Westrock2000

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I guess because I work on people's cars allday everyday I prefer to have my car in one piece so I can drive it.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yup! My wife asked me why I didn't ever try to get into an automotive career....I told her you never make your hobby your job.

Top Ramen

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Westrock2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There are only a couple poeple that have actually ripped into the engine. So there is not alot of experience there. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Been there, done that (several times). There is nothing magic about the motor. It was the same as going through anything else. Just a slightly better than average starting point. Its really not a hard motor to work on at all. Did it so many times, a friend and I can drop the motor and have the heads off in four hours. Even gave Jon Concialdi some input when he was designing the AEM motors.

Westrock2000

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Top Ramen &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Been there, done that (several times). There is nothing magic about the motor. It was the same as going through anything else. Just a slightly better than average starting point. Its really not a hard motor to work on at all. Did it so many times, a friend and I can drop the motor and have the heads off in four hours. Even gave Jon Concialdi some input when he was designing the AEM motors.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ya like I said its a pretty nice V6, especially when you bore the bejesus out of it. And it sounds like alot of the kinks have been worked out on the AEM and there is enough of a user base to actually get support.

I was looking at those beautiful (Audi) Avants, the A6 and S4 that have the 2.7 twin turbo. Man that is pretty nice stout V6....easily get 400HP out of it, not to mention the AWD. The only problem is the 3700lbs thats attached to it.

Zahntech

No!!!! the problem is it was designed by the Germans!!...The Germans have done an excellent job of confusing Complexity with Quality.

Yesterday I had a customer call that has an A4 ..his wipers have been not working intermittently for a while...he said he tried them yesterday morning and when he turned them on the wipers did to come on.but....the Air Bag light did!!


This is very typical of Audis.

I have about 10 A4 customers that come in just about every month for check engine or other lamps on or systems that quit working.

Gotta love "German engineering"

pos_cd5

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Gotta love "German engineering" </TD></TR></TABLE>

is it really fair to make that statement based on bad experiances with a handfull of audi A4s?

Zahntech

That's just the tip of the iceberg, how about the Service bulletin on 2001 Jetta/Golf that states

"If you have a customer complaint of excess oil usage it may be due to a certain number of 2.0l engines that had the piston rings installed in an inverted fashion at the factory...please compare engine serial # with the attached list to see if the engine is in the effected range"

They installed the piston rings upside down!!!

Mmmmm un Pimp The Auto!!...Right.


Getting off topic now...If anyone does try a K motor swap I would love to see the pics and the Dyno figures.

Checkout this site http://www.myvwlemon.com


Modified by Zahntech at 12:11 PM 2/15/2007

Ponyboy

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Westrock2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And we have already seen plenty of K-Series dyno in the upper 300's with a mild turbo setup.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Jeez, I've been reading about 600hp turbo K- series setups that are being called easy daily drivers.

I dunno. A lower weight engine, 600+ hp in a reliable package...is starting to sound good to me. Hmmm....

Zahntech

Tick Tick Tick Booooomm!...that's what a 600hp K motor sounds like to me.

Also how much is it going to cost to build a 600hp K motor ? $30k? and what kind of TQ numbers are they making?

My Bis partner builds VW TDIs and his has 170hp and 300ft lbs of TQ! it eats RSX-S for breakfast with "170hp".

One of my major frustrations with making mega HP from a small vtec motor is that they tend to have a very noticable "Sweet spot" where they make the max HP and then don't make neerly that much at other RPMs ..so you end up with a car that is freaky to drive because it has a lot of HP but only in a small RPM range.


Modified by Zahntech at 9:05 AM 2/17/2007

Top Ramen

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One of my major frustrations with making mega HP from a small vtec motor is that they tend to have a very noticable "Sweet spot" where they make the max HP and then don't make neerly that much at other RPMs ..so you end up with a car that is freaky to drive because it has a lot of HP but only in a small RPM range.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Any well-designed motor with a dual cam profile will have a broader tq curve at the same hp levels than a motor with a single cam profile. That is the whole point.

