Originally Posted by jdmkira

You don't really need a bigger engine. It all depends on what category you want to compete (if you plan to do it professionally or as part time).

You can get higher compression pistons with slightly bigger injectors and a custom made camshaft with, lets say, Hondata ECU and you will be running maybe low 13s.

Or if you want to make it turbo I suggest go to a race shop and talk with someone who specializes in forced induction Honda's.

Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters

You should disregard this post, especially if he thinks you're going to be running 13's in the 1/4 mile, let alone LOW 13s all motor with just a cam and pistons.

I hope he is not implying bigger injectors add power either, because the stock injectors can support ~180whp worth of airflow. Just swapping injectors does not give you an increase in power.. this isn't Forza lol

Hondata does not offer an ECU for our engines, and after having worked with more than a couple dealers they do not intend to and really have not made any concerted effort because they don't feel the market is there.

If you expect to run even 13.99 which will take a minimum trap speed of around 95mph in a Fit with 150lb driver you will need just shy of 200hp at the wheels.

This also assumes you have the running gear to cut a quick 60' time and you are awake at the tree.

That will probably require 24.5" slicks if you are doing it with the bare minimum of power and our short 1st and 2nd. On street tires at 200whp you wouldn't hook till the top of 2nd, if not when you finally grab 3rd and the clocks running the whole time

To run a 13.1 you'll be trapping around 105mph at the slowest to make up for dismal 60' and 330' times... assuming you pull off all the above you will need about 250whp.

Neither of which you will do all motor. Turbocharging can do it, but it requires not cutting corners.

The first thing you should be telling us before this discussion goes any further would be: What is your actual budget for this?

Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters

You should disregard this post, especially if he thinks you're going to be running 13's in the 1/4 mile, let alone LOW 13s all motor with just a cam and pistons.

I hope he is not implying bigger injectors add power either, because the stock injectors can support ~180whp worth of airflow. Just swapping injectors does not give you an increase in power.. this isn't Forza lol

Hondata does not offer an ECU for our engines, and after having worked with more than a couple dealers they do not intend to and really have not made any concerted effort because they don't feel the market is there.

If you expect to run even 13.99 which will take a minimum trap speed of around 95mph in a Fit with 150lb driver you will need just shy of 200hp at the wheels.

This also assumes you have the running gear to cut a quick 60' time and you are awake at the tree.

That will probably require 24.5" slicks if you are doing it with the bare minimum of power and our short 1st and 2nd. On street tires at 200whp you wouldn't hook till the top of 2nd, if not when you finally grab 3rd and the clocks running the whole time

To run a 13.1 you'll be trapping around 105mph at the slowest to make up for dismal 60' and 330' times... assuming you pull off all the above you will need about 250whp.

Neither of which you will do all motor. Turbocharging can do it, but it requires not cutting corners.

The first thing you should be telling us before this discussion goes any further would be: What is your actual budget for this?

Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters

You should disregard this post, especially if he thinks you're going to be running 13's in the 1/4 mile, let alone LOW 13s all motor with just a cam and pistons.

I hope he is not implying bigger injectors add power either, because the stock injectors can support ~180whp worth of airflow. Just swapping injectors does not give you an increase in power.. this isn't Forza lol

Hondata does not offer an ECU for our engines, and after having worked with more than a couple dealers they do not intend to and really have not made any concerted effort because they don't feel the market is there.

If you expect to run even 13.99 which will take a minimum trap speed of around 95mph in a Fit with 150lb driver you will need just shy of 200hp at the wheels.

This also assumes you have the running gear to cut a quick 60' time and you are awake at the tree.

That will probably require 24.5" slicks if you are doing it with the bare minimum of power and our short 1st and 2nd. On street tires at 200whp you wouldn't hook till the top of 2nd, if not when you finally grab 3rd and the clocks running the whole time

To run a 13.1 you'll be trapping around 105mph at the slowest to make up for dismal 60' and 330' times... assuming you pull off all the above you will need about 250whp.

Neither of which you will do all motor. Turbocharging can do it, but it requires not cutting corners.

The first thing you should be telling us before this discussion goes any further would be: What is your actual budget for this?

Originally Posted by romnick_jazz07

thanks bro can you list down those little things? i just wnt to have it part time...changing engines isnt my choice i just wnted mods to increase performance even just a bit changing cams etc...

