This is what i havd been repeating over n over. Idk if im talking chinese to these people or what lolOriginally Posted by E36slide
This is what i havd been repeating over n over. Idk if im talking chinese to these people or what lol
I guess the size of the motor is irrelevant tho. That seems to be the smallest variable.
You lack the mental capacity to have a serious debate on this topic. You simply do not understand anything. You're redistributing something you've heard or read, you have no experience or understanding. I feel like i'm speaking French to a 7 year old Japanese kid.
You're stuck on this issue of torque..... at what point did torque become the end all of racing? My Harley has more TQ and HP than my CBR.... even weighs about the same.... Do you think putting my Harley engine in my CBR would make it faster?
A motorcycle has hardly any torque at all, yet every motorcycle on the market runs 10s off the show room floor. Why do you think that is? Obvious answer right? the weight difference. Ok, i've already attempted to explain to you the difference between torque and hp, torque is the ability to move weight.... in common terms, and hp is the ability to accelerate weight in motion. The amount of torque you need depends on the weight of the vehicle. There's no concrete evidence that suggest more torque = faster. You reach a point where enough torque is enough torque... having more of it just doesnt matter. It can even become a burden.
Please stop embarrassing yourself and let this topic die. I dont even care kid. I will probably never touch another SR20 again in my lifetime......
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 12-18-2012 at 11:08 AM.
Ideal volumetric efficiency
V_ideal = D*N/2
d= displacement
n= engine speed in rpm
so again
(ka24) 2389*7/2= 8,361.5
(rb25) 2498*8/2=9,992
(rb26) 2568*8/2=10,272
(sr20) 1998*8/2=7,992
So In order, the ideal volumetric effiency goes from sr20, ka24, rb25, rb26 (low to high)
Does this not also show that displacement is a huge factor?
Hope I used enough proof this time.
Last edited by nelson9995; 12-18-2012 at 11:29 AM.
I completely understand that tq is not everything but it definately plays a factor with equal cars. Don't try to act like it's a non factor.
I'm beginning to wonder if you completely understand anything..... at all.
Ideal volumetric efficiency
V_ideal = D*N/2
d= displacement
n= engine speed in rpm
so again
(ka24) 2389*7/2= 8,361.5
(rb25) 2498*8/2=9,992
(rb26) 2568*8/2=10,272
(sr20) 1998*8/2=7,992
So In order, the ideal volumetric effiency goes from sr20, ka24, rb25, rb26 (low to high)
Does this not also show that displacement is a huge factor?
Doesn't it also show that the other 3 motors will make more power with the same amount of work/money?
sinfix- please elaborate
Ok, so David mentions something and you go and google it attempting to sound intelligent. You've managed again to make yourself look even dumber.
Please kid, for the love of god quit embarrassing yourself. You lack the mental capacity to debate this topic...... move on. Do you not understand how stupid your little math equation is? seriously... when you typed that shit out did you really think you were making any type of point? good god man................
"Volumetric efficiency in internal combustion engine design refers to the efficiency with which the engine can move the charge into and out of the cylinders. More specifically, volumetric efficiency is a ratio (or percentage) of what quantity of fuel and air actually enters the cylinder during induction to the actual capacity of the cylinder under static conditions. Therefore, those engines that can create higher induction manifold pressures - above ambient - will have efficiencies greater than 100%. Volumetric efficiencies can be improved in a number of ways, but most notably the size of the valve openings compared to the volume of the cylinder and streamlining the ports. Engines with higher volumetric efficiency will generally be able to run at higher speeds (commonly measured in RPM) and produce more overall power due to less parasitic power loss moving air in and out of the engine.
There are several standard ways to improve volumetric efficiency. A common approach for manufacturers is to use larger valves or multiple valves. Larger valves increase flow but weigh more. Multi-valve engines combine two or more smaller valves with areas greater than a single, large valve while having less weight, but with added complexity. Carefully streamlining the ports increases flow capability. This is referred to as porting and is done with the aid of an air flow bench for testing. Another major aspect of design is to use a crossflow cylinder head, which has become the standard configuration in modern engines.