Zahntech

Yes it is the "point" of Vtec...but how well it works in the real world is another story..take the S2k for example..the car feals like it has 2 motors, one that has very little HP in low RPMs and then in Vtec it pulls like mad....having larger displacement does a lot to even out the TQ curve.

It just doesn't make much sense to me spending mega $ to build a smaller motor with large HP and ? TQ when the C30 and C32 can be built to have 350rwhp-370rwhp and 250-280TQ with 10k$ and you still have a very reliable car.


If your goal is to build something differnt then Go for it ...I would love to see the pics...but as for somebody that wants to drive the car and just add some power...the project doesn't make much sense IMO.

Top Ramen

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One of my major frustrations with making mega HP from a small vtec motor is that they tend to have a very noticable "Sweet spot" where they make the max HP and then don't make neerly that much at other RPMs.</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It just doesn't make much sense to me spending mega $ to build a smaller motor with large HP and ? TQ when the C30 and C32 can be built to have 350rwhp-370rwhp and 250-280TQ with 10k$ and you still have a very reliable car.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Now you are just arguing against your original point. The C motors are VTEC designs - that is the primary reason the nsx has such a broad, flat tq curve. "In the real world" a dual cam profile gives you a broader tq curve - period. Even my 580 whp turbo nsx had a very flat tq curve realive to a big displacement motor making the same power levels.

The S2000 is a high-winding, peaky motor because it was bult that way, not because of vtec. The K24 is a very similar design and can be built to have a very nice fat torque curve.

I have built a lot of high reving single profile race motors and there is just no way to get the same overall effect with a single cam proflie. Its not physically possible.

Zahntech

Yes the C30 is Vtec but the Vtec engagement is barely noticeable which in my opinion is how it should be.

The idea of the swap was to build a motor that was lighter and less expensive to work with...getting 350whp and 250+TQ and is RELIABLE is not that cheep for a K24.

If somebody can find a way to get a K24 in and NSX with 350whp and 250Ft-lb of TQ for less than 10k...I would say Bravo!!...but I just don't see it happening.

Ponyboy

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yes the C30 is Vtec but the Vtec engagement is barely noticeable which in my opinion is how it should be.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, noticeable VTEC engagement isn't the question though. The ability/inability of the K-series to provide a decent amount of torque and with it still being flat is the point.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The idea of the swap was to build a motor that was lighter and less expensive to work with...getting 350whp and 250+TQ and is RELIABLE is not that cheep for a K24.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think the expense aspect is the most in question. The 350/250 number you mention doesn't seem to be difficult at all for the K20/24 turbos I've seen. While sitting on the throne and reading a Super Street, I saw a K20 RSX with 387hp and 267 torque running 14.7lb of boost. They called it a mild turbo setup. And there are quite a few examples on H-T.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If somebody can find a way to get a K24 in and NSX with 350whp and 250Ft-lb of TQ for less than 10k...I would say Bravo!!...</TD></TR></TABLE>

As would I...as would I.

Zahntech

I would be concerned about the reliability of a K24 running 14psi on stock internals....and if you did put in forged low comp pistons you would surely spend some real money to build the motor..so then you would have spent more money to get the same perfomance as a c30 or c32 with a std supercharger kit.

If you wanna do it because you think it's interesting or fun than sure it's your money...but as far as doing it to make "cheeper power" It just doesn't make sense IMO.


Modified by Zahntech at 2:56 PM 2/18/2007

pos_cd5

i completely agree with Zanhtech. im not one who likes to stray too far from whats been tried and proven. but the idea is a good one, i just dont think it would be cost effective, atleast not for a one-off application, if you were to mass produce a kit and sell it then maybe. the performance benefits all sound good on paper, less weight, equal amount of power, but what can not be easily determined, like said above, is torque and HP curve, which would be the ultimate deciding factor of overall performance. and even if someone does do this and mass produce it i doubt the market for it will be very big, it would take a real die-hard performance enthusiast to want to chuck his C30/32 for a k20/24 in search for the extra bit of performance, not to mention deep pockets and willing to put up with down time.