Originally Posted by jdmkira

My 01 s2k is running 10.4 with 264whp all motor & 2790 pounds and its not running a drag setup...

Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters

And in fact you did:


So not only did you not read or understand what I wrote, but you didn't even read what you posted.

There is so much wrong with that, I'm truly impressed.

For instance:


Explain this statement. Unless you are moving enough air, in this case almost 180whp worth, to need more injector there is no reason for more.



Absolute, undiluted bullsh!t.

~2800lbs requires just shy of 490-500whp to run a 10.4-10.5 in the 1/4 mile, thats giving you the benefit of the doubt of perfect reaction time, a short 1.6-1.7 second 60 foot time and assuming traction the whole way out the back half..

You can lie to your bench racing buddies, but physics is going to bust your balls every-time. It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Save face, tuck tail and just stop.

A 2790lb car with ~265rwhp is going to trap around 105mph in the 1/4 which with a good driver, tire and suspension would put you in the high 12s at the absolute BEST.

Like 12.8s ETs





Or simply:

ET = 6.290 (weight/hp)^1/3

MPH = 224 (hp/weight)^1/3

All you've done is throw out car-related terms, but don't know what they mean or how they work with eachother.

Four injectors at 550cc/min each will support almost 450whp on gasoline at 100% duty cycle and almost 380whp at 80%, do you understand that? Even on E85 550's will support 300whp @ 100% IDC and just shy of 250 at 80%

Why then would you need that much injector for this hypothetical all motor build making 160whp when the stock injectors have a margin of safety of almost 20whp at only 80% IDC?

Originally Posted by Wanderer.

LOLWAT

Originally Posted by jdmkira

500-600whp 4200 pounds v8 9 sec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew-n...e_gdata_player

Where do you see weights listed for this car? Power?

Did you build it? Is it yours?

Other people in the comments talking about cars they've seen or allegedly own but no where do the person who posted the video offer up this info.

9.96 @ 133 in a 4200lb car through a TH400 trans has to be moving at least 775whp. That car cuts a clean, non-dramatic 60' time as well. The description says it is powered by a 555CID Big block chevy, that is almost 9.1 liters of displacement, you expect me to believe its making "500-600whp?" Get the hell out of here haha

~280whp K20:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za99...e_gdata_player

That is Norris's civic and he was making just over 410whp on that pass. I have seen this car in person at GLD.

The car has a PB of 9.1 @149.

Oh wait, here we got 225whp running 12s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqDg...e_gdata_player

Did you look at the timeslip? 12.8 @ 103 comes up at the 1000' mark, that leaves another 320ft to go.

I would bet money that this car was run on a Mustang or a Dyno Dynamics in either shitty weather and/or a high correction with that MPH at the 1000' mark. Terrible running gear setup or driver would account for the comparably high ET

12.8 seconds with a good dig and trap speed of 103mph.. boy thats awfully close to my math for power/weight huh?

This would be all.

Originally Posted by jdmkira

"Explain this statement. Unless you are moving enough air, in this case almost 180whp worth, to need more injector there is no reason for more."

Let's talk about physics then. At most, 34% of the combustion is used by the car to generate energy to power the car; the rest is lost as heat. But that doesn't say anything yet. Besides that, around 60% of the fuel (In perfectly tuned cars) actually burns the way is supposed to burn to generate any usable energy, the rest turns into aromatic compounds, and other (many) organic gases. So out of 60% of the burned fuel only 25% is used to move the components that generate power.

Bullshit figures and an elementary explanation of what's actually going on.

If you are burning fuel at lambda 1.0 like you would at idle, cruise or low load, that is a stoichiometric combustion, there is nearly no excess nor limiting reactant and almost all introduced fuel burns all available oxygen. You are mistaking parasitic losses for "fuel not burned" to account for thermal inefficiencies.

If you have to run at lambda .7 under load to slow the burn and ward off detonation, then fuel is being wasted.

Now, apparently you don't know much about N/A tuned cars. There is a big difference between N/A cars and forced induction engines. Forced induction engines power output varies a lot throughout the entire range. That is not the case with N/A cars. N/A's are able to produce more whp on low rpms than turboed cars, that is, on products or parts with similar qualities for both categories.

You clearly are mystified by both. What color is the sky in your world?

