I kept repeating that 450whp is pretty much it on pump gas.
I also got called an idiot
I kept repeating that 450whp is pretty much it on pump gas.
I also got called an idiot
Jesus. Finally someone agrees with me.Originally Posted by Vteckidd
This has been my point over and over.
i NEVER trashed the sr20.
i simply stated that it would take more work to make more power than the other 3 motors.
again define DRAG CAR.
Nyteryders 450whp SR20 was king street car forever, was cheap to build too. Blew transmissions every few months, but those are $100.
A stock bore an stroke SR20 is a very capable motor, and probably the cheapest route to go in terms of building , parts availability, etc. But I personally would not choose that engine if money wasnt a factor. I like the RB25.
The KA isnt a bad motor, I just think it costs a lot more to build and tune than the SR.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
E85 is pump gas and people are making 650+whp on SR20s running pump gas.... stock bore and stroke.
'92 C2500 6.5 Turbo Diesel | '96 240sx
I would still rank the SR over the KA for me personally, just because of R/S ratio and some other things. But to each his own
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I understand that. that is personal preference which i said I completely agree with/understand.
I knew I was getting trolled.
Can my name be taken from the title since I'm not actually arguing in this thread ? I don't think I've said one douchebag comment yet which is surprising I know.
<3 Catnipples
Vteckidd summarized my whole argument.
is he also an idiot?
or was I right about the popularity contest?
It may not be so much that you haven't made a douchebag comment yet, as much as Nelson has stolen the spotlight with his stupidity and lack of logic.
'92 C2500 6.5 Turbo Diesel | '96 240sx
Well I won't argue unless I'm 100% right. Plus I have a sr making 356whp reliably I have nothing but positive things to say about it being I've beaten the hell out of it and it still has perfect compression. I would still choose the rb25 though. I would feel more comfortable driving a 356 whp rb25 over a sr due to the fact that for obvious reasons the bigger the motor the more it can support.
<3 Catnipples
Lack of logic and stupidity?
how many more people that know what they are talking about need to come here and agree with my original argument?
Thank You
E36- I thought you weren't afraid to speak up when you knew you were right...
Are you that afraid of Sinfix calling you an idiot?
Idiots calling other people idiots don't bother me.
<3 Catnipples
lol.
I don't see why it took 17 pages for someone worth having in the thread to come and repeat my original argument
I kept getting trolled by the same 2 people over and over.
Also, just to show that the "big boy" engines aren't always what you think is king, take some of the cars from JGTC as an example. The all-mighty Supras that ran in JGTC quite commonly used the 3S-GTE and some even used the 3UZ-FE....makes you wonder why they didn't use the 1JZ-GTE (not really all that much of a mystery). In later years, some of the GT-R teams ditched the RB for a VQ as well and in some GT-Rs, SR20s were used.
Regulations in GT500 are considerably looser than most GT classifications, and teams are free to change engines with other models made by the manufacturer, change the alignment of the engine, or add forced-induction systems to models which do not normally have it (pre-2010 when they went to 3.4L V8 engines)
02' Miata
v8's own all
/thread
I don't know a whole lot about motorsports if it's not drag racing- that's pretty cool. Never knew it!
'92 C2500 6.5 Turbo Diesel | '96 240sx
Wow last time i was in this thread, It had only 9 pages i think, dam.
GOT VTEC?
lot to respond to, let me get to work...... Spoiler alert... Nelson is still a moron.
No, you said a KA is > than an SR20.... when you were proven wrong... you started bringing up RBs. I stated from the beginning that the RB26 was superior. I've said that a dozen times over inside and outside of this thread.......
You've been walking back your KA argument and desperately clinging to hope for your argument.
YOU do not know what you're talking about. Also, youre delusional if you view anyone's response as agreeing with you. Youre clinging desperately....
I fail to understand how any engine puts any other engine to shame on a drift course. I was under the impression that drifting wasnt a race.
