the legend of the NA KA....

[nissantuner22]

Originally Posted by Sean1978

I'm not trying to build an engine like that myself, I have a turbo SR in one of my cars and a stock KA in my other, I'm just curious to actually see one of these engines..

BigVinnie, its like I can't enter a thread about N/A motors without you spitting out information about yours over and over again. You ridiculed me in my SR20DE thread, saying how swapping in a motor with less displacement was a waste of money. This thread rox sox, in the fact you spent a HUGE amount of money on your N/A KA.

Originally Posted by BigVinnie

Well I'm not. I've owned my 240sx for under a year now, spent only $750 in performance parts, not including the $1200 to get the car running right on OEM parts. In under a year the engine will be stripped and put together with internal goodie's under $1000.

This thread is about 300 hp cars. Not yours.

No offense, just stay on topic.


Sean, there is some good information in this post. Not to many pictures like you asked for though. Have you tried searching the datsun forums? those guys run crazy KA motors sometimes, someone there might have a pic or 2.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by nissantuner22

BigVinnie, its like I can't enter a thread about N/A motors without you spitting out information about yours over and over again. You ridiculed me in my SR20DE thread, saying how swapping in a motor with less displacement was a waste of money. This thread rox sox, in the fact you spent a HUGE amount of money on your N/A KA.

That was my point in your thread, it will cost you more money with your sr20 NA to achieve the power I will already make with the KA. NA building as most say is an uphill battle, you might as well make it easier on yourself using larger displacement to benefit some power. Fact is if you are going to make this by any means a (competition) you would lose, I will still overall spend less money than you building up my KA as you would to your SR and I would benefit from using the power earlier in the power band.

Originally Posted by nissantuner22

This thread is about 300 hp cars. Not yours..

True but the point is I answered some questions to the best of my ability which is all the thread starter wanted.....

Originally Posted by nissantuner22

No offense, just stay on topic..

I'm not offended, I'm not taking any of this personal. You could of P.M'd me if you have beef with something I said in your thread.... You went off topic....

Also to Jeff, how do you explain the loss in fuel that needs to be used as PSI increases as well as cylinder temprature? In order to prevent detonation to highly volitile O2 that is being compressed additional fuel is used in the process to actually drop cylinder temp (but I guess you coming from Florida doesn't care to understand how NOX and smog emissions works). Fuel actually being heavier and denser than O2 will make it harder to compress. You can use a lower injection bandwidth at lower RPM, but as you boost higher PSI to make more power the bandwidth will have to increase as the RPM/to power level gets larger, as well as engine temprature. It isn't the fuel saver you say it is when you push your engine into higher RPM's or WOT. If FI engines conserved fuel through out the entire power band then there would defenitely be alot more FI engines on the road (especially with our fuel crisis we have today). Do you ever ask your self why the fuck are there crappy Hybrids?

Jeff my thoughts aren't convoluted, I actually read what took people years of research to accomplish.....

[Jeff240sx]

I'm not going point by point to be a jerk - just don't want to miss something.

Originally Posted by BigVinnie

Also to Jeff, how do you explain the loss in fuel that needs to be used as PSI increases as well as cylinder temprature? In order to prevent detonation to highly volitile O2 that is being compressed additional fuel is used in the process to actually drop cylinder temp (but I guess you coming from Florida doesn't care to understand how NOX and smog emissions works).

Loss in fuel? If fuel goes into the combustion chamber, it's combusted. Not lost. So.. due to this glaring mis-wording, I really dont' know what you're talking about.
Cylinder temperature during driving (not on a dyno) isn't changed due to pressure, unless the intercooler is unefficient. Otherwise, I've yet to see a good intercooler fail to regulate charge temp to within 10*F of ambient.

Fuel actually being heavier and denser than O2 will make it harder to compress.

Again.. there's a communications breakdown here. You can't compress a liquid. Period. So I dont' know what this is about.

You can use a lower injection bandwidth at lower RPM, but as you boost higher PSI to make more power the bandwidth will have to increase as the RPM/to power level gets larger, as well as engine temprature.

This is another Mushmouth-ish bit. I don't know what this is about, but I'll take a shot. First, it's pulsewidth, not bandwidth. And ya, as you raise horsepower, be it by pressure (PSI, as you state), or by natural revs of the motor, the fuel must be added to make said power. Power = Air x Fuel.

It isn't the fuel saver you say it is when you push your engine into higher RPM's or WOT. If FI engines conserved fuel through out the entire power band then there would defenitely be alot more FI engines on the road (especially with our fuel crisis we have today). Do you ever ask your self why the fuck are there crappy Hybrids?