Unlike forced induction vehicles, on N/A tuned cars, they will respond to the sightless movement of the pedal. Of course, a forced induction vehicle will peak more as the turbo charges. That is the main reason why N/A cars need much less whp to run the same time on short straight tracks.

Here is a small video of a 2100 pound Honda Civic running 9s on (I believe) 340 something whp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie7pbJSnEdQ

Again that is Norris Prayoonto's Civic, it is making more than 340. Since it weighs 2160 on the scales, that would put it north It is also on full 24.5" slicks and running a PPG Dog box transmission

Why does that civic needs higher injectors and better ignition if its just running 340whp? 350cc would be more than enough if what you are saying was perfect and absolutely true. But I guess I wasted a good $600 getting 1000cc injectors for my N/A Ap1.

550cc/min would be the smallest you could use to support 340whp worth of air, any smaller and you would have to run excessively high base pressure which makes the pump work harder and current draw goes up fast.

The formulas you are using are easily googled and they are applied only when gravity, momentum, air resistance, and other variants are NOT present. It is nowhere near the real numbers. You need to come back from the moon, bud.

And actually, you cannot predict just around how much mph a "265rwhp" will be running when he finishes a pass. Red Star Motoring's s2king runs 7.61secs @160 something mph on 1200-1300rwhp, while the fastest k20 rwhp civic runs 8.2secs @181mph with ~1300whp. A local s2k owner over here runs 12.6secs with 556rwhp. I'm sorry, but you are wrong again.

The term "moving enough air" is really, really, but really, an incorrect way of saying it. You don't "move enough air", the car compresses it and burns it.

You need air to compress and burn you retard.

I did read and tried to understand everything you said, but not everything was true. As in for what I wrote, I know I did not talk clearly on my first post. But like I said, I was speaking in general terms and explained everything more "in depth" on my second comment.

Go to the track, watch a couple videos, hell... go visit some dynos and talk to experts. It does everyone good.

Originally Posted by jdmkira

You know what'd be cool? See you actually say something smart.

Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters

Where's the video of this 10sec 265whp all motor AP1?

I have a bunch of videos of circuit N/A categories but none on the 1/4. I took it once just to see how much time It'd make. I can send you all of my other track videos if you'd like, I just need to find an efficient way of sharing it with you through my smartphone. I don't know if google drive would work?

I do go to the track, I design tune and build cars for clients that would put a block on you before getting into third on street tires.

Of course.

You are a complete moron. Yes you did waste money on 1000cc injectors for a car that allegedly moves 26-27lbs/min airflow. You could've done that on 450cc/min injectors with a base fuel pressure of 43psi and a 190lph fuel pump.

There is no need for insults, we can discuss anything without them. I could had done 750c-800cc, but that's what the FPR & ECU are for. I'm wondering if Toda, J's Racing, & Spoon wasted their money on their 650cc-750cc injectors on their 315-330whp s2k's. And they are not even running 2.4L cranks! It's not the same getting, lets say, a camshaft upgrade over a piston compression upgrade, even if they both gave, hypothetically, the same amount of whp; if the engine was running on max amount of fuel pressure and flow before the upgrade, the piston upgrade would require more increase in fuel over the camshaft upgrade. No, 450cc would make my pistons run very, very dry on 13.5:1 piston compression & .620" intake lift on a 2.4L stroker. Hell, I even tried powering up the engine on 375cc/min injectors and 340lph fuel pump and it wouldn't do a thing.

Do you know what a wideband is for? It is to track the oxygen coming out of the motor in comparison to what came in and how much fuel it was met with.

Yes, I do know what a wideband is for. It simply measures the fuel/air MIX ratio in a SIMILAR but more efficient way the O2 sensor does it, but instead it shows numeric values on a tachometer.

That is why airflow is important, and why engines are rated by both mass flow and volume flow. Brake specific fuel consumption ring a bell? That is how much fuel is used to make a certain amount of power and is a measure of how much fuel it takes for that motor to make a given unit of torque. Horsepower is then derived from torque over time.