Many high performance cars use carefully arranged air intakes and tuned exhaust systems to push air into and out of the cylinders, making use of the resonance of the system. Two-stroke engines take this concept even further with expansion chambers that return the escaping air-fuel mixture back to the cylinder. A more modern technique, variable valve timing, attempts to address changes in volumetric efficiency with changes in speed of the engine: at higher speeds the engine needs the valves open for a greater percentage of the cycle time to move the charge in and out of the engine.
Volumetric efficiencies above 100% can be reached by using forced induction such as supercharging or turbocharging. With proper tuning, volumetric efficiencies above 100% can also be reached by naturally aspirated engines. The limit for naturally aspirated engines is about 137%;[1] these engines are typically of a DOHC layout with four valves per cylinder.
More "radical" solutions include the sleeve valve design, in which the valves are replaced outright with a rotating sleeve around the piston, or alternately a rotating sleeve under the cylinder head. In this system the ports can be as large as necessary, up to that of the entire cylinder wall. However there is a practical upper limit due to the strength of the sleeve, at larger sizes the pressure inside the cylinder can "pop" the sleeve if the port is too large.
Volumetric Efficiency is frequently abbreviated as "VE" when discussing engine efficiency."
THIS IS THE PART THAT MATTERS YOU MOTHER FUCKING BRAID DEAD DIPSHIT.
Nelson - "herp derp derp derp derp if i multiply the displacements by the same number i get a larger number from the larger displacements, herp derp derp derp 3 is a bigger number than 2... herp derp derp derp"
quit embarrassing yourself you stupid mother fucker
YOU FUCKING FUCKTARD!
It can be improved in a number of ways but all those 4 motors can be worked on and improved.
I KEEP REPEATING SAME WORK SAME MONEY
Meaning anything you do to raise the volumetric efficienecy in an sr20 has to be done to the other 3 motors.
You keep bringing things up that are irrelevant sinfix.
I mention something you bring a thousand obstacles on how this and that.
I keep repeating SAME WORK SAME MONEY
Does that not matter?
simple question.
Why does everyone here think you're stupid?
Are you smarter than everyone else here?
Nelson......
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"
Checkmate sinfix.
I proved why a sr20 will not make more power under the same cond. With factual number and math.
I can also prove it with ur dynosheet ans my friends stock rb25 lol.
It can also be proven in the street to bad you have nothing but a wannabe evo.
David mentioned something a few pages back that went over your head. You went and googled it and came back with a math equation that you were so proud of. Your math did nothing other than make you look like an even bigger jackass. You simply lack the mental ability to understand how what you're saying is so dumb. You cant be reasoned with. Your intelligence level just isnt up to par.
There's a reason everyone thinks you're an idiot.
probably the greatest post i've ever read
aside from anything Echo has posted, ever.
So if size, redline, and volumetric efficiency does not matter.
I see. The sr20 will win because its badass just like catnips lsx will beat anything because its badass.
Ok.
Well i am now convinced of the trolling.
You could have raced me anytime in the last 5 years. Yep.... all i have is a pretend evo...... and a CBR.... and a 2012 Harley...
You get older kid.... i'm 29 years old. Ive been drag racing since i was 16.... it doesnt make my balls tingle anymore. Maybe someday it will again, but now i need a break. You're at that age where you want to have a dick swinging contest with everything on 4 wheels.... good for you. I dont care...... Let me spoil the surprise for you, you're not the fastest car out there, not even close..... using a KA... you never will be.
I'm intellectually superior to you. That is what i came here to prove. I've done that.
This is what makes my dick hard these days......
Not this......
You do not understand the concept. Cant explain something to you that you lack the mental capacity to grasp.
I haven't raced in over a year man. Honestly.