Ponyboy

Well, there's always the V10 swap in a few years.

pos_cd5

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ponyboy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well, there's always the V10 swap in a few years. </TD></TR></TABLE>

that was and still is just rumors, new rumors are now floating around saying that they are planning a V8 in the next 'NSX' and the block will be used for different V8 application, such as in the the next ridgeline.

ATYPR

built NA K24......



stock turbo k20a2



https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1478127&page=1

Ponyboy

It's not a rumor...the CEO of Honda, and press releases, have stated numerous times that it would be a V10.

Of course, they may change their mind at the last second but that would be the rumor. Not the other way around.

Zahntech

Those Dyno charts say exactly what I have been saying...the std turbo set up has numbers that are compairable to a N/A C32 except for the C32 has a better TQ curve Look at the stock Turbo TQ curve it's not smooth or stable.

Then as for the FullRace set up you are pushing the motor very hard to get those numbers and if you built the engine correctly you would have spent far more than 10k to get it....and look at the TQ on the full race It is low compaired to the "HP" Number...at 486HP the TQ should be in the 360-380 range..and you can see the TQ slopes off on it's way to redline...I don't see the HP and TQ I would want if I was spending that much time and money on the project.

ATYPR

That turbo K20 was on pump gas.

I don't think you looked at that thread I posted so I'll copy and paste part of it for you.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Boostwerks.com &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">By "Stock Block" I mean: Stock block, rods, pistons...ect. Stock below the headgasket

Because there seem to be a lot of high HP stock block setups coming about, I thought it might be kinda interesting to see whos at the top of the list.

Post your #s, setup, and how long the setup has lasted. Dynos above 3Kft post your uncorrected #s just to keep this somewhat fair, and to appease Tony...hehe .......


K series:
1. <FONT COLOR="RED">Sir2egk 646.90whp / 522.40tq @ 7600rpm GT35R K24 block/stock K20A2 head (11.2 @ 125)</FONT>
2. dc5_rsx 560 whp/392 Tq
3. Stoopid tuned 515whp bone stock K20A2
4. Jeff Evans tuned k24a 15psi-440whp/300tq
5. DDD 409.38whp 294.76 tq @ 11-12psi 94
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

some of the built K are making well over 800whp

pos_cd5

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FUCATYPR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

some of the built K are making well over 800whp</TD></TR></TABLE>

is it practical power or just dyno queens?

Top Ramen

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Zahntech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...at 486HP the TQ should be in the 360-380 range..</TD></TR></TABLE>

Huh? The relationship between peak tg and peak hp is primarily a function of the basic engine geometry. I have no idea how you can say what the tq 'should' be at a certain hp level. Hell, domestic guys might say the tq should be higher than the hp, because that is what they are used to.

An engine is either tuned right or it isn't, but the hp/tq relationship is based more on things like the bore/stroke ratio. Forced induction favors tq slightly, but the basic ratio is not going to change much. The V8 in my C43 is rated at 302 hp/302 lb-ft - does that mean other motors "should" also be square builds? Of course not.

BTW, with the same geometry as a stock motor, a K20 motor at 486 hp could be expected to make 320-330 ft-lbs of tq. The dyno chart seems to be right in that range.

ATYPR

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by pos_cd5 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

is it practical power or just dyno queens? </TD></TR></TABLE>

lol I've never seen a Honda dyno queen.

Just poke around in the FI section.

Matt Keller's old ride......

http://www.intrinsicperformanc...3.wmv

Zahntech

Sir2egk 646.90whp / 522.40tq @ 7600rpm GT35R K24 block/stock K20A2 head (11.2 @ 125)


I would be interested to see how long this motor lasts.