This is pretty easy to answer. Hybrids save more fuel than a forced induction setup. And the other side of that is that turbos are too expensive to use for pure fuel economy.

And.. someone else's quote:

You're not comparing the correct numbers. For this comparison, you need to look at WOT. Your car isn't making anywhere near 300hp when you're not making boost.

Here's the deal though, I hit boost EVERY time I step on the throttle. I make 2-5psi boost just leaving a stoplight and driving to 3000rpm. I also hit your WOT (zero vacuum) at 2000rpm, EVERY time I step on the throttle.
Myself, and any other random guy driving his car on the street, drive roughly equivalently. I hit 320hp the same number of times he hits 155hp. And, as I accelerate to 3000rpm, I pull 200+hp from 2500-on, at partial throttle. He hits 100hp from 2500-on (or something) at partial throttle.
It doesn't matter about the fact I don't hit WOT. I hit your WOT without thinking or trying. And.. get better efficiency in the rest of my driving. Think about it - your exhaust gasses are wasted out your exhaust pipe, and your engine works to suck air in. That's why only at WOT and 5k+ rpm you hit zero vacuum. My exhaust gasses spool a turbine, which is attached to the compressor via a propeller shaft. The compressor sucks the air (rather than the engine doing it), and then pushes it into the engine (not compressed during say, highway driving). And, at 2k-onwards, my car is at your WOT (zero vacuum), at partial throttle. Your wasted gasses are put to work on my car, and doing the engine's most important job (being an air pump). You need to understand that I am getting "free" energy that's put to work on my car, and that all else equal, my harnessed exhaust doing something that your exhaust isn't - makes my engine more efficient.
-Jeff

[DMCS14]

I just read over this thread, why would you post here to insult people for pursuing na power.

Originally Posted by Johny5
please, everyone, shut the fuck up with na ka threads seriously. this shit is getting old. you guys are chasing a dream, i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines. DROP IT PLEASE.

Do you feel required to read every thread on this forum? Did the title make you think it was going to be about something other than NA powered KAs? YOu shut the fuck up and don't post since nobody gives a damn what you have to say.

You can't compress a liquid. Period.

Ummmmm.....did you graduate from high school?


I want to build an NA ka because I want to experiment with all different types of making power. Now I want to build one just to show everyone it can be done. Turbo engines are fun, but I don't like to wait for the turbo to spool. I think a high horsepower Na ka would be alot more fun to drive.

And so I post something useful
http://www.paeco.com/files/2006Catalog.pdf

[Pank]

Originally Posted by DMCS14

Ummmmm.....did you graduate from high school?

uh, I did, and you cant compress a liquid.

in fact, here is a high school science lab activity that shows that you cant:

http://workbench.concord.org/web_con...sOfMatter.html

and nothing you posted shows that you can compress a liquid.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

I'm not going point by point to be a jerk - just don't want to miss something.

Loss in fuel? If fuel goes into the combustion chamber, it's combusted. Not lost. So.. due to this glaring mis-wording, I really dont' know what you're talking about.
Cylinder temperature during driving (not on a dyno) isn't changed due to pressure, unless the intercooler is unefficient. Otherwise, I've yet to see a good intercooler fail to regulate charge temp to within 10*F of ambient.
Again.. there's a communications breakdown here. You can't compress a liquid. Period. So I dont' know what this is about.
This is another Mushmouth-ish bit. I don't know what this is about, but I'll take a shot. First, it's pulsewidth, not bandwidth. And ya, as you raise horsepower, be it by pressure (PSI, as you state), or by natural revs of the motor, the fuel must be added to make said power. Power = Air x Fuel.

You can compress liquid it is just denser than 02, but it defenitely isn't a solid compound.....

As stated by Edub1 of the NICO forums KA-T section:
Application Note: You CAN be too Rich
By Klaus Allmendinger, VP of Engineering, Innovate Motorsports
Many people with turbochargers believe that they need to run at very rich mixtures. The theory is that the excess fuel cools the intake charge and therefore reduces the probability of knock. It does work in reducing knock, but not because of charge cooling. The following little article shows why.

First let’s look at the science. Specific heat is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg of material by one degree K (Kelvin, same as Celsius but with 0 point at absolute zero). Different materials have different specific heats. The energy is measured in kJ or kilojoules:

Air ~ 1 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Gasoline 2.02 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Water 4.18 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Ethanol 2.43 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Methanol 2.51 kJ/( kg * deg K)

Fuel and other liquids also have what's called latent heat. This is the heat energy required to vaporize 1 kg of the liquid. The fuel in an internal combustion engine has to be vaporized and mixed thoroughly with the incoming air to produce power. Liquid gasoline does not burn. The energy to vaporize the fuel comes partially from the incoming air, cooling it. The latent heat energy required is actually much larger than the specific heat. That the energy comes from the incoming air can be easily seen on older carbureted cars, where frost can actually form on the intake manifold from the cooling of the charge.