Reread this thread and count how many times i've said RB26>sr20.... Nelson's argument was KA>SR20 and he's been walking it back.
Also, youre judging degree of difficulty based on the engine alone, not the engine being put in the car. If you asked me chose between a sr20 powered 240 and a rb26 powered 240, id pick the rb powered 240 so fast my head would spin. if you gave me a stock 240 and then asked me which engine i wanted to put it in between a SR20 and a RB26, id chose the SR20.... obviously, since thats what i did.
My comparison of the SR20 to RB26 is more about proving the SR20's worth than it is discrediting the rb26.... nobody discredits the rb26. I've all but worshiped that engine in previous posts.....
I'm saying " hey, everyone thinks RBs are world beating powerhouses built by god himself...... you know that SR20 you think is a piece of shit.... it's records are better than the rbs..."
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 12-19-2012 at 02:54 AM.
You get called an idiot because you are an idiot. It's a waste continuing to explain this too you. You're too fucking stupid for it to ever soak in.
You questioning my intelligence gives me a laugh.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 12-19-2012 at 02:55 AM.
I chose drag racing as my measuring stick because i feel it's the purest way to judge an engine specifically. You might be able to out run me around a road course in your miata with me driving a new ZR1 corvette.... that doesnt mean the miata has a better engine. Lot of variables. Also.... im engaging Nelson in the topic he chose..... drag racing. Drifting is a non factor for me...... i look at drifting about like i do watching the harlem globe trotters.
I'm not saying the SR20 is the greatest engine in the world, my argument is that it is 100% better than the KA. My comparisons of the SR20 to the RB26 are nothing more than questioning how the RB can be so beloved and the SR so hated, when the SR has eclipsed the RB26 in some major accomplishments.
Nelson sat here and said the SR20 was the worst engine for drag racing..... when it has times faster than any rb26 on the planet...... and the KA isnt even worthy of mentioning on the professional level.
Understood. Variables indeed.
Last edited by Doppelgänger; 12-19-2012 at 07:46 AM.
02' Miata
I dont think i would ever choose a KA over an SR20, for reasons ive already stated. SR20s are not garbage, they are proven well designed platforms and easy to swap.
Sometimes you get people who want to be different and go against the norm, before they realize that the norm is the norm for a reason.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
forgot to comment on the gearing post last night. I doubt i will express my argument in it's entirety as im pressed for time and walking out the door soon.....
but in terms of drag racing or acceleration, the argument you present is correct in theory.... but it doesnt factor in mechanical limitations. One thing that makes the SR20 great is it's long smooth climb through the RPM. As the car begins to move, the stress transferred through the body lightens and during the course of acceleration the SR20 climbs in power steadily. If you launched on a 1000hp diesel engine that was geared to do 200mph, you would either A break or B have a transmission/gearbox heavy duty enough that the weight and resistance of it would hinder your speed.
The worlds fastest diesel makes 1800lbs of torque to run nearly the exact same time as the SR20 outlaw street car. The diesel is a rail. I would imagine that power plant in a real car chassis would probably spit the axles into the 7th row of the stands or do nothing but spin. Same reason that semis have so many gears.
For road racing application, those cars spend the entire race in motion. They dont deal with the initial drivetrain shock like a drag car does. As you stated previously..... if we were talking about the best engine for a different application.... IE road racing, hill climbing.. nascar or whatever..... that would completely change the argument. For the purpose of simplicity, and since it's what i know.... i'm limiting my argument to drag racing/power/acceleration
I can't really see what you're getting at there Sin. Please elaborate, specifically on the mechanical limits you mentionedBut I will make the following post to show you what I understand of gearing, power delivery, and what I tihnk you were getting to.
