originally this post just started off with the ka24de…i did not do the title of the post which says ka24e…
I’m a bit lost in the dark here.
Unless Adam added an extra Valve in his engine, my KA24E only has 3 valves per cylinder?[/quote]
ok we can drop the VE to 75% for the 3 valve design…and the KA24E still comes out ahead at 200.3 CFM
guys…you ever been drag racing against a fast muscle car ?
when you line up against him…and he just pulls on you like you are not there…thats displacement
when my car was NA i used NOS was running 14.5’s …i lined up against a 11sec NA v8…i felt so slow like i was standing still beside him…very funny…
yes…torque… thats what the SR is lacking…you have to wring the crap out of it to get it to go…
tell that to the car when the driver misses a shift or just can’t find that right gear for pulling out of a corner…
i will 100% tell you (IMO) that having that extra torque over the SR…hands down makes it
1=easier to drive the KAT faster
2=makes the KAT faster
that chart shows EXACTLY what i am saying in my math… the extra RPM that the SR has does not outweigh the 400cc advantage that the KA has…
that SR would get crusified on the track…even though it has more peak power…
david might with his 5.0 swap depending on how the car handles
the 5.0 woule be superior in every way…except for the unknown handling factor
http://forums.son240sx.ca/viewtopic.php?t=3199
If anyone should be worried, it should be me.
:shock: 600lbs.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/tech/0309scc_hybrid/
3rd pic down. Still not bad though, weight issues can be resolved with a FRP hood and fenders, and battery relocation kit. Plus with the McKinney kit the drivetrain gets pushed an inch back. So most of that weight is centred.
An rb25 ways bout 680lbs with the tranny, it’s only bout 180lbs heavier and most of that is in the tranny area cause it’s much beefier than the ka’s.
I want to through another cat in the bag, what do you guys think bout an rb24…yes an rb24. It’s a 20 block and head, gtr rods and crank and 82 or 83mm forged pistons. Revs safely to 8600rpm and on the same turbo as the 25 it would produce out the same power.
how bout a LT1 instead…
and if you really get bored of the NA 302…just slap one of the many supercharger kits on it… voilia…lots more power…and all bolt on…
Oldtimers > Us young-ins.
Sad but true.
The Boss 302 is a good motor … good luck finding one, and affording it. They were only available from, if memory serves 69-71.
A well built V8 would annihalate the R200 diff.
NA launches are brutally hard on parts, if you’re doing it right.
Another thing to consider when doing a 5.0 swap is where the tranny is going to end up, you might be reaching into the back seat just to shift gears.
Peak power is just a nice thing to be able to say.
If your car has 500 hp at 8,000 rpm, turbocharged,
And my NA car has 350 hp at 6,500
if we’re in the same car (lets make them both automatics so it’s none of this “I can shift faster than anyone” advantages)
The NA car will probably whup the turbo car in a drag race, just kill it.
Because at that point, the turbo car is playing catchup. Unlike a turbo car that needs load to generate power (you’re not moving much exhaust at a standstill)
An NA car with a decent torque convertor can safely launch at close to full power, full torque, the turbo car has to work to generate boost. Once you’re in boost it’s anyone’s game … but before you get into the boost, the NA car has already put 6 car lengths on you … and you have to catch him in a very short period of time.
Ever drag race someone and have a brain fart? Where he catches you napping at the lights and nails a good launch? He beats you with a slower car.
I’d rather put an LS1 into an S13 … the 302 is an ancient design. Minor upgrades here and there over the years, the ongoing lawsuit over Ford lying about power levels for the past 15 years in the Mustangs. The aftermarket is there, but the simple fact is an LS1 powered Camaro (think 4,000lbs) will run low 13s out of the box. Small tweaks here and there will get you 12s. Put that motor into a car that weighs a lot less, doesn’t have the 3.21 gears in it, and it will be a monster.
The LT1 has been around since what, 1956?
Both the 302 and the LT1 suffer from poor head design, so expect to have to buy decent aluminum heads to get any real performance out of them.
And Freak, you might be surprised to know that Dodge never built a full-framed muscle car, and they made the most powerful ones.
uhhhgggg… ya… :bsflag: it almost seems like you have never driven a turbocharged car. Freak is right, you can build boost while you’re at a standstill. The launch would be the same, and the turbo car would beat the N/A because of a 150hp advantage (that is of course assuming that both cars can put the power down to the ground)
Man, if you want to jump up and down and scream I’m BSing do me the courtesy of reading my post.
Sure … you can build boost, and yes, I’m familiar with a stutter clutch setup. It tends to work best in an AWD car where traction isn’t a big concern.
A turbo car needs LOAD to build boost.
Bit hard to use a stutter limiter on a race course though …
ALS systems don’t hurt either. Well, yeah they do but.
If you’ve ever driven a car in which power far outweighs traction, you’ll better understand my point.
What about a rolling start that nixes rev limiters and other cheats?
You want to roll your turbo car up to say a 10 km/h start and punch it against an NA car?
The point is an NA angine is free from power adders that can be very inconsistent, and do not apply to the full power band.
An NA motor has a very different power curve and makes the power consitantly. The point is at any given RPM, the NA motor will make X power all day long.
The more power you make out of a turbo motor, generally it will require more LOAD. Bigger turbos need more spent gas to spin the turbo.
The ramp on the power curve is very steep, and can hit very hard, but it’s not always enough to have more power.
if from 6,000 rpm to 8,000 you have peak power that’s fantastic, but look at the power you’re making at 5,000 or 4,000 when the motor is trying very hard to push that gas through.
An NA motor will have a much more gradual power band and TORQUE. As a function of getting flow at high RPMs to spool a turbo, you have to sacrifice bottom end grunt.
Even in NA motors, look at a Honda B16. They make what, 30 lb/ft? Because they were engineered to make gobs of power with small displacement up high. That’s the trade.
Also compression plays an enormous role in power. The more volatile the charge in the cylinder, the faster you’re going to go.
Torque wins drag races, HP wins bench races.
I drive a turbo car almost daily … and I’ve killed a number of them at Cayuga too.
Except for one bastard in a Talon with a 2 step, 20G and drag radials. If I had AWD traction, hell if I even had drag radials … I could probably catch him. Oh yeah, and I’ve seen his dyno sheet … if I’m making that much power I’ll eat a camshaft (and my car outweighs his too).
“An NA motor will have a much more gradual power band and TORQUE. As a function of getting flow at high RPMs to spool a turbo, you have to sacrifice bottom end grunt.”
"Why is it everyone assumes turbo engines make no tourque? Look at a dyno and look at how much tq is being made. It’s a hell of alot more then a stock engine. Furthermore, a turbo can have a very gradual powerband maybe not a supercharger gradual, or N/A gradual, but thats the tossup for more top end, and a more efficient system. As for low end, launch a little higher and you wont have to worry so much about it. "
even my old sohc motor makes 200ftlbs at 3000rpm, and 323ftlbs at 4300rpm…at 13psi
he is correct that you need load to spool the turbo up…
revving the engine at the line is going to do very little for spooling…
mr200, i really enjoy reading your lengthy posts, the amount of incorrect, off-topic and irrelevant comments is quite entertaining. Keep it up. =D> Don’t get me wrong, I think you’re very knowledgeable, but so are many other people on this board, who also can admit that they are simply incorrect.