the legend of the NA KA....

[BigVinnie]

Originally I wanted to use 11.1:1 pistons, put it more on the level of the F20 honda engine. But then it runs into issues such as NOX emissions (which the F20 runs on a different emissions system so does the bimmer, I still use OBD1). The question isn't can the KA run on 91 octane with a compression of 10.5:1 (probably yes, will it pass smog... NO, would I have to worry about knock and ping...Maybe with the stock timing @20BTDC)... The key to designing a NA KA is also to fool the smog tech IMO. The greater the CR the greater risk of the engine not passing NOX. I've been studying this crap for a year to get it down right. Timing has much to do with passing smog as well as building an engine to new CR specs. You simply can't just build something and think it will pass. All that is aloud for me to pass smog in timing is +/- 3 degress from the 20BTDC (thats all I get to play with)....

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

Thinking Vinny's pull was 3rd gear?

That isn't my dyno that is Scotts dyno, I'll find the link so you can see for yourself. He had high 14's in the 1/4mile, better times than the Acura RSX type-s, or the Sentra SE-R specV..... Now his engine is turbo charged......

Found it!!!! I rated it at 165. I guess the dyno was really 169...........
http://www.geocities.com/wssnider/240sxDYNO.html

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by that180guy

let me reiterate.
10:5 is TOO MUCH FOR A KA to be ran on 91 pump gas.this is due to the design of the motor. low oct + high comp ka = kaboom city or a shit load of tunning for no reason.
plenty of motors out there can run sky high compressions and run 91 pump, but NOT A KA
KA also itself has thin cylinder walls. and a weak head

So.. you're telling me that the motor dictates the compression it can run? Ha. Haha. What a joke. Go read a book about tuning - then come back and join the grown-ups in this discussion.

And.. the KA has thin cylinder walls versus an SR.. but - the KA's is iron, not some aluminum-magnesium conglomeration. Strength for strength, I'd bet the thick weak metal and thin strong metal are nearly the same.
Weak head? Compared to what? You have a weak head. Come to this discussion with proof and not assclownery, or go join the kiddies over at NICO.
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by BigVinnie

Originally I wanted to use 11.1:1 pistons, put it more on the level of the F20 honda engine. But then it runs into issues such as NOX emissions (which the F20 runs on a different emissions system so does the bimmer, I still use OBD1). The question isn't can the KA run on 91 octane with a compression of 10.5:1 (probably yes, will it pass smog... NO, would I have to worry about knock and ping...Maybe with the stock timing @20BTDC)... The key to designing a NA KA is also to fool the smog tech IMO. The greater the CR the greater risk of the engine not passing NOX. I've been studying this crap for a year to get it down right. Timing has much to do with passing smog as well as building an engine to new CR specs. You simply can't just build something and think it will pass. All that is aloud for me to pass smog in timing is +/- 3 degress from the 20BTDC (thats all I get to play with)....

If you're so concerned with smog - why not just find a 'nice' smog tech? Install a 2nd cat? I don't know what's legal there or not, but it seems that they can't complain about a 2nd cat?
-Jeff

[that180guy]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

So.. you're telling me that the motor dictates the compression it can run? Ha. Haha. What a joke. Go read a book about tuning - then come back and join the grown-ups in this discussion.

And.. the KA has thin cylinder walls versus an SR.. but - the KA's is iron, not some aluminum-magnesium conglomeration. Strength for strength, I'd bet the thick weak metal and thin strong metal are nearly the same.
Weak head? Compared to what? You have a weak head. Come to this discussion with proof and not assclownery, or go join the kiddies over at NICO.
-Jeff

i never said that, i said it contributes. unless you can tell me otherwise that the design of the motor does not contribute to how it functions in situations

[atom]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

So.. you're telling me that the motor dictates the compression it can run? Ha. Haha. What a joke. Go read a book about tuning - then come back and join the grown-ups in this discussion.

WTH are you talking about, of course it does. A lot of shit can affect an engine's resistance to pinging including combustion chamber design and piston speed, none of which the KA is particularly efficient at.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

If you're so concerned with smog - why not just find a 'nice' smog tech? Install a 2nd cat? I don't know what's legal there or not, but it seems that they can't complain about a 2nd cat?
-Jeff

Great a second CAT added so that I kill the performance that I wanted added.... I did talk to a smog tech. With the stroke, timing, and compression (11.1:1) I would have to use a gasoline/ethanol mixture to pass and lower the NOX emissions. I like the idea of 10.1:1 anyways, it's better than stock........