The latent heat values of different liquids are shown here:

Gasoline 350 kJ/kg
Water 2256 kJ/kg
Ethanol 904 kJ/kg
Methanol 1109 kJ/kg

Most engines produce maximum power (with optimized ignition timing) at an air-fuel-ratio between 12 and 13. Let's assume the optimum is in the middle at 12.5. This means that for every kg of air, 0.08 kg of fuel is mixed in and vaporized. The vaporization of the fuel extracts 28 kJ of energy from the air charge. If the mixture has an air-fuel-ratio of 11 instead, the vaporization extracts 31.8 kJ instead. A difference of 3.8 kJ. Because air has a specific heat of about 1 kJ/kg*deg K, the air charge is only 3.8 C (or K) degrees cooler for the rich mixture compared to the optimum power mixture. This small difference has very little effect on knock or power output.

If instead of the richer mixture about 10% (by mass) of water would be injected in the intake charge (0.008 kg Water/kg air), the high latent heat of the water would cool the charge by 18 degrees, about 4 times the cooling effect of the richer mixture. The added fuel for the rich mixture can't burn because there is just not enough oxygen available. So it does not matter if fuel or water is added.

So where does the knock suppression of richer mixtures come from?

If the mixture gets ignited by the spark, a flame front spreads out from the spark plug. This burning mixture increases the pressure and temperature in the cylinder. At some time in the process the pressures and temperatures peak. The speed of the flame front is dependent on mixture density and AFR. A richer or leaner AFR than about 12-13 AFR burns slower. A denser mixture burns faster.

So with a turbo under boost the mixture density raises and results in a faster burning mixture. The closer the peak pressure is to TDC, the higher that peak pressure is, resulting in a high knock probability. Also there is less leverage on the crankshaft for the pressure to produce torque, and, therefore, less power.

Richening up the mixture results in a slower burn, moving the pressure peak later where there is more leverage, hence more torque. Also the pressure peak is lower at a later crank angle and the knock probability is reduced. The same effect can be achieved with an optimum power mixture and more ignition retard.

Optimum mix with “later” ignition can produce more power because more energy is released from the combustion of gasoline. Here’s why: When hydrocarbons like gasoline combust, the burn process actually happens in multiple stages. First the gasoline molecules are broken up into hydrogen and carbon. The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air to form H2O (water) and the carbon molecules form CO. This process happens very fast at the front edge of the flame front. The second stage converts CO to CO2. This process is relatively slow and requires water molecules (from the first stage) for completion. If there is no more oxygen available (most of it consumed in the first stage), the second stage can't happen. But about 2/3 of the energy released from the burning of the carbon is released in the second stage. Therefore a richer mixture releases less energy, lowering peak pressures and temperatures, and produces less power. A secondary side effect is of course also a lowering of knock probability. It's like closing the throttle a little. A typical engine does not knock when running on part throttle because less energy and therefore lower pressures and temperatures are in the cylinder.

This is why running overly-rich mixtures can not only increase fuel consumption, but also cost power.



So as stated fuel can compress (that is what causes heat and for it to burn, compression causes HEAT) with the O2 charge and infact is used in the process of cooling the intake charge.

Excusse my defenition of bandwidth it was the wrong term. Pulsewidth is the correct term.

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

This is pretty easy to answer. Hybrids save more fuel than a forced induction setup. And the other side of that is that turbos are too expensive to use for pure fuel economy.

Actually hybrids are more expensive to build than FI setup's. It was also proven that hybrids aren't that effecient to the EPA's estimated 40+MPG. Hybrids are getting what your basic 1.6litre NA honda engine's could perform too at about 29~31MPG

Infinitexsound thank you for that site I was looking for those plenum parts. I do ARC welding in my garage and I have been doing some conceptual designs for my NA company (NO Joke Tuning). The prices they are asking are a little expensive with shipping though, I have a buddy at a steel mill that can fab me those parts at a fraction of the cost.

[jmauld]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

Loss in fuel? If fuel goes into the combustion chamber, it's combusted. Not lost. So.. due to this glaring mis-wording, I really dont' know what you're talking about.

Actually, not all of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber is combusted. Maybe in an ideal engine it is, but we aren't driving formula1 cars.

Here's the deal though, I hit boost EVERY time I step on the throttle. I make 2-5psi boost just leaving a stoplight and driving to 3000rpm. I also hit your WOT (zero vacuum) at 2000rpm, EVERY time I step on the throttle.
Myself, and any other random guy driving his car on the street, drive roughly equivalently. I hit 320hp the same number of times he hits 155hp. And, as I accelerate to 3000rpm, I pull 200+hp from 2500-on, at partial throttle. He hits 100hp from 2500-on (or something) at partial throttle.

