[MANDALAY]

I would much rather look at your fabrication pictures and design than read all this dribble Mandalay honestly......

Ild rather you not look at my work a stay on your ____ forum and pat each other

 

[Jared]

What is the logic for stating 120% VE is the max that can be accomplished? PRety sure the 4ag formula atlantic motors beat that VE easily. Also why the 8500 RPM limit for streetable cars? Stock honda and toyota motors go there. Lotus went past there with the same exact 2zz that the celica got.

K20 beats most other NA motors because it has VVT and lift/vtec. Vary valve timing to keep dynamic compression ratio manageable at lower RPM's, but take advantage of it at higher RPM's, especially combine with the larger lobe that increases lift and duration, ie full race spec cams in a street able car.

 

[nuk1ear]

In the s2000 world making 220whp isnt very hard with a decent cat back+test pipe. So thats only 20whp below what your experts told you. Also, regarding strokers, theres a 2.7 F20 stroker being developed, currently dynoing at 380hp NA, they say they want 400 hp before they release it tho.

 

[MANDALAY]

Performance of an engine is a function of its effeciency or volumetric effeciency.
With a N/A on 98/E85 the best VE THAT can be achieved is 120%
That means that the max torque for an optimized race engine we can use a simple formula to calculate max that an engine will produce
Torque=engine capacity ( liters ) *120=Nm
That is the best period. Done care who designs it or builds the engine.
Engine friction will reduce torque also so you may never reach 120% of torque at the Flywheel

 

[MANDALAY]

Lets look at somacing engines

F1 3.5 l @16,000 =3.5*120*16,000/7120 = 943 EHP
F1 3L@19,000 = 3*120*19,000/7120 = 961 EHP
This clearly shows lowering cc and increasing reve = nearly the same

F1 2.4L @19,000 = 2.4 *120*19,000/7120 = 769 EPH
Clearly a reduction in power

MOTO GP

990 @16,000 =.99*120*16,000/7120 =266 EHP

NASCAR
6L@9,000 = 6*9,000*120/7120 = 910 EHP

v8 SPORTS
6L @ 8,000 = 6*120*8,000/7120 = 809 EPH

SUPER TOURER
2L@8,500 = 2*120*8,500/7120 287 EPH

That is it. Anyone care to dispute these figures ?

Now unless you have a well breed F1 engine which have drive train losses of around 7% you will more than likely have 15%
.

So your 2 liter engine is going only to be max 240 RWHP at 8,500 rpm. THATS IT Please if you wish to propose counter arguments they will be well recieved

Smart arse comments are not required move elsewhere.

You require bigger engine / higher revs and ethanol

The Honda are massaged into 2.7 liters and higher reving.

One another note if the torque is falling off you can calculate backwards again and get the best possible power figure. No CHEATING HERE.
Please show me a dyno run with torgue curve of a N/A 2 LITRE engine on 98/E85 and lets see.

 

[MANDALAY]

Lets say we have a 5S 2.2 Liter rev it to 10,000 and the torque isnt trailing off

2.2 @10,000 = 2.2*120*10,000/7120 = 370 EHP OR 315 RWHP or 235 kws at the wheels

2. @ 10,000 = 2*120*10,000/7120 = 337 EHP or 286 RWHP or 214 kws

Anything more under these set parameters is just BS

 

[Texas_Ace]

The real world disagrees.

Real world > paper numbers all day long.

You also still have yet to address how compression ratio can add power if by increasing it you are reducing VE? Or any of the other half dozen things I pointed out earlier that fly in the face of your logic.

 

[MANDALAY]

Well i say your wrong and disagree. Show me a dyno with the torque and then tell those guys who have done it to show their figures to any Merc , Ferrari, Maclaren F1 team and I'm 100% sure they will get employed.

The only Beams high power dyno has been posted but i do not wish to embarrass high and calculate his real figure as his dyno is calculated to be fudged.

 

[Texas_Ace]

Well i say your wrong and disagree. Show me a dyno with the torque and then tell those guys who have done it to show their figures to any Merc , Ferrari, Maclaren F1 team and I'm 100% sure they will get employed.

The only Beams high power dyno has been posted but i do not wish to embarrass high and calculate his real figure as his dyno is calculated to be fudged.

Like I said from the start, a single dyno, yeah I could say it was untrustworthly. A few non-dynojet dynos, I could say the same. Your comment about dyno fudging is a perfect example of why I don't trust anything but dynojets which CAN NOT be fudged.

But countless dynojet dynos saying the same thing? Sorry, real world outweighs paper.

I don't care about the beams, have yet to see anything worthwhile from them. I am talking about hondas which are the king of consumer grade NA power.