I know ka24's aren't the shit. I honestly believe sr20's are more well rounded.
That wasn't my argument. My argument was what makes more power that is all.
You have proved that you can use better words than me and yes bring a better argument.
You have not proved why the sr20 makes more power.
I'm just going to leave the argument here.
This wasn't a dick measuring contest man at all man.
Never intended it to be, and it never was.
I dont know how it could be explained any more thorough than it already has. I will leave you with this last and final clue.....
Go look at the ETs for the fastest 4 cylinders in the world. Then ask yourself..... what do they all have in common that a KA does not.
You have no idea how to calculate volumetric efficiency.
Here is a primer:
Volumetric Efficiency:L Calculating your cars volumetric efficiency
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine...efficiency.htm
Last edited by David88vert; 12-18-2012 at 12:29 PM.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You are making an incorrect assumption in stating that any work done to one can be done to the others.
If you machine a block, you can only go so far until you reach a point where the cylinder walls are too thin, or hit a water jacket. Different blocks utilize different amounts of materials. You need to look at how far a block can be bored out safely. I am not familiar with KA, RB, and SR engines to know their maximum bore sizes, but I know that it is unlikely that all of them are the same amount.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Your math is highly flawed. That cannot be counted as "proof".
I am not saying that your conclusion is right or wrong, it is quite possible that the RB is superior to the SR, just commenting on the facts.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I agree that the RB26 is superior to the SR20.... but with an * that says that the world's fastest SR20 is faster than the worlds fastest RB26. Point being, regardless of which one your favor.... the SR20 will not sell you short on your goals, whatever they may be.
He strayed away from his KA vs SR argument and started using the RB26 as an example. SR>KA, hands down.
Rotary > All
I don't believe this to be correct lol dragging maybe but drifting no. A built ka puts a sr to shame on a drift course. If the ka had a better flowing head it be a good motor. It has a lot of low end trq which is good when drifting. I know y'all's convo is drag based.
Please continue y'all's pissing contest lol
<3 Catnipples
Damn sinfix you deserve a pat on the back or reps from everyone on this forum. You're not as dumb as you seem.Ok, so David mentions something and you go and google it attempting to sound intelligent. You've managed again to make yourself look even dumber.
Please kid, for the love of god quit embarrassing yourself. You lack the mental capacity to debate this topic...... move on. Do you not understand how stupid your little math equation is? seriously... when you typed that shit out did you really think you were making any type of point? good god man................
"Volumetric efficiency in internal combustion engine design refers to the efficiency with which the engine can move the charge into and out of the cylinders. More specifically, volumetric efficiency is a ratio (or percentage) of what quantity of fuel and air actually enters the cylinder during induction to the actual capacity of the cylinder under static conditions. Therefore, those engines that can create higher induction manifold pressures - above ambient - will have efficiencies greater than 100%. Volumetric efficiencies can be improved in a number of ways, but most notably the size of the valve openings compared to the volume of the cylinder and streamlining the ports. Engines with higher volumetric efficiency will generally be able to run at higher speeds (commonly measured in RPM) and produce more overall power due to less parasitic power loss moving air in and out of the engine.
There are several standard ways to improve volumetric efficiency. A common approach for manufacturers is to use larger valves or multiple valves. Larger valves increase flow but weigh more. Multi-valve engines combine two or more smaller valves with areas greater than a single, large valve while having less weight, but with added complexity. Carefully streamlining the ports increases flow capability. This is referred to as porting and is done with the aid of an air flow bench for testing. Another major aspect of design is to use a crossflow cylinder head, which has become the standard configuration in modern engines.
Many high performance cars use carefully arranged air intakes and tuned exhaust systems to push air into and out of the cylinders, making use of the resonance of the system. Two-stroke engines take this concept even further with expansion chambers that return the escaping air-fuel mixture back to the cylinder. A more modern technique, variable valve timing, attempts to address changes in volumetric efficiency with changes in speed of the engine: at higher speeds the engine needs the valves open for a greater percentage of the cycle time to move the charge in and out of the engine.