Massflow and Volume flow.. When I took "Fluids" class, we did a little work on this. Airflow is important, but like I said, the pistons compress the air; in simple terms they take the same amount of air (If you don't change the the intake manifold and/or port the head) and fit it in a smaller space so the gasoline molecules have a better chance of meeting with the oxygen molecules and more of that oxygen is actually burned and not lost through the exhaust.
Actually, no. It's not that simple about what you said "That is how much fuel is used to make a certain amount of power, etc..". Like I've said before, most of the energy used to move the crankshaft is lost. In fact, I did a simple 5 second search and I quote "Engine Losses - 62.4 percent: In gasoline-powered vehicles, over 62 percent of the fuel's energy is lost in the internal combustion engine (ICE)." (Energy Losses in a Vehicle). I remember saying 25% (maybe 30%), but that is on stock cars. On higher performance vehicles it can go up to 37.6%. That is with current technology and motor designs... that will get better in the future as technology progresses. As for the TORQUE *sigh*; torque is only related to horsepower by the applied FORCE. The way you hypothetically calculate TORQUE on an engine using a basic model crankshaft is T = F x r x sin0. That is because there is circular movement and also linear movement on a crankshaft unlike when you use a wrench, which would be something like T = F x r x m (m=place where you apply the FORCE).

This is why if I slap a small frame turbo, like a GT2554R or a VNT15, KKK-K03. IHI-RHB or a TD04-9B on a 1.5L motor I can make double the torque of your NA 1.5 through-out the middle and top of the entire rev range and depending on the compression and cam, possibly as low as right off idle too.

No, it wouldn't make more power off idle. You will probably notice the massive increase after 3.5k-4k rpms. Of course, that would be just an assumption. Real numbers would probably a lot different. Turboed engines usually graph, when measuring horsepower, in an exponential way then it stays there or goes down by a little when is nearly at redline.

And what does this shit even mean?:

Which formulas, specifically are neglecting those variables? Have you ever even taken a physics course?

Actually, I have a BA in Microbiology with minors in Pure Mathematics and Mechanical Engineering, and now I'm in 3rd year Med School. I have an old transcript saved on my computer that I could show you if you'd like, through pm.
You are using simple formulas that do not include the aerodynamics of the car and out planet's specific variables which affect how much it would take something to move from point A to point B on a given power. For example: Momentum, friction, downforce, air pressure (ATM), atmospheric flow, air velocity & direction, air density, relative humidity, angular velocity.
Lets create an example. In the case of cars, the gear ratio, flywheel, & clutch also play a really important role on how much time it takes a car with given power to get from point A to point B, even though they do not influence much on the horsepower gain or loss, they do influence on how fast the car goes up and down through the rpm range. Lets say, you are running a 20lb flywheel which gives you more torque most of the time than a lighter one and a 3.70 gear ratio and a 200rwhp @ 8000rpms setup with a huge difference in hp throughout the rpm range. But then you have this other scenario with 16lb flywheel which gives you less torque than a 20lb most of the time and a 4.40 gear ratio with 200rwhp @ 4500rpm with very little difference in hp throughout the rpm range. Which car will do a better time on the 1/4 straight mile if both cars weight nearly the same and have same aerodynamics? Of course later one will run a better time. That's what I've been trying to tell you, but you keep saying that you need X amount of whp to run X amount of time which is incredibly wrong.

I have forgotten more about motorsport than you have yet learned, you are going to great lengths here to pretend like you have some understanding of all this and are looking completely ridiculous
Of course sir.

Originally Posted by DiamondStarMonsters

You are still not talking clearly, everything I've said is true. I have the years, experience, data and results to back my shit up.

Originally Posted by jdmkira

~Read my post above.~

It's 11:00pm and I need to go to sleep, but here is something short. There is no "mystify" or anything. That statement sounds just like when a religious fanatic tries to validate his point by saying "it's written in the bible". When you make such comments, it's better if its backed up by evidence or a good theory at least. Not just plain and sarcastic statements. If I mystify myself then how is it that ~410whp (if I use the info "provided" by you) runs 9s? I have never seen a turbo 2200+ pounds car with less than 700whp run 9s.

Tsuchiya actually talks and compares N/A vs forced induction on an interview. I believe the video is on youtube, but I'm not sure.

About "moving enough air", people use that term to try and explain how the air freely moves through the combustion chamber when it doesn't. The engine's capacity of compressing the air is the only one used for the combustion reaction, while the rest is just lost through the exhaust (that aside from what I explained on my earlier post).

I did not know that K series could generate so much power on an all motor setup, I guess we learn something everyday. Where is the dyno for that? Last dyno I saw, and it was not long before that one, it was netting high ~340's whp.

Again, no need for insults.

Good night.