[S14DB]

Run a all metal not ceramic cat. There are 1000hp skylines passing smog in Japan. Even better #'s than stock.

http://projectnissan.com/shopping/pc...=3&idproduct=1

[90RS13]

Found it!!!! I rated it at 165. I guess the dyno was really 169...........
http://www.geocities.com/wssnider/240sxDYNO.html

You just said exhaust, header, and tuning....you never metioned he was using 104 octane fuel. You can tune timing alot more aggressively with 104.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by 90RS13

You just said exhaust, header, and tuning....you never metioned he was using 104 octane fuel. You can tune timing alot more aggressively with 104.

104octane will shift the timing a bit, but by the smallest margin (probably a couple donkey's). I don't think it is the performance enhancer that you think it is to be. The purpose of higher octane fuels is to prevent knock and ping, (actually lowering the knock signal a bit). Shure it freed up a little room as far as timing, but then again that is mostly the ecu tune, and when I mean by the smallest margin probably like 5HP at the most was gained using that fuel.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by S14DB

Run a all metal not ceramic cat. There are 1000hp skylines passing smog in Japan. Even better #'s than stock.

http://projectnissan.com/shopping/pc...=3&idproduct=1

Whats wrong with using my catco hiflow?????

Sorry for the double post.....

[S14DB]

It's ceramic and trades flow for efficiency. Converts worse than stock.

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by S14DB

It's ceramic and trades flow for efficiency. Converts worse than stock.

I see for flow and efficiency use the metal instead.......... Ceramic is cheap though........

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by atom

WTH are you talking about, of course it does. A lot of shit can affect an engine's resistance to pinging including combustion chamber design and piston speed, none of which the KA is particularly efficient at.

Again, you fucking people are simply irritating me with this bullshit. Is this the cause of the detonation? No. Is this a contributing factor to the intensity of the detonation? Yea. The initial detonation is determined by the tune, and can be completely tuned out with proper air/fuel mixtures, and timing. Once you have tuned out the detonation.. who fucking cares what the KA does or doesn't do. Will you detonate with an off-the-shelf tune on a wild KA? Sure. And you'll do it with every other motor in the same circumstance. Can you custom tune an ECU and eliminate all detonation at a given power level. Yep. Can we stop being so matter-of-fact "WTH are you talking about" when your point doesn't fucking matter?
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by BigVinnie

Great a second CAT added so that I kill the performance that I wanted added.... I did talk to a smog tech. With the stroke, timing, and compression (11.1:1) I would have to use a gasoline/ethanol mixture to pass and lower the NOX emissions. I like the idea of 10.1:1 anyways, it's better than stock........

Great.. a second cat that can be removed when not smogging. Unless, you know, that's your job, to drive from smog shop to smog shop all day every day. What the fuck is wrong with you? Could you not get my point, or are you just being arguementative for the sake of it?

And.. I don't mean talk with a smog tech. I mean find one of those who seem to pass more cars than usual, for a small fee.
And.. S14DB gave you a perfect example. Platinum is the best catalyzer for exhaust emissions. Ya, it's expensive. But so is the $5000, 225hp motor that I laid out last page. Can you not pony up the extra cash for a metal cat and pass smog?
Because right now.. you have a few issues. 1) You either don't understand or don't give a damn what people with more knowledge on the subject than you have to say. 2) You seem to be deluded with thoughts of a 300whp KA, yet need it to be cheap. And 3) You seem to need to pass smog legitamately (with a sniffer, not a 'nice' smog tech), and the cheapness from issue 2 is preventing that, too.