Like was said above if stock S2000's are making 220whp with just an exhaust, are you honestly gonna tell me that you can't get anymore power out of it?

Like I have said over and over, VE means little in the big picture. The efficiency that you use the air you are given and resonance tuning all come into play for much larger changes in power.

For example in a well tuned honda setup you can see as much as 10psi+ of pressure at the intake valve due to resonance tuning on a completely NA engine.

You STILL have not explained how compression ratio can give you more power when it reduces your VE if indeed all that matters is VE. Or how ceramic coatings can effect power when they have zero effect on VE.

Or heck how does the tune effect power, by your standards any tune will make the same power if the VE is the same. Doesn't matter if it is 8:1 AFR or 16:1, 5 degrees of timing or 35 degrees. VE is all that matters when making power.

Lastly have you see the times that hondas are running NA? The track times backup the power they are making.

You can believe paper numbers, we are free to believe whatever we want. I like basing my opinions on real world facts though.

 

[MANDALAY]

Nothing you have posted has been ignored at all.

Bikes like the moto GP that i have already shown rev to 16,000 rpm. Im sure you are going to show me a car that does ?

We are talking 2 liters not V8's

In actual fact a 4 valve V8 will have no advantage over a 2 valve V8 with the same engine size and rev range.

Why dont you ask a real racing 2 liter team and see.

As far as real world as you say they are played dyno charts.

F1 charts are very hard to question. N/A's are really easy.

Without mentioning the member.

His chart shows max torque at 7,000 rpm.
Lets assume he reached 120%VE because his engine is perfect, but in reality it will be less.
2*120=240Nm
Now the torque dropped to 93% of maximun at 8486 rpm the engine had a potential at best at 8486 rpm.
So we get 240*,93 = 223 Torque ENm

ehp=223Nm*8486/7120=266EHp/198ekw
whp=266*.85 ( coservative 15% loss drive train )= 226whp or 168rwkw

That is the figure.

To achieve 186 Rwkws as posted it HAS to rev to 9314 rpm.
Does it ? I havent seen any dynos

 

[MANDALAY]

Like I said from the start, a single dyno, yeah I could say it was untrustworthly. A few non-dynojet dynos, I could say the same. Your comment about dyno fudging is a perfect example of why I don't trust anything but dynojets which CAN NOT be fudged.

But countless dynojet dynos saying the same thing? Sorry, real world outweighs paper.

I don't care about the beams, have yet to see anything worthwhile from them. I am talking about Honda's which are the king of consumer grade NA power.

Like was said above if stock S2000's are making 220whp with just an exhaust, are you honestly gonna tell me that you can't get anymore power out of it?

Like I have said over and over, VE means little in the big picture. The efficiency that you use the air you are given and resonance tuning all come into play for much larger changes in power.

For example in a well tuned honda setup you can see as much as 10psi+ of pressure at the intake valve due to resonance tuning on a completely NA engine.

You STILL have not explained how compression ratio can give you more power when it reduces your VE if indeed all that matters is VE. Or how ceramic coatings can effect power when they have zero effect on VE.

Or heck how does the tune effect power, by your standards any tune will make the same power if the VE is the same. Doesn't matter if it is 8:1 AFR or 16:1, 5 degrees of timing or 35 degrees. VE is all that matters when making power.

Lastly have you see the times that hondas are running NA? The track times backup the power they are making.

You can believe paper numbers, we are free to believe whatever we want. I like basing my opinions on real world facts though.

There isn't a single Honda that is running a 2 liter class over here.

Show me a dyno and not on a Dyno Jet.r Regardless ild much prefer as i quoted real F1 figures and their calculations
I'm talking about a perfectly tuned engine.

As i have said rpm WILL change the figure higher and thats where the Honda engine excels and also they can bore to 2.7 liters.

Given those 2 items they can get close to 350.

If you think you could and i reckon your not interested maybe you should join a F1 team. They will love you.

 

[Texas_Ace]

Nothing you have posted has been ignored at all.

Bikes like the moto GP that i have already shown rev to 16,000 rpm. Im sure you are going to show me a car that does ?

We are talking 2 liters not V8's

In actual fact a 4 valve V8 will have no advantage over a 2 valve V8 with the same engine size and rev range.

Why dont you ask a real racing 2 liter team and see.

As far as real world as you say they are played dyno charts.

F1 charts are very hard to question. N/A's are really easy.

Without mentioning the member.

His chart shows max torque at 7,000 rpm.
Lets assume he reached 120%VE because his engine is perfect, but in reality it will be less.
2*120=240Nm
Now the torque dropped to 93% of maximun at 8486 rpm the engine had a potential at best at 8486 rpm.
So we get 240*,93 = 223 Torque ENm

ehp=223Nm*8486/7120=266EHp/198ekw
whp=266*.85 ( coservative 15% loss drive train )= 226whp or 168rwkw

That is the figure.

