11-26-2008, 11:03 PM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nashotah, WI
Posts: 207
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
So, that said, 25% more power is nothing.. in fact, my car has 25% more power just based on estimates from 0-60 times than it did stock. Counting my car's weight loss, I still say it's not quite 25%, but I'm sure I went from 92HP to around 115-120 at least, considering that I can beat a stock CR-X Si, but only by a few feet
|
So Christ you have a dyno to prove all this?
__________________
"The Stone Age did not come to an end because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will not come to an end because we have a lack of oil" ; His Excellency Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani (Saudi Arabia Oil Minister from 1962 to 1986)
https://ecomodder.com/forum/em-fuel-...ehicleid=10608
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
11-26-2008, 11:38 PM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
Moderate your Moderation.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919
Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi 90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
|
Nope, just standard common sense. If a CRX Si weighs ~1900 lbs, and has 108 HP, with shorter gears, and my car weighs around 1900 lbs also, is less aero, and has longer gears, I must have more power, considering that my engine is smaller than that of an Si, but has pretty close to the same torque curve in stock form.
The fact that I can only beat said car by a few feet, (~half car) tells me that I don't have alot more horsepower than that car, since we're both still sub-95mph in the 1/4 mile.
Based on that, I ESTIMATE around 115-120HP from my engine. Issue?
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
|
|
|
11-26-2008, 11:40 PM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
Moderate your Moderation.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919
Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi 90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
|
As far as proving that my car's engine could make 200 HP streetable, (a 100% increase in HP), well, use google. I don't feel that I should have to prove what others have proven so many times.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
|
|
|
11-27-2008, 02:52 AM
|
#24 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,479
Thanks: 201
Thanked 262 Times in 199 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dichotomous
yes, especially for lower rpm torque, make the exhaust bigger.
|
Hmm?? Are you sure?
From what I have read about naturally-aspirated engines, making the exhaust primaries narrower and longer will help with the low-end torque. Narrower and longer pipes are better at promoting flow velocity, but worse for sheer volume of flow. And long primaries (how long? dunno!) can set up the resonance to better evacuate the chamber at lower RPMs than sort primaries.
There is also the effect of any secondary pipes after the collector for the primaries (if you're doing a 4-2-1 header), and of course that of the pipe after the final collector, but they get less and less important the further out you get from the exhaust valve.
Then again, this is all book-learning. And especially when it comes to fluid dynamics, reality can hold an awful lot of surprises that aren't in books...
-soD
|
|
|
11-27-2008, 10:11 AM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 284
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ
As far as proving that my car's engine could make 200 HP streetable, (a 100% increase in HP), well, use google. I don't feel that I should have to prove what others have proven so many times.
|
I should've said unboosted... 25% increase NA takes some doing on Honda's higher performance engines, using normal gas, etc. Intake and exhaust are not going to do get anywhere near that, even "chipped" it would be hard to get near that using normal gas.
A buddy had the civic si with the 160hp 1.6L, 100hp/L is very impressive!!! The car was fairly fast but its the 9000rpm wail that I remember.
Ian
__________________
|
|
|
11-27-2008, 10:36 AM
|
#26 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
If you are really looking to gain HP/MPG like as is said above the best method without touching the engine is to take the pipes run 4-1 then say3-4 feet from the engine total length of pipe chop them off.
Most cars that do this angle the exhaust to the passenger side(although if your exhaust ports are closer to driver side then thats adviseable) so it doesn't muck-up the underside of their car with soot. They manufacture vents that go onto the side(on the fender behind the wheels) so that the gases clear the car and avoid getting exhaust all over your paint. Although. . .the gases are accelerating for 18 inches outside the engine so, its safe to say as long as the pipe gets to the edge of the car the gases will clear your profile if the pipes are only 3-4 feet long.
|
|
|
11-27-2008, 01:23 PM
|
#27 (permalink)
|
Ecoformance Engineer
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 239
EJ7 - '96 honda civic Hx Last 3: 58.02 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
I would have to say a 4-2-1 design is the most efficient design due to less negative interaction between pulses that fire close together
Also if you look @ highly efficient turbo setups, they all use divided housings and manifolds. On a inline 4 the pairing would go 1-4, 3-2. And also on a turbocharged car the rule of thumb is go as big as possible on exhaust size to minimize backpressure on the turbine.