Anyway, you can do whatever. I'm probably not going to post here unless somebody quotes me. But - at your current rate, you'll never hit your car's max power, because your beliefs and lack of willingness to put money in the right places (better single cat or removable 2nd cat for smogging).
-Jeff

[Omarius Maximus]

I don't understand why you people are so obsessed with horsepower. No matter how fast your car is, there will always be someone who has something faster. Ultimately, you only need enough horsepower to have "fun" with. Think about it; nowadays a van like a Honda Oddyssey can out accelerate a stock 240, but then again when do you see Oddysseys flying around at WOT? The same goes with true sports cars. Rarely have I seen M3s, Corvettes, etc actually making use of their power on the street. So why build a motor to compete with cars or people who want nothing to do with you? 99 percent of motorist are trying to get from point a to b in a calm fashion. Thats why a stock 240 will out accelerate even the fastest cars, simply because the owners of those cars aren't interested in going fast(most of the time). Horsepower is subjective from a driver's perspective, so there's no point in saying "go turbo, more horsepower"

[BigVinnie]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

Great.. a second cat that can be removed when not smogging. Unless, you know, that's your job, to drive from smog shop to smog shop all day every day. What the fuck is wrong with you? Could you not get my point, or are you just being arguementative for the sake of it?

And.. I don't mean talk with a smog tech. I mean find one of those who seem to pass more cars than usual, for a small fee.
And.. S14DB gave you a perfect example. Platinum is the best catalyzer for exhaust emissions. Ya, it's expensive. But so is the $5000, 225hp motor that I laid out last page. Can you not pony up the extra cash for a metal cat and pass smog?
Because right now.. you have a few issues. 1) You either don't understand or don't give a damn what people with more knowledge on the subject than you have to say. 2) You seem to be deluded with thoughts of a 300whp KA, yet need it to be cheap. And 3) You seem to need to pass smog legitamately (with a sniffer, not a 'nice' smog tech), and the cheapness from issue 2 is preventing that, too.

Anyway, you can do whatever. I'm probably not going to post here unless somebody quotes me. But - at your current rate, you'll never hit your car's max power, because your beliefs and lack of willingness to put money in the right places (better single cat or removable 2nd cat for smogging).
-Jeff

All I can say is that you have some personal issues that seriously need to get worked out..... I guess being anal is one of them.......
If I installed a second CAT the referee wouldn't even smog me do to the visual inspection. There is no way in hell I am paying a $1000 dollars for a metal CAT. It benefit's more for FI engines that are making over 300HP and make excessive fuel dumping to make that power, something which my NA won't be making.
The CATCO CAT was rated the best CAT for effeciency and price, was much more affordable than random Technology with the same benefits (random costed $300, I welded flanges on the CATCO and bought it for $50). I still use my AIV system that keeps my CAT nice and hot to run at maximum effeciency............ Just installed a new egr also it sucks up exhaust gasses just fine.........

[BigVinnie]

Whatever man. Life goes on and I can't continue to get pissed at your madness.

[atom]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

Again, you fucking people are simply irritating me with this bullshit. Is this the cause of the detonation? No. Is this a contributing factor to the intensity of the detonation? Yea. The initial detonation is determined by the tune, and can be completely tuned out with proper air/fuel mixtures, and timing. Once you have tuned out the detonation.. who fucking cares what the KA does or doesn't do. Will you detonate with an off-the-shelf tune on a wild KA? Sure. And you'll do it with every other motor in the same circumstance. Can you custom tune an ECU and eliminate all detonation at a given power level. Yep. Can we stop being so matter-of-fact "WTH are you talking about" when your point doesn't fucking matter?
-Jeff

How the fuck does it not matter? For the most power NA (which is what this thread is about genius) you should have the highest compression for the optimal timing for any given RPM without detonation, not the other way around. If you need to reduce timing for a tune N/A you're losing power. Oh jesus, this is N/A tuning 101 where the fuck have you been..........

[S14DB]

Wait, you tune your C:R not you timing?

[atom]

Originally Posted by S14DB

Wait, you tune your C:R not you timing?

If you are pinging on your target octane and you are serious about building the engine then yes a lot of times you're better off tearing the engine down and lowering hte compression than retarding the timing a sizable amount.

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by BigVinnie

If I installed a second CAT the referee wouldn't even smog me do to the visual inspection.

I said I didn't know Cali laws. Was just offering a suggestion. Dunno why they'd have an issue with you using 2 cats on an old car.

The CATCO CAT was rated the best CAT for effeciency and price, was much more affordable than random Technology with the same benefits (random costed $300, I welded flanges on the CATCO and bought it for $50).

