the legend of the NA KA....

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by sideview_180sx

I have the July 2005 issue of over rev magazine. On an apparent 60-shot of a wet nitrous system. The sohc KA they used put down 211hp/4000rpm and 286Tq/3800rpm. When in doubt use nitrous!

You are talking about PNG's ride, it also uses an automatic and not a stick shift.....

[RBS14]

I know for a fact that the 300+ hp n/a DOHC ka's are real because I have talked with the builder of them. The ones for the Baja trucks. Rebello builds them. They "redline" at 8500rpms but see 11.5k rpms when the trucks are in the air some times. Don't waste your time trying to build something like that, you'll never get there. They have nearly unlimited funds, and more importantly (something severely lacking here), knowledge.

[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.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by Johny5

you guys are chasing a dream, i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines.

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. Yes living in Cali, building up an NA that is smoggable , and steetable is the only alternative us californians are left with. Seriously once it's built I don't have to be one of those idiots that pays $300+ to a smog tech if I had decided to go SR20det or KA-T.
NA is a full proof way for most of us californians to fool the smog techs. We don't have options like most other people in other states. It's an investment well worth it, when your not forkin out thousands withinn a few years on a smog tech........ I have friends that went KA-T that aren't legit and are riding on expired tags talkin' " like yeah man when I get them bills I can pay the smog tech".
NA KA is a reality for most of us Californians.

[Flybert]

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. Yes living in Cali, building up an NA that is smoggable , and steetable is the only alternative us californians are left with. Seriously once it's built I don't have to be one of those idiots that pays $300+ to a smog tech if I had decided to go SR20det or KA-T.
NA is a full proof way for most of us californians to fool the smog techs. We don't have options like most other people in other states. It's an investment well worth it, when your not forkin out thousands withinn a few years on a smog tech........ I have friends that went KA-T that aren't legit and are riding on expired tags talkin' " like yeah man when I get them bills I can pay the smog tech".
NA KA is a reality for most of us Californians.

NA KA power will get you pulled over more than stock SR with stock exhaust. NA KA is the worst in cali. You guys get pulled over more than SR people that's for sure. And what's this about thousands on smog techs for SR people? It would take about 8 years for me to spend $1000 on smogging SR. That is chump change in comparison to that length of time. Get over it. NA KA isn't a safe alternative in cali at all. Your cars are louder. PERIOD. Now if you argued that it was a cheap and fun alternative than SR, that I can understand but it aint gonna keep you under the radar at all.

[Sean1978]

arg... my NA KA race engine thread has been reduced to another KA vs SR thread... I give up.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by Flybert

NA KA power will get you pulled over more than stock SR with stock exhaust. NA KA is the worst in cali. You guys get pulled over more than SR people that's for sure. And what's this about thousands on smog techs for SR people? It would take about 8 years for me to spend $1000 on smogging SR. That is chump change in comparison to that length of time. Get over it. NA KA isn't a safe alternative in cali at all. Your cars are louder. PERIOD. Now if you argued that it was a cheap and fun alternative than SR, that I can understand but it aint gonna keep you under the radar at all.

NA KA build up's are fun, just as fun as it is for a guy that likes to go boosted and internally build as well.
There are advantages to staying NA. Shure turbo charging produces additional power at an affordable price. I appoligize for saying people are stupid for spending extra cash on smog checks in Cali (my perogative), point was, I've done it and plan to do it no more.
Regardless of what people say... Weither an NA KA makes 170whp or even 210whp fact is NA engines are better for longevity, and track use, NA engines make smoother power bands, NA engines can use better effeciency of fuel dumping and atomizing fuel/air (better gas mileage). Some people don't mind spending the additional money on an NA engine as long as it makes the person that built it (comfortable and at a piece of mind)......
If you like your SR good for you, your perogative, but like I said I am comfortable with what I have and what I build...... besides it doesn't matter how much power you have at the wheels especially for those that don't know how to use it on the track (and I see it all the time). Thanks for saying my exhaust is loud, thats how I like it......

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by BigVinnie

...NA engines can use better effeciency of fuel dumping and atomizing fuel/air (better gas mileage).

Umm... Can you back that up?

[that180guy]

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.

THEN DONT READ IT.
and post, your the one wasting bandwith shitting in a legit thread that a guy posted about. this guy actually wants to know how NA tuning works n such, not sum punk kid who blatently wants NA horsepower and wants to kno what to buy. and what the fuck are you talkin about? guys spend the dough to build their sr's, then why the fuck not build NA? zilvia is a forum for ppl to discuss about our 240s. so if dont lik DONT FUCKING CLICK ON THE LINK.

[lilredstiffy]

I can't remember anyone even making over 175whp on a na ka.

pipe dreammssss

[Zemus]

I agree, if you want 200+ hp, turbo the KA or get somthing else that is turbo. If you really look in the forum, you can find people that did crazy NA KA's. Most are eather failed projects, or give disipointing results. I forgot his name but their was a member on the forum before who gave a nice lil recipy for a KA22, It involves a block from some older nissan motor, with a KA24 Head, a 9k redline and about 200HP, but this here we are talking hardly streetable and requiring a dry sump.. I mean we are talking get almost everything custom, but their are little trick im sure you can do. Instead of everyone posting about "where are these motors" try this:


USE GOOGLE

YOU SEARCH

COME ON!!!!