What I can say is engines with broad torque curves (diesel-powered drag cars & big V8 drag cars) can use 2 and 3 speed transmissions (Powerglide, for example) because they have the available torque to turn long gears. Not to mention these types of transmissions don't really multiply torque like a transmission with 5+ gears. I see the Mazworx/Micks Motorworks "S15" uses a G-force 5speed clutchless transmission. To me, that translates into the SR20 they're using simply doesn't have the available torque to run a long gear set with a minimal amount of gears. They need more gears to keep the engine in it's peak power range for maximum acceleration. Nothing wrong with that, it's just what is needed for the application. If you had a 1800ft/lb diesel engine and have it geared to go 200mph, you don't need the lower gears for torque amplification to get moving (this is the reason 18-wheels have 17 gears- not because they always need it, but to super amplify the torque to move heavy loads). If anything, in theory it would be easier to make a 18-wheeler spin tires because of how much the short gears amplify torque, but they run out of RPMs too quickly. An unloaded 18-wheeler cab can accelerate just fine with skipping/splitting gears. I'm sure QD can elaborate on just what/how many gears can be skipped when driving a cab. Point of that is, without the [heavy] load, the usable range of RPM, is longer because the amount of torque required to accelerate is less. With a heavy load, the usable RPM range is reduced because more peak torque is required and shortening (splitting and hi/low range) the gears keeps the engine in the usable RPM range. This is a direct relationship to the SR20 powered car using/needing 5 gears because it doesn't have a broad enough RPM range when making peak power to use long gears.
Going on that you said "if you were to put [a diesel engine] in a real car chassis, it would probably spit axles", is kinda void IMHO because you wouldn't use X engine on Y driveline or Y enigne on X driveline- X engine with X driveline, Y engine with Y driveline. I understand what you're getting at with shock load though- sending 1000+ft/lbs through the driveline at launch and using torque to accelerate vs 400ft/lbs at launch and using RPM generated horsepower to accelerate as available torque decreases (your statement about "the stress transferred through the body lightens and during the course of acceleration"). But the shockload might not be as bad as you're thinking because the gears aren't really multiplying the torque output through the transmission- the powerplant makes enough torque to accelerate. Shorter gears/multiple gears are used for amplifying/multiply power output because the powerplant itself does not make enough to do all the work on its own to start accelerating. I don't think there is much to get into when talking about driveline loss and required equipment to handle power either because it works both ways....if you're making big power, you need the parts that can handle it. But the less moving parts you have on the driveline, the less loss there is.
Like I said, I don't mind a civil discussion at all, nor do I mind being corrected. Heck, while typing that up, I skimmed over a few builds of drag cars, watched a video to completely understand how a semi-truck's transmission works (I knew the basics, but seeing the high range and low range being used with the splits was helpful) and saw pictures of really cool engine builds and turbo setups.
Last edited by Doppelgänger; 12-20-2012 at 10:40 AM.
02' Miata
I'll respond to this in depth when i get home tonight. Also.... forum needs more discussions like this.I can't really see what you're getting at there Sin. Please elaborate, specifically on the mechanical limits you mentioned
What I can say is engines with broad torque curves (diesel-powered drag cars & big V8 drag cars) can use 2 and 3 speed transmissions (Powerglide, for example) because they have the available torque to turn long gears. Not to mention these types of transmissions don't really multiply torque like a transmission with 5+ gears. I see the Mazworx/Micks Motorworks "S15" uses a G-force 5speed clutchless transmission. To me, that translates into the SR20 they're using simply doesn't have the available torque to run a long gear set with a minimal amount of gears. They need more gears to keep the engine in it's peak power range for maximum acceleration. Nothing wrong with that, it's just what is needed for the application. If you had a 1800ft/lb diesel engine and have it geared to go 200mph, you don't need the lower gears for torque amplification to get moving (this is the reason 18-wheels have 17 gears- not because they always need it, but to super amplify the torque to move heavy loads). If anything, in theory it would be easier to make a 18-wheeler spin tires because of how much the short gears amplify torque, but they run out of RPMs too quickly. An unloaded 18-wheeler cab can accelerate just fine with skipping/splitting gears. I'm sure QD can elaborate on just what/how many gears can be skipped when driving a cab. Point of that is, without the [heavy] load, the usable range of RPM, is longer because the amount of torque required to accelerate is less. With a heavy load, the usable RPM range is reduced because more peak torque is required and shortening (splitting and hi/low range) the gears keeps the engine in the usable RPM range. This is a direct relationship to the SR20 powered car using/needing 5 gears because it doesn't have a broad enough RPM range when making peak power to use long gears.