Catco and random tech cats are rated by % of stock cat efficiency. I think they're both around 95% of stock, which isn't bad. But - for the ammount of money you will lay out, not paying off a smog tech and/or not spending a few hundred dollars extra to pass emissions you so desparately need to pass.. is a poor idea.
Or.. buy a 2nd KA and swap before smog. It's much, much easier to pass smog than you're making it out to be. It's just a bit of a PITA.
-Jeff

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by atom

If you need to reduce timing for a tune N/A you're losing power. Oh jesus, this is N/A tuning 101 where the fuck have you been..........

HA! A) There's a point of diminishing returns. If you are right about this (and tearing down the motor to reduce compression), few people have 2-3 or however many sets of pistons to tune CR as would be required. And.. for the extra power you'd extract after a couple 4-hour teardowns and few sets of extra pistons... ha.
This works on a race team. But.. this isnt' a race car, or a race team. It's a guy in Cali who probably wants to drive daily, and do this for as cheap as possible. You seem to lose the scope of this conversations in your drive to be correct. It's a poor method of debate.

B) You lose power by reducing timing. On a KA, probably no more than 5hp ever. By dropping compression, you lose 5% per point. Or.. 7-10hp depending on is power level at the time of 'tuning for CR' rather than retarding timing.
-Jeff

[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.

[Gnnr]

[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

[jmauld]

Originally Posted by Jeff240sx

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.

There is only one ratio that will allow 100% of the air and fuel to be consumed during a combustion event. In a turbo car, you tune the engine to run a little richer then with a N/A car. The term rich means that there is more gasoline then can be consumed by the combustion. That extra gasoline gets pushed out the exhaust with the other by-products of combustion. It carries heat out with it.

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

Seriously, if you leave your attitude at the door, then maybe I wouldn't have assumed that you were being a smartass.

We can go back to that discussion if you are willing to discuss it without the attitude. Personally, I find it kind of interesting, but I'm not willing to discuss it with someone that has their head stuck up their ass.

[Jeff240sx]

Originally Posted by jmauld

We can go back to that discussion if you are willing to discuss it without the attitude. Personally, I find it kind of interesting, but I'm not willing to discuss it with someone that has their head stuck up their ass.

If you'd not pull stupid shit and say "other stuff removed because I'm ignoring" your lack of data, I wouldn't have an attitute towards you. If you want to start the petty jabs, I'll go right along. But DON'T FUCKING TRY to blame me for your insult.

Do I get mad at these discussions? Yea, because I try to make things as general as possible so everyone can understand (and save myself time), yet people come in and start getting technical about a generalization I made and say I'm wrong - without giving reason why. Sure, I may miss one of the mechanics of something (because I'm making a post, not writing a novel), but overall the general subject is correct. Except now there's 18 people I have to reply to over something that's so assinine to bring up in the first place.

With that said - here's my reply to the subject at hand.

There is only one ratio that will allow 100% of the air and fuel to be consumed during a combustion event. In a turbo car, you tune the engine to run a little richer then with a N/A car. The term rich means that there is more gasoline then can be consumed by the combustion. That extra gasoline gets pushed out the exhaust with the other by-products of combustion. It carries heat out with it.

This is one of those sub-arguements that stem from a generalization - because there's less than 20 people on this forum who can figure out what the hell we're talking about. So, my generalization and lack of wanting to type a 15 page synopsis of this subject has led us this far.

All cars run rich, as the stoichiometric ratio cannot run a car except during idle or cruise and no load is on the car. But to imply (as I've been arguing against) that fuel isn't ignited and exhausted is flawed. And.. the gasoline either combusts, or it doesn't. It's an all-of-nothing event in the combustion chamber. But using the term combustion' in a chemistry-type definition, then yes, not all of the gasoline will combust (combustion meaning breaking the hydrocarbon (c8h18 for octane) into CO2 + H2O with the addition of oxygen and an ignition source. But, all gasoline is burnt off, which is why cars running rich just spit out soot and other carbon emissions (carbon monoxide and other partial-combustion products, all of which the emissions sniffer test checks for). No liquid or vaporized fuel is expelled. What goes in the cylinderhead explodes. That's all I've been saying.
-Jeff

[Zemus]

Pics NOT found by me found by "ronmastas" on ziptied, said its a friends car and makes 280HP on the engine dyno.. so I take it thats to the flywheel...