Google has a TON of them, their are like 2000000000485904856084 of them in 510's

Stop using forums as such a wheelchair
Stand up, and do it on your own.

[Sean1978]

USE GOOGLE

YOU SEARCH

COME ON!!!!

Google has a TON of them, their are like 2000000000485904856084 of them in 510's

Stop using forums as such a wheelchair
Stand up, and do it on your own.

thanks for posts like this, part of the reason why I seldom post on zilvia....

anyway I read threads on this forum every day, have done so for over 2 years. I don't plan on building a high power NA KA, I'm just curious about what some of the engines I have heard about entail. I posted this topic for discussion's sake. I was curious as to what makes up the NA KA race engines that people talk about constantly and I have never seen a specific topic addressing the subject. thanks for contributing to the conversation with an informative post....

i doubt one person in this thread can afford what they're doing on these 250+ hp engines. DROP IT PLEASE.

I doub't I'll ever own a 1200HP RB31DET, that does that mean I can't enjoy talking about such an engine with fellow enthusiasts on nissan forum?

[infinitexsound]

big vinnie yeah im with u on that.. but it isnt hard to suck some more power out of the motor... ive been searching alot and came across quite a few places where u can buy DIY performance parts... its all the know how and the effort PM me if u want some info..

[infinitexsound]

[Johny5]

yes, i actually have a high compression ka motor right now and its fucking LOUD. my open wastegate ka-t was more quiet than this.

[S14DB]

I have no clue what you just said cause that can only make sense to you. Injector size has nothing to do with efficiency cause you just run a smaller pulse width with the larger injector.

Turbo's will always make more hp/mpg due to them taking waste gas from the exhaust to compress the intake air. Effectively increasing the VE of the engine.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by S14DB

Turbo's will always make more hp/mpg due to them taking waste gas from the exhaust to compress the intake air. Effectively increasing the VE of the engine.

So your saying that a higher CR engine (than stock CR) doesn't compensate for MPG, only turbo's do? The higher the CR, the more o2 becomes compressed in the chamber making more power with less fuel, correct? It's known that raising the CR on NA can infact increase power while optimizing MPG without retuning the ECU. There are some draw backs such as raised NOX levels that would need to be controlled with increased fuel dumping (but little things like that can be easily worked out).

[Jeff240sx]

Look guy. Hypothetically I give you the best-case scenario. 200whp (extremely hard to get and rough on the street) and you get the stock 30mpg.
Now.. my car - no hypothetical involved here - makes 320whp, and gets 24mpg.

Your imaginary car: 6.67 hp per gallon. Or .15 gallons per hp.
My current car: 13.3hp per gallon. Or .075 gallons per hp.

Which is more efficient? Sure - you get better mileage overall. But that's not the debate here. Per your words - the debate is efficiency, which the real turbo car beats the imaginary car forcefully.

Now - what happened here is that you came to this post with convoluted thoughts and misinformation. And I came here with empyrical evidence. And you got owned.
-Jeff

[jmauld]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

Your imaginary car: 6.67 hp per gallon. Or .15 gallons per hp.
My current car: 13.3hp per gallon. Or .075 gallons per hp.

-Jeff

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.

Do this one. I had a turbo 1.6L engine that made 205whp. It got 35mpg on the highway, but 5mpg while on a road course. For comparison. My 240sx makes 154whp, gets 26mpg on the highway and 12mpg while on a road course. Which one is more efficient?

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by jmauld

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.

Do this one. I had a turbo 1.6L engine that made 205whp. It got 35mpg on the highway, but 5mpg while on a road course. For comparison. My 240sx makes 154whp, gets 26mpg on the highway and 12mpg while on a road course. Which one is more efficient?

That was my point some people don't understand WOT..... Maybe under 3000RPM does a turbo system become more effecient than an NA. NA engines do tend to use more fuel under 2600RPM, while FI engines can lean out a bit using turbo's on low boost at lower RPM's.

[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

[thinkmonkey]

God I can't stand this hating man, some people just want to talk about an NA KA because that is what they want! I still run my relatively stock KA and I personally ALWAYS rather have an NA motor over a turbo motor if I could have my pick. Why? Throttle response, linearity, sound. No one will ever convince me that a any turbo motor sounds better than the best NA motors. Carrera GT V10 is pure sex. Any Ferrari V12? Aston V12? Have even heard the Mazda 787b? Those motors sounds so pure and passionate, something that turbo motors are robbed of and cannot recoupe. No turbo motor can come near to the sound of a finely tuned NA intake.

That said, if I decide that i want more power I will go the KA-T route because I like the motor for it's torque and robustness. With the intercooler mounted behind the radiator and a good ball bearing turbo you can almost forget about turbo lag, and I would not aim for anything over 300hp. I am happy with my motor right now though, and with the new timing set (got a twin cam, I suggest you pull the motor for it...) it runs beautifully. How I will miss that intake note one day though.

-Dave

[KA24DESOneThree]

When it comes to KA, I don't think any of us can really say anything that hasn't been said. I've done my research and 175 wheel seems to be a relatively realistic street-driven goal. Going for more means an almost excessive amount of money.

Since we are so trapped in our quest for naturally aspirated horsepower, I think the only logical path is to achieve the greatest balance between response and drivability. (And in California... legality.)