To achieve 186 Rwkws as posted it HAS to rev to 9314 rpm.
Does it ? I havent seen any dynos

Yes, you have ignored all the important points. Also when you first started this debate you said that revving over 8500rpm would not gain you anything worthwhile but now you say it will? Got to stay consistent if you want people to think you know what you are talking about.

Also, I have said multiple times that a single dyno I could dismiss, I also do not care what the beams has or has not done. I have never even mentioned it because there is not even close to a large enough sample size to know anything for sure.

Hondas on the other hand have a MASSIVE sample size and they all say the same thing, more then 240whp is easy with the right build. We are not even talking all out ITB, race gas only cars.

Dynojets CAN NOT be adjusted, manipulated or fudged, whatever they say, is good enough for me. Other dynos, I could care less what the numbers are no matter what we are talking about, they are just a rough guess.

While the honda may not be a big racer over there, they are huge over here (much to my dismay) and they consistantly turn over these numbers from tons of dynos all over the country. Sorry, WAY too much data to be ignored.

Also most cars over here are built as street/drag cars, not track cars. There are different builds for road racing then drag racing. Don't see many road race cars running 17:1 compression ratio for example. That is meaningless for this subject though, you are saying that under no circumstances, no matter what, an NA 2.0l can not make more then 240whp, or 120whp/liter. Which is blatantly false.

Here is some of the stuff you have ignored.

Like I have said over and over, VE means little in the big picture. The efficiency that you use the air you are given and resonance tuning all come into play for much larger changes in power.

For example in a well tuned honda setup you can see as much as 10psi+ of pressure at the intake valve due to resonance tuning on a completely NA engine.

You STILL have not explained how compression ratio can give you more power when it reduces your VE if indeed all that matters is VE. Or how ceramic coatings can effect power when they have zero effect on VE.

Or heck how does the tune effect power, by your standards any tune will make the same power if the VE is the same. Doesn't matter if it is 8:1 AFR or 16:1, 5 degrees of timing or 35 degrees. VE is all that matters when making power.

Lastly have you see the times that hondas are running NA? The track times backup the power they are making.

 

[MANDALAY]

With the reving i ment slighly over not 9,000 plus and certainly not 16,000 rpm.

Dyno's ? where ive gone thru the biggest Honda forum Dyno charts and there isnt ONE 2 liter to justify your claim.

And if there is, its really convenient that the torque figure ISNT posted.

Please enlighten me and show me one.

My calcutions are based on a perfectly tuned engine that has all the lowering as possible coating to reduce drag

 

[Texas_Ace]

With the reving i ment slighly over not 9,000 plus and certainly not 16,000 rpm.

Dyno's ? where ive gone thru the biggest Honda forum Dyno charts and there isnt ONE 2 liter to justify your claim.

And if there is, its really convenient that the torque figure ISNT posted.

Please enlighten me and show me one.

My calcutions are based on a perfectly tuned engine that has all the lowering as possible coating to reduce drag

I am not on the honda boards and don't have those dyno cataloged like I do some other cars. I simply don't care enough about them (Like I said, not a fan of NA power) I do pay attention though and have seen plenty of dynos over 240whp over the years.

S2000's are 2.0l, they regularly dyno 210-220whp with an exhaust/intake. They are only 11:1 compression ratio. They only rev to 8500rpm.

So the fact is that if we up the compression ratio to 17:1 we just gained ~24% power from 210whp. Bam, 260whp.

Then run it on methanol and you gain another ~4% power (most likely have to anyways for that kind of compression ratio, or E98). There, 270whp without modding the VE of the engine in ANY way and actually reducing it. It simply does not mesh with your logic.

While the exact number may not be exact it is a heck of a lot more then 240whp no matter how you look at it.

Your calculations do not take into account anything of the sort. It is impossible to do that because just using a different brand coating can effect power. The same coating on different engines will have a different effect on power.

It is also impossible to calculate on paper (at least with the amount of numbers you had, maybe if you had a super computer working on the issue and then it would only apply to that particular engine/setup) what the efficiency of the engine is going to be for ALL 2l engines ever made. It can not be done.

You still ignore compression ratio, it reduces VE yet gives you more power. How is that possible?

If you were to say that getting more then 240whp is very hard with an 8500rpm redline, on a 2.0l with a max compression ratio of 13:1. Then yeah I might let that slide. To say it is impossible no matter what you do, when it has been done. That is not so ignorable.

There are simply no hard facts like that when it comes to engines. Everything is always being pushed further.

