Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

trying to do something different and unique appeals to self worth... just like people who sticker up their car and have big fancy kits and wings. it doesn't matter what others think but the fact is that you like it and it appeals to you. so if you want to make 250rwkw NA and spend bucket loads of money go ahead. but...

not directing this at you joshua, but since we are on the topic of power. i still fail to understand the 'dream' people have to attain more and more power. i understand that power is a quick standard everyone uses to assess the engine - however you don't need massive amounts of power to go fast!! that said if you're simply wanting to make more power, then boost is your answer. if you want to create art (and i use the term loosely here for those ricey ones) then do what your wallet allows you to!

cheers

eug

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nissan VH41DE... will give you your power output out of the box, its still NA, sounds beautiful, about the same weight or less than an RB(VH is an alloy engine)... and the conversion should leave change from $5K

  infamous_t said:
Nissan VH41DE... will give you your power output out of the box, its still NA, sounds beautiful, about the same weight or less than an RB(VH is an alloy engine)... and the conversion should leave change from $5K

may as well go for a VH45...

unfortunately i dont think you'd see any change from $5K unless you could do a large portion of the work yourself. i know john has easily spent more than that and he initially did it on the cheap!

  GTS4WD said:
:) Im not giving anything else away

LOL... nothing is confirmed yet. i'm waiting until after i graduate (july) - however the RB25 has fux0red it's head gasket and measurements are currently being made for the transplant hint V

the plan will also be to build the RB30 as a side project and whack on the head from the 25 - which is far more appealing to me :)

  Eug said:
  scathing said:
If the displacement is equal, you will never get a NA car to match a FI car once you start modifying both.

does F1 count? :woot:

Yes it does.

Have a look at the projected power outputs of the old 3.0L engines. Then compare it to the 1.5L turbo engines of old. NA has double the displacement, 20 years of development by some of the finest mechanical engineers, and only makes 2/3 of the power.

The 2005 3.0L F1 engine makes about 1000hp, and you know that if an F1 engine builder can't make more power out of that litrage then no-one can. There are 2JZs making significantly more power than that.

  scathing said:
does F1 count? :woot:

Yes it does.

Have a look at the projected power outputs of the old 3.0L engines. Then compare it to the 1.5L turbo engines of old. NA has double the displacement, 20 years of development by some of the finest mechanical engineers, and only makes 2/3 of the power.

The 2005 3.0L F1 engine makes about 1000hp, and you know that if an F1 engine builder can't make more power out of that litrage then no-one can. There are 2JZs making significantly more power than that.

I dont get what your trying to prove? Its obvious that your allways going to get more power out of a FI engine, but it doesnt mean you cant get decent power out of n/a.

a fairer comparison is a 1.5L boosted on 1 bar vs a 3L n/a, or a 2L boosted on 0.5 bar vs a 3L N/A, as they have the same theoretical capacity

  Quote
im gnna try and hit 120rwkw in the n/a 34, do a manual conversion...then the rest is up to my little brother who gets his license in a few years!

shouldn be easy as, it wouldn't be far off that now would it?

Edited by SKiT_R31
  SKiT_R31 said:
I dont get what your trying to prove?

Have a read through the quoted posts, and work it out.

I said that, once you start modding, a FI engine of the same displacement as NA will always make more power. Eug asked if F1 engines counted. I provided evidence that, even in F1, forced induction ruled.

  SKiT_R31 said:
Its obvious that your allways going to get more power out of a FI engine

Not to ER3425GT, who started this thread.

He said he wanted "non turbo yet equally powerful to a turbo model". I told him that, displacement for displacement (and implied mod budget for mod budget) that just wasn't ever going to happen.

If it was "obvious", he wouldn't have asked.

  SHANE666 said:
im gnna try and hit 120rwkw in the n/a 34, do a manual conversion...then the rest is up to my little brother who gets his license in a few years!

i pushing out a measely 123rwkw with my 34 n/a...its not very impressive haha.i got a straight 2.5" all the way down that gives it a good kick and some other lil things hear and there.

really want to know what engines are a good fit for skylines....other than RB's

If you want to stay NA, there's only so many engines you can choose from.

If you're looking at staying in the family, bolt in a V8. If I remember correctly, a VH45DE can be tuned to make mad power while still being NA. I'm pretty sure they'll go out to 6.0L.

Nismo's 380RS track car makes 400ps from its 3.8L engine, and the bits required to build it are available if you've got the coin. There's a company in the US that offers 4.2L crate VQs, but they're set up for FI. You could use their sleeve kit and get custom, NA-oriented, bits to obtain the same displacement but with a high compression ratio and low reciprocating mass.

Bang-for-buck for the engine itself (so ignoring the costs install said engine into the car) its hard to go past a Chev small block.

  scathing said:
Have a read through the quoted posts, and work it out.

I said that, once you start modding, a FI engine of the same displacement as NA will always make more power. Eug asked if F1 engines counted. I provided evidence that, even in F1, forced induction ruled.

Not to ER3425GT, who started this thread.

He said he wanted "non turbo yet equally powerful to a turbo model". I told him that, displacement for displacement (and implied mod budget for mod budget) that just wasn't ever going to happen.

If it was "obvious", he wouldn't have asked.

Now heres where your wrong. There is no reason why an n/a cant produce more power than a factory turbo, from your quote, you are saying that it cant happen, well it can. whats a stock rb25det got? 140rwkw? You could happily get that out of an rb25de, more even, and thats with the same capacity.

But if the question is, can a N/A produce more power than a turbo, then no, because no matter how much work you put into an n/a, the same can be done + boost imo.

as for the origional question, 180-200kw is achievable with a 3L bottom end, and with less work than people seem to think.

To be fair the RBs fail at NA. I'd be much more inclined on going a different car or going to the length of transplanting a VQ35 or something like that in it. The VQs straight off the bat make more power than any of the non-GTR turbo RBs, and respond nicely to mods. If you kept the hood down, you might even be able to pass it off as a normal NA skyline :thumbsup:

i got a non turbo and i see no point in working them unless for track work. whats the use when u can buy a turbo for nearly the same price. i few of my mates have 33's and with front mount, 12psi n a 3 inch exhaust they all made between 205-212rwkw so why bother spending thousands on less then 150rwkw

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...