Volumetric efficiencies above 100% can be reached by using forced induction such as supercharging or turbocharging. With proper tuning, volumetric efficiencies above 100% can also be reached by naturally aspirated engines. The limit for naturally aspirated engines is about 137%;[1] these engines are typically of a DOHC layout with four valves per cylinder.
More "radical" solutions include the sleeve valve design, in which the valves are replaced outright with a rotating sleeve around the piston, or alternately a rotating sleeve under the cylinder head. In this system the ports can be as large as necessary, up to that of the entire cylinder wall. However there is a practical upper limit due to the strength of the sleeve, at larger sizes the pressure inside the cylinder can "pop" the sleeve if the port is too large.
Volumetric Efficiency is frequently abbreviated as "VE" when discussing engine efficiency."
THIS IS THE PART THAT MATTERS YOU MOTHER FUCKING BRAID DEAD DIPSHIT.
<3 Catnipples
I see some holes in multiple aspects of everything being stated here. Though my little bit of opinion will probably fall to the way-side, I'll post anyway.
- You cannot compare engines based on what form of motorsport they'll be used for. Some require a flexible, broad power-band and some are all about putting down maximum power as much as possible. Two extreme examples of this would be F1 and WRC. F1 uses 2.4L V8 engines and are limited to 18,000 rpm. WRC has gone gone to 1.6L engines (four cylinder) with a 34mm restrictor- these teams tune for maximum torque. Can you figure out why each of these classes have such regulations? Comparing an RB or SR or KA used for drifting and used for drag racing are two completely different arguments. I see Sin posting mostly about drag racing and the fastest Nissan powerplant being a SR and arguments that the KA and RB are used for drifting. This is simply an invalid argument. Don't worry, I'm not saying one of you is wrong over the other on this.
As far as the SR vs all debate- it's a matter of preference to me. I don't know the mechanical ability/shortcomings for the SR/KA/RB engines and which one is more cost effective to build, but I can apply what I know from what I am familiar with. I come from the Mazda world and know the BP engine quite well. It's not a great flowing engine, especially in n/a form. There are other engines out there in a similar family that are seen as the "big boys" for me, like the FE or MZ-R. But in the end, it comes down to what you like and how you make it work for you and how much you want to spend. Personally, I think the B6 (1.6 variant of my 1.8 BP) is inferior; not in build, but power potential (SR vs KA) Either engine can be built to make good, reliable power, and generally speaking, the larger displacement will always make more torque...but as Sinfix has said, torque isn't everything. So once you really start the whole a built xxx is better than a stock xxx" or "built this vs built that", everything really breaks down- the point of "building" and engine is to address the weak points associated with that engine when increasing it's power output. All engines have a point of failure once you push them past their original design specification. The SR was designed a specific way that is not related to the KA or RB. So stating "oh a KA with rods and pistons is better than a SR". Duh. You've addressed the main points of failure there...congratulations on the common knowledge. So now apply that to the SR that is so "bad" and now you can take that engine further.
Furthermore, tuning plays probably the single most important role here. One person might break a SR at 250hp and one might make 450hp all day long and beat the absolute shit out of it and never have a problem. Much of this comes down to tuning. Like I've said, I'm not well versed on actually tuning ECUs, but I understand the cause and effect of what goes into it and how very little differences make for major results.
Oh and Nelson, to answer this really fucking retarded statement-
It's called GEARING. How the fuck do you think vehicles with 3k redlines are able to do highway speeds? They are geared to use the torque curve of the engine. It's pretty fucking simple. Did you know Audi waxed ass in ALMS with a diesel powered LMP car? OMG HOW'D THEY DO THAT?!?!? DIESELS DONT REV!! Gearing- that's how. Once again, comparing race cars to street cars, there is a point where transmissions are replaced with gear seats that optimize the desired power delivery....like full on drag cars and "drift" cars. There are so many details to both sides of this thread, but when it comes down to it, all you have done is prove your lack of deductive reasoning and ability to understand.