 

[MANDALAY]

Show me a single , just one and only one gragh of a 9000 rpm 2 liter engine Honda or any other with 12 C:R and not running ethanol WITH Torque plot.

Gee even show me the biggest number on a N/A 2 or over bored 2.2 litre Toyota engine.

Then also show me a single , by your theoretical 17:1 engine running ethanol and especially on a street
Look at the thread started its K27 not 2 liter

 

[MANDALAY]

As far as my comment impossible i can see how that might rub you up the wrong way but i believe the F1 cars are takong it to the extreme as far as N/A engines go and their figures dont lie.

What gets my ghost is claims of certain people that are quoting over 300 rwhp with 2 liters on a track car

Pushing the envelop of a N/A engine is hard , really hard thats why i do admire the people that are will to do that, e.g Easy and the starter of this thread.

I considered it at the beginning and was shown what a really great 2 liter engine can do and was convinced to go FI as it would be a fraction of the cost and net me more. I love a N/A and to that effect thats why i chose the particular FI that i have gone with

Just easier to add FI

 

[Texas_Ace]

I sent a PM to someone that should be able to get you some dynos, we will see if he pops in, I refuse to go onto the honda sites, you can feel your IQ drop by the second when there.

There are hondas running more then 17:1 compression ratio even, they are not myth. Takes a lot of work to do it though. I have heard rumors of upwards of 20:1 compression ratio.

The problem with these motors is they are reserved for the hardcore racers and they don't post dynos as much as normal people so got to know where to look to find them. I have seen a few but am not even gonna try to find them again.

Also, to put things in perspective, I can 100% guaranty you, without a single doubt, that I could make WAY WAY more then 240whp on a 2.0l NA revving to 8500, heck would not even need that much. And I would only run stock compression ratios as well.

2.0l + nitromethane = Slaughtering your theories. Also not effecting VE at all.

Calculations can NOT take all possibilities into account, it is impossible. Years ago they thought that 1hp per CI was the max you could get NA, well we know that is not even close to true now.

Nothing is impossible if you put your mind to it.

Also like I said earlier, your static VE really has very little to do with modern engines. A honda with a properly tuned manifold can have 10psi of pressure at the intake port which can make the VE go up dramatically and dynamically.

I am still almost positive that the old Hemi heads flowed in the range of 140% VE, showing there is truly nothing set in stone with engines.

I think your biggest problem is using Toyota NA heads as the basis of your opinion. If there are really no hondas over there as competition then you have no basis for comparison and as such you do not even close to have all the data.

For all I know the beams head could be limited to 240whp, Doubtful but possible. There is not anywhere close to enough data on it to know for sure. If they are making 240whp with only 13.5 compression ratio though, I guaranty you there is more power to be had with more compression.

You still have yet to address how compression ratio can give you more power when it reduces VE.

 

[eazy2001x]

Wow.. This thread has changed direction... I have a few friends with 2.0 Hondas... Ill see if I can get them to send me a dyno chart.. One of my boys a town away is running a ls-vtech and hitting 11.3 in the 1/4 na.. He has a few YouTube videos. He is running on e85 and if i remember he is over the 240 mark. Ill get back to you once he responds. Im not doubting anything. I just seen way too many Honda boys making 300+ locally on na and have been following their thought process for a while now.

Oh.. N thanks for the comment MANDALAY... I admire me too sometimes.. Im my own cheerleader of my own football team sometimes.. But it does not make me quit.. Lets see what I can do on my next na build on the e153 trans. It sucks cause I would prob make more power on the s54 n be faster but I rather compare with turbo numbers.

Also even with my choked engine.. 180whp is still putting down more power than a stock beams engine to the wheels. But thats another story.. Ill get back to u..

 

[Fobangn]

I'm not gonna read all of this, but I'll tell you this. Anybody who thinks it's impossible to achieve more than 240whp n/a out of a 2 liter is just about second to retarded. I've had friends get 215 whp out of 2.0 liter b-series motors using all stock mix match parts built in a shade tree garage. A well built, high reving N/A motor can see pressure waves due to resonation effects creating as much as 10 psi positive pressure at the back of the intake valve. Also, it doesn't take a genious to understand that torque x rpms equals hp. Theoretically, if you could turn a 2.0 liter 20,000 rpms, it would easily piss out 240 whp. It would only need to make 75 ft-lbs of tq to make 240 whp

 

[Fobangn]

.



Also like I said earlier, your static VE really has very little to do with modern engines. A honda with a properly tuned manifold can have 10psi of pressure at the intake port which can make the VE go up dramatically and dynamically.

Ha I just read this after I posted it. We must read the same books. LOL