Mine is 3"
__________________
70 mpg or die modding
www.full-race.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
looking forward to seeing what kind of uber-sipper slinks out of the full race skunkworks.
|
|
|
|
11-27-2008, 02:12 PM
|
#28 (permalink)
|
Moderate your Moderation.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919
Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi 90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
|
Going completely N/A on one of Honda's PERFORMANCE engines is a completely diff story...
I can get alot of power out of a standard fuel sipping engine without actually doing much.. most times, a cam, I/H/E combo will seriously open it up.
Performance engines on the other hand, are a different beast... engines like the F20C, which held (holds?) the title for most horsepower output per liter, are a tough act to follow, at least without swapping parts around from other engines, messing with compression alot, etc.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
|
|
|
11-27-2008, 02:28 PM
|
#29 (permalink)
|
Ecoformance Engineer
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 239
EJ7 - '96 honda civic Hx Last 3: 58.02 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
imo all of honda's engines are performance engines, even our despised SOHCs
jdm d15b 3 stage vtec = 87 hp per liter N/A
And that engine also utilizes vtec-e and has the ability to be tuned to lean burn for afr's around 22-25:1 low load cruising for uber economy
If you want power you need to have forced induction, I/H/E aren't even worth it for n/a imo. Why spend all that money for maybe 25hp when for about the same price you can piece together a turbo setup that will double your stock number while upping the overall efficiency of your engine and allowing you to run longer gears.
And stock d series rods are fine to 250whp
__________________
70 mpg or die modding
www.full-race.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
looking forward to seeing what kind of uber-sipper slinks out of the full race skunkworks.
|
|
|
|
11-28-2008, 11:12 AM
|
#30 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: vermont
Posts: 142
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by some_other_dave
Hmm?? Are you sure?
From what I have read about naturally-aspirated engines, making the exhaust primaries narrower and longer will help with the low-end torque. Narrower and longer pipes are better at promoting flow velocity, but worse for sheer volume of flow. And long primaries (how long? dunno!) can set up the resonance to better evacuate the chamber at lower RPMs than sort primaries.
There is also the effect of any secondary pipes after the collector for the primaries (if you're doing a 4-2-1 header), and of course that of the pipe after the final collector, but they get less and less important the further out you get from the exhaust valve.
Then again, this is all book-learning. And especially when it comes to fluid dynamics, reality can hold an awful lot of surprises that aren't in books...
-soD
|
right, I figured he ment soften the torque low down. thats what I was refering to. My car has slightly less down low torque now, at least I think, it drives smoother and pulls lower though, used to not have any ability to drive under 40mph in 5th (2,000rpm) but now I can climb hills at 30 in 5th (around 1,400-1500) so maybe its more?
but, I do have a full race header, very long primaries which are steped up along the way at specifice points, then longish secondaries (4-2-1). every tube is much bigger than stock though, which really uncorks the engine in the upper RPMS, the 421 and long primaries help with the midrange and lower, but they still arent as good as stock.
as far as dyno runs, no, I dont, I havent messed with the computer so I havent. however, there are many many people who have on my car with the same or similar mods done, and almost as a rule, raceheader/full exhaust/intake/no tuning will net you 150-165hp (depending on which parts you use and where you are driving[temps and such]) and with tuning it will jump to fairly constant upper 160's and mid 170's, though one guy got up to 180 with just intake and full exhaust with tuning. bone stock dynos usually end up 130-140hp (160 crank advertised). this is for the k230a3, the k20a2(orz1.z3) will go from 160hp stock to over 200hp (wheels) with those same bolt ons and tuning.
__________________
|
|
|
|