I understand what you're saying here, but if you're talking about hp efficiency, this is all irrelevant. WOT, under load is the only place it counts. I'm not pulling anything out of thin air here, I've given you REAL numbers.

You need to understand that I am getting "free" energy that's put to work on my car, and that all else equal, my harnessed exhaust doing something that your exhaust isn't - makes my engine more efficient.
-Jeff

You need to understand that you are not getting free energy. Powering a turbo puts a significant load on an engine.

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by jmauld

Actually, not all of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber is combusted. Maybe in an ideal engine it is, but we aren't driving formula1 cars.

Just pulling another technicallity? Because when you consider his "you add fuel to cool the combustion chamber, so it's lost" vs. my "you add fuel to the combustion chamber, it cools the chamber and then is combusted".. who is correct.

I understand what you're saying here, but if you're talking about hp efficiency, this is all irrelevant. WOT, under load is the only place it counts. I'm not pulling anything out of thin air here, I've given you REAL numbers.

No.. it's not irrelevant. Two average drivers driving averagely, my car hits load and makes boost, while his car hits load and is still pulling vacuum. At 3k rpm he is making 100hp, I'm making 200hp. At any point in the powerband, I'm making more power, except highway driving. And, when I get 5mpg less for making nearly 2x the power across the board, I'm more efficient.
A turbocharger doesn't change a torque curve, it simply adds to it. So, a KA vs. KA-T have nearly the same curve, which is why that at all rpms with load on the engine, the KA-T is making more power.

You need to understand that you are not getting free energy. Powering a turbo puts a significant load on an engine.

I said "free" energy. Read my post, and then don't tell me what to understand. Sure, there's more backpressure, but at least the backpressure is doing something... your backpressure just means that you need a better exhaust.
It's not really a significant load. There was an article somewhere that did the math between a turbo and a supercharger on a 2.2L Prelude. The supercharger required 55horsepower to churn out 250hp on the 2.2L. The turbo required 14hp to make the same power.

I'd like to see the meaningless technicallities get dropped from this thread. Figure out what is and isn't worth arguing about - and don't bring up worthless points.
-Jeff

[jmauld]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

Just pulling another technicallity? Because when you consider his "you add fuel to cool the combustion chamber, so it's lost" vs. my "you add fuel to the combustion chamber, it cools the chamber and then is combusted".. who is correct.

Technicality? No, I was just under the impression that we wanted incorrect information to be corrected here?

The additional fuel cools by carrying the heat out of the exhaust. At which point it's lost. Although, one could argue that it isn't lost, since it allows the engine to utilize higher boost pressures and make more power. BTW, this is part of the "expense" of owning a turbo car, which you call "free". (note, I'm am by no means suggesting it isn't worth it.)

***Other stuff removed since you are ignoring the real data that I presented to you***

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by jmauld

Technicality? No, I was just under the impression that we wanted incorrect information to be corrected here?

The additional fuel cools by carrying the heat out of the exhaust. At which point it's lost. Although, one could argue that it isn't lost, since it allows the engine to utilize higher boost pressures and make more power. BTW, this is part of the "expense" of owning a turbo car, which you call "free". (note, I'm am by no means suggesting it isn't worth it.)

Are you kidding me? You have typed this to say that fuel enters, drops the cylinder temperature, and exits through the exhaust, bypassing the combustion cycle and slipping out of the exhuast valves - while they're closed - and is therefore lost.
Now.. what happens is that X ammount of fuel in injected into our combustion chamber as dictated by our ECU tune. The ECU doesn't have a way to say 'hey - cylinder head is hot. lets add more fuel'. There is nothing that increases fuel in order to reduce the combustion temperature.
Anytime you increase the ammount of fuel in the engine, each droplet has a specific ammount of heat it can absorb, and it does. This heat absorption cools the combustion chamber, but as long as your engine is running, the fuel still needs to be combusted and the exhaust valves need to open before it carries the heat away and out the exhaust.
When you have atomized fuel and a spark.. you get an explosion. So.. say it with me. "No fuel that enters the combustion chamber is wasted". It gets combusted - and there's no formula or way (that I know of, at least) to know how completely (or partially) the excess fuel was combusted.

***Other stuff removed since you are ignoring the real data that I presented to you***

And.. you can go ahead and be a jackass, but I quoted and replied sincerely to each of your three points. I didn't ignore anything, and you provided no real data. So go fuck yourself for this comment.
-Jeff