Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

If there was 2.75" i'd definately get that.

2.5" has very linear power from low to high. Gives more precise throttle adjustment/levels too. Revs faster or more responsive. Lacks the kick in power and i'm guessing max power compared to 3" by feel.

3" is pretty empty down low but is a blast at high rpm (5k and over) like VTEC just kicked in yo. Lack of back pressure makes the throttle feel weak at low RPM and not very precise. Feels like it has more top end power than 2.5".

This is from a guy who just got his cat back changed today.

This is a race car though, and the way to do a race car exhaust is just dump the exhaust primary's into the biggest bastard exhaust system you can fit under the car, who cares if the car feels a bit weak driving around the pit garages, the actual exhaust pipe has very little to do with how the car makes power, thats all in the primaries ala extractors.

I think you should go RB30 with a stroker crank. Spool have a 3.4L option (or you could go custom) along with max oversize pistons. It will limit your revs to about 8000rpm but is a better option, and would sound tough. If people can and have hit 170's and 180's with relatively mild builds (mild in comparison to what is possible and how spastic you can go with cams, revs and even compression) 200kw with a 3.4 (or possibly 3.5 combined with max oversize??) should be similarly achievable providing you can get it to flow the air.

Edited by SKiT_R31
This is a race car though, and the way to do a race car exhaust is just dump the exhaust primary's into the biggest bastard exhaust system you can fit under the car, who cares if the car feels a bit weak driving around the pit garages, the actual exhaust pipe has very little to do with how the car makes power, thats all in the primaries ala extractors.

Yes, but as the exhaust diameter told me, depending on how much power you make or mods, a bigger exhaust diameter will push the powerband higher but thinner so a compromise is a must. Also with the lack of back pressure, the throttle feel was on or off which I don't think is good for racing.

EDIT: There was a VERY noticeable difference in power with 75% throttle and 100%.

Edited by TyresBro
I think you should go RB30 with a stroker crank. Spool have a 3.4L option (or you could go custom) along with max oversize pistons. It will limit your revs to about 8000rpm but is a better option, and would sound tough. If people can and have hit 170's and 180's with relatively mild builds (mild in comparison to what is possible and how spastic you can go with cams, revs and even compression) 200kw with a 3.4 (or possibly 3.5 combined with max oversize??) should be similarly achievable providing you can get it to flow the air.

This does sound good but I want to keep in the under 3L class.

Does anyone have any idea on the price of getting a serious NA head built, excluding head as I already have that.

I hevent read th thread.

But in my opinion, the benefits you will gain from using a 26 head a not worth spending the extra money as opposed to a 25 head.

26 head = ~ 2K

25 head = ~$500

Take the difference in $1500 and spend it on the engine.

As far as I am concerned. Power figures when it comes to NA engines are dependent on 2 things:

1) intake runner length

2) compression ratio

my advise. If you want good power figure (throwing out drivablility):

Reduce weight: lighten the bottom end, balance it, lighten the box (including clutch and flywheel) driveshafts/s and diff (spool diff would be nice) this will let the engine rev harder and faster.

Tune runner length: the shorter the the intake runner length (yes, ITB's ARE worth it!!!!) the narrower the power band will be, the higher in the rev range it will be, but the more power it will produce. this is ESSENTIAL to get right with the next step

Cam profile: You want a nice healthy valve overlap to get as much fresh air into the engine as possble. Cam lift and duration will be dependent on alot of factors including the runner length, volume of the engine and ecu tune.

Exhause manifold: No. Coby extractors will not do the job properly. Get it built from scratch, get it tuned right (spend the 1.5K difference here and the ecu, and ITB's, the benifits will far outweigh a 26 head!!!!)

the right Juice: tune with and run E85 (you will have to use e85 friendly fuel system - or drain it after every drive) 109 octane etc. for best results

200NA kw is easily acheivable.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...