Going on that you said "if you were to put [a diesel engine] in a real car chassis, it would probably spit axles", is kinda void IMHO because you wouldn't use X engine on Y driveline or Y enigne on X driveline- X engine with X driveline, Y engine with Y driveline. I understand what you're getting at with shock load though- sending 1000+ft/lbs through the driveline at launch and using torque to accelerate vs 400ft/lbs at launch and using RPM generated horsepower to accelerate as available torque decreases (your statement about "the stress transferred through the body lightens and during the course of acceleration"). But the shockload might not be as bad as you're thinking because the gears aren't really multiplying the torque output through the transmission- the powerplant makes enough torque to accelerate. Shorter gears/multiple gears are used for amplifying/multiply power output because the powerplant itself does not make enough to do all the work on its own to start accelerating. I don't think there is much to get into when talking about driveline loss and required equipment to handle power either because it works both ways....if you're making big power, you need the parts that can handle it. But the less moving parts you have on the driveline, the less loss there is.
Like I said, I don't mind a civil discussion at all, nor do I mind being corrected. Heck, while typing that up, I skimmed over a few builds of drag cars, watched a video to completely understand how a semi-truck's transmission works (I knew the basics, but seeing the high range and low range being used with the splits was helpful) and saw pictures of really cool engine builds and turbo setups.
I got as far as HP per PSI in this thread, first post, line I don't know and I'm too lazy to go back... This might be an ignorant question but is HP per PSI a real worthy metric for anybody on this site or for a daily?
IMHO doing the whole comparing PSI thing is also very hard. It comes down to CFM more importantly. Unless you are comparing psi on the same setup, it really cannot be compared. PSI =\= flow. Sin's analogy of blowing through a coffee straw and a regular straw is a perfect example.
Yeah that makes sense I didn't read the thread cause of that first statement. Just seemed like a pointless comparison.
It's not a race but you don't want to follow behind when In a tandem. I've seen a ka running pretty much the same setup as a sr and putting it to shame simply because it has more low end torq (well more trq period). The sr is awesome simply because its cheap has forged internals and can with stand a good amount of boost/beating. Giving if you just add a good set of h beam rods and cp pistons to the mix for the ka you have now eliminated the weak point of the ka. Put the same turbo on both and set the psi to let's say 10. On the drift course you will notice a big difference the ka will 9/10 put 1-2 cars. Mainly that's all depends on the skill level of the drivers but I've seen this at Kms where a sr was having a very hard time keeping up with the ka. Only down fall to the ka is the reliability and the fact none of these kids dare to open it up and actual build the motor. So far I like the sr hasn't given me any issues yet just telling you what I've noticed. I've never really seen a built ka vs built sr with similar builds go at it so its harder to judge which of the two is better. Stock for stock though the sr wins hands down. I have seen some pretty quick n/a ka's make some of those guys at Kms with sr's look bad though lol.
<3 Catnipples
Anyone else find it funny that nelson was bringing up sinfix's word games, but he kept repeating the same thing by twisting the words around and using synonyms of words he had already used until someone finally agreed with his argument?
I simply cant fathom comparing engines based on a novelty "race". I understand what you're saying.... but i put no value on the results. You're intentionally making your car go around the track in a slow and inefficient manner... then comparing the ability of the engine to do this.
"word games" is moron speak and loosely translates to "what youre saying is going over my head"
Still going to respond to your larger post, havnt had much sit down time.
Reply With Quote