Sin- I'm not saying you're wrong either in anyway. Clearly you understand mechanical aspects of what you're talking about, there are just a few areas of comparison in here that just cannot be done.
02' Miata
Im not gonna read it all, but if the SR20 was so amazing, Nissan would have put it into a GTR.
The reason why most people do an SR is because of the price, the availability, and the massive amount of parts support. Thats it. Its EASY to make 300whp out of an SR. Its a good reliable motor that is CHEAP and easy to install.
KA- Not a bad motor, but has to be built, hard to find with good mileage, etc
RB- Technically the 25 and 26 are VASTLY superior to the SR20 IMO, but its a much more involved swap to put those motors into S chassis. Much more expensive as well. Id rather have a SR20 over an RB20 personally as well. I think the RB20 belongs at the bottom of a river.
RB25 is my personal favorite because its a good balance between HP/Liter/Parts selection and cost. But thats just me.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
And as far as racing is concerned, it all depends on the car, motorsport, class rules, etc.
Ive seen guys drag race SRs and RBs and Ive seen guys Drift SR and RBs, just depends on personal preference.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I agree with you.
Among the sr20,ka24,rb25,rb26...
Based on what you know
In what order (out of the 4) would you pick the motor to build to have a 600whp drag car and why?
I would like to see your point of view.
Last edited by nelson9995; 12-18-2012 at 05:48 PM.
why 600whp? What chassis?
A 400whp S13/S14 can run 10s easily, its been done over and over again.
600whp, RB25 or 26 mainly from the standpoint that its much simpler to make that kind of power out of a bigger liter engine. Knowing that
Rb26
RB25
SR20
KA
reason i put KA last is because of parts availability. Its been years since i really looked but it was $$$$ for Rods,Intake manifold was custom, pistons were not cheap etc. Ive seen relatively low budget RB25 and RB26s make 400-500whp with ease. SRs 400-450 is pretty high, not so easy to cross the 500whp threshold IMO
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Intake manifolds are now being sold over the counter for it.
I recently bought wiseco pistons and eagle rods for less that $800 BRAND new online
SAME PRICE AS SR
What you stated is what I have been stating and I keep getting called an idiot.
My concern is just making more power with less work
All in an s chassis
depends on budget, depends on power goals, reliability etc. People toss around the term drag car like it means something, then get upset when the 500-600whp motor pops.
realistically i would shoot for 400whp. With 400whp you have a 10 second car, and youll break more things than you know what to do with.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I completely agree with you here also.
I got ridiculized because everyone states that size does not matter.
I was told that the sr being 2.0, the ka being 2.4, the rb being 2.5/2.6 has no effect on how much power it can make.
I was also implied that 600whp is a rb26 and 600whp in an sr is not much different.
Now i'm confused.
Am I really a moron? or am I being trolled?
Just to clear up the initial arguement, you would agree building an SR20 at stock bore/stroke in an S13, could be a very successful drag car?
'92 C2500 6.5 Turbo Diesel | '96 240sx
I can see what Sinfix point is, hes advising you not to trash the SR motor because its more than capable of doing what you want.
However, you guys need to learn what Volumetric Efficiency is and what it means in relation to making peak torque or power. Its much easier to achieve power with a bigger motor, provided you can reach peak VE of course.
TECHNICALLY a 600whp SR vs a 600WHP RB26, which one is faster? Assuming all things are equal (which they arent), rev line, gearing, turbo size, etc, the RB26 makes the power much EASIER because its a bigger engine, it prob operates at less VE % than the SR20 as well.
This doesnt mean bigger is better, and it doesnt mean smaller is better, or than an RB26 is superior. It just means in general terms, the bigger motor makes the power easier, all things being equal.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Reply With Quote
