be just as capable as an SR and a KA. As for aftermarket support, once again, check out the UK and Australia. There is a TON of aftermarket support for this motor in those countries.

[flohtingPoint]

I chose the CA for weight and reliability. You can argue that it's not that much lighter than an SR, but I've seen an SR swapped S13 and CA swapped S13 side-by-side, and the CA OBVIOUSLY has WAY less weight on the front of the car than the SR does. I think the weight differences being spread around the net are inaccurate.

As far as weight, are you sure? Were talking iron block over alum. Dont get me wrong, between the two I'd choose a CA anyday, being a former owner of several myself. You cant beat an iron block with cam over bucket actuation aside from a cheaply made alum with rocker arms.

Nobody with a working knowledge of both motors can blame you for your choice of a CA. I've done things with my CA's that would severely dismember a SR, there is no question that they're a much better designed and constructed motor. In fact, behind the 4AG, I'd put the CA as the best motor put out by Japan in terms of abuse it can take. Things that needed just a clean up pass in my CA would comprise the tin-can that is a SR block.

I really dont want to make this a CA vs SR debate, and anyway, anyone as stated, that has a working knowledge of both motors cant argue the fact that a CA is much better built.

[RCA]

LMAO. There isn't any response to that. It's just pure stupidity. Do some research on the CA. Check out forums based in the UK and Australia. The CA is a VERY popular motor in those countries and it's for a good reason. It's a well proven motor. It makes good power, is small, lightweight, and reliable. Anyone who says a CA can't make power is someone who knows nothing about the CA, it's as simple as that....

we should all be swapping 10L V12's into our cars.

Yea sure unless your taking this thing to 450+ hp, the noise will let people down. Also the amount of money involved to get this thing to 300+ is laughable.

And yes tons of people swap LSs, JZs and other motors that have more then 1.8L. Also people would be willing to stuff a 10L V12 if it fit...

Dude, please shut up when you don't know what are you talking about... You don't know a damn thing about CA18DETs. That HKS turbo could put that thing near 300HP, dingus.

[Dattebayo]

With supporting fuel, sure it could; only about 500cc injectors. Hell, it could be done with an S14 turbo.

I don't see what's so funny. You really don't know what you are talking about!Here's a link, doofus: zer...eeded

[kouki munster]

The ca is a kick a** little motor, I would love to get my hands on one to throw in a s13, then slap on a s14 sr turbo and call it a day.

I chose the CA for weight and reliability. You can argue that it's not that much lighter than an SR, but I've seen an SR swapped S13 and CA swapped S13 side-by-side, and the CA OBVIOUSLY has WAY less weight on the front of the car than the SR does. I think the weight differences being spread around the net are inaccurate.

As far as the weight difference between the ca and sr, I wouldn't think that it is more than 50 pounds. Also, isn't the ca shorter than the sr? If it is that would explain the difference in ride height between a ca and sr swapped s13 with the stock suspension. (or one car just had blown shocks and sagging springs)

As far as weight, are you sure? Were talking iron block over alum. Dont get me wrong, between the two I'd choose a CA anyday, being a former owner of several myself. You cant beat an iron block with cam over bucket actuation aside from a cheaply made alum with rocker arms.

Everyone knows the de and det sr's have inferior valve trains, when compared to almost every other Nissan power plant, thats why I want to ditch my det head in favor of a sr20ve and/or vet head.(I'll take which ever I can get my grubby little hands on)

I've put a serious hurting on a sr (melted a few pistons and the aluminum at the top of the cylinders with a 15:1 lean spike at wot) and the only thing it did to give any indication that something was hurting was smoke when it got some load on it and wouldn't hold a steady idle until it warmed up. That thing live another 500-1000 miles of me beating the piss out of it before I swapped it out for another motor.
Modified by kouki munster at 6:46 PM 2/6/2010

[float_6969]

As far as weight, are you sure? Were talking iron block over alum....

No. I'm not sure. I won't be until I see them both on a scale side-by-side. But what I do know is this. I picked up my CA block with the main caps, girdle, and main bolts in it with one arm, and the crank with another, and carried it into the machine shop. I tried to do that with my friends SR, right after I picked up the CA block, and there was a NOTICEABLE weight difference. I could pick up the SR block and carry it, but it hurt like hell. The CA block was heavy, but picking it up certainly was not strenuous. The same goes for the head. I thought for the sure CA head would weigh more than the SR head due to all of the extra weight from the bucket lifters, but to me, the SR head was heavier, and my friend who owned the SR motor thought the same thing about the block and head that I did.

Once again, I have no quantifiable proof, but that was enough for me to be happy to have chosen the CA.

. Also the amount of money involved to get this thing to 300+ is laughable.

LMAO, YOU'RE laughable. You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about the CA. 300+ HP on a CA18DET is as simple as this;Fuel pump444cc injectorsZ32 MAFSFMICT28IntakeBoost controllerChip tuneI'm pretty sure, that's the EXACT same mods you need for 300+HP on an SR as well.

Once again, check out some other forums. 300+HP out of a CA is really not a big deal at all. Stock bottom end has been run to 500HP and still not failed.

And yes tons of people swap LSs, JZs and other motors that have more then 1.8L. Also people would be willing to stuff a 10L V12 if it fit...

Agreed.

[RCA]

LMAO, YOU'RE laughable. You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about the CA. 300+ HP on a CA18DET is as simple as this;Fuel pump444cc injectorsZ32 MAFSFMICT28IntakeBoost controllerChip tuneI'm pretty sure, that's the EXACT same mods you need for 300+HP on an SR as well.

And you don't think there is anything wrong with that?

With supporting fuel, sure it could; only about 500cc injectors. Hell, it could be done with an S14 turbo.

I don't see what's so funny. You really don't know what you are talking about!Here's a link, doofus: zer...eeded

I am sure it can but I was laughing because you made 300hp sound like it should impress some one. It isn't much and so I laughed.

[MellowZ32]

[Japanese accent]OOOooooh Misfiring system[/Japanese accent]

FTMFW.

[float_6969]

And you don't think there is anything wrong with that?

No. Why should I?

I am sure it can but I was laughing because you made 300hp sound like it should impress some one. It isn't much and so I laughed.

300HP would impress A LOT of ppl in an S-Chassis car. Is it a crazy amount of HP? No, of course not. Would it impress me? No, I've owned, driven, and built multiple, 300HP S-Chassis cars. Has way more HP been done with the SR, KA, and CA on multiple occasions? Yes. "It isn't much" is a relative phrase. We could argue about whether 300HP is a lot of HP till we're blue in the face and still get no where.

The post that you're referencing was directed at a new member that had little experience with these cars and where 300HP would get him. Had I been talking to a member who had experience with high HP vehicles, it would have been a different conversation.

[Dattebayo]

you made 300hp sound like it should impress some one. It isn't much and so I laughed.

Big talk for a guy sportin' a stock KA.

[93coupe]

Has anyone talking smack about 300whp in an s chassis actually ridden in one with those kinds of numbers?

300 with THROW that car around!