K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost!
11-07-2005, 09:34 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost!
Yep. Here's another turbo dev motor we'll be working on soon.
87.5mm x 105mm, 10.5:1 - K24 block. Looking for a GT4294RL for this combo so it will be SFWD/T4 compliant.
-Ron
11-08-2005, 12:21 AM
#5
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: dtown, tx, n/a
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (xyrth)
would the rodstroke be 1.42?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by xyrth »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
how high do you plan to spin it?</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by xyrth »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
how high do you plan to spin it?</TD></TR></TABLE>
11-08-2005, 12:22 AM
#6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (xyrth)
They're beefy 1.890" x .949" rod journals. We took it to 9k when it was in the NA 2672cc motor making 304whp/235wtq dynojet.
-Ron
-Ron
11-08-2005, 12:23 AM
#7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (nevin)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nevin »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">would the rodstroke be 1.42?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
yessir.
-Ron
</TD></TR></TABLE>
yessir.
-Ron
Trending Topics
11-08-2005, 07:11 AM
#9
i ♥ my honda
Global Mod
Global Mod
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (cubish)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cubish »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">just curious.. why 10.5 to 1 compression?</TD></TR></TABLE>
4 real
Im sure this will never see the street so that's not to bad but jeez, wouldn't 10:1 be better?
4 real
Im sure this will never see the street so that's not to bad but jeez, wouldn't 10:1 be better?
11-08-2005, 07:41 AM
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Peg City, 204
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (White Smoke)
THATS HOT!!!!
lower (numerical) rod ratio... =less dwell=more resistance to detonation... it seems everyone on this forum thinks 1.75 is ideal for any engine all the time. definitely not true.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by White Smoke »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">4 real
Im sure this will never see the street so that's not to bad but jeez, wouldn't 10:1 be better?</TD></TR></TABLE>
more static C/R= less combustion space=generally less prone to detonation, depending on chamber shape... (CAM PERMITTING)
You don't gotta be fugkin nostradamus to know this 2.5L thing is gonna make sick power.
lower (numerical) rod ratio... =less dwell=more resistance to detonation... it seems everyone on this forum thinks 1.75 is ideal for any engine all the time. definitely not true.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by White Smoke »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">4 real
Im sure this will never see the street so that's not to bad but jeez, wouldn't 10:1 be better?</TD></TR></TABLE>
more static C/R= less combustion space=generally less prone to detonation, depending on chamber shape... (CAM PERMITTING)
You don't gotta be fugkin nostradamus to know this 2.5L thing is gonna make sick power.
11-08-2005, 09:54 AM
#13
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Temecula, CA, USA
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (the kid 86)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by the kid 86 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">THATS HOT!!!!
lower (numerical) rod ratio... =less dwell=more resistance to detonation... it seems everyone on this forum thinks 1.75 is ideal for any engine all the time. definitely not true.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
yah, that's wrong. the lower the rod stroke, the more time the piston hangs out close to tdc. ie: a 105mm stroke motor with 150mm rods (1.42:1) is over 102.91mm from 160 through 200 degrees, while a 178mm rod (1.7:1) is over 102.74 mm from 160 through 200. as you can see, it's a *HUGE* difference.
to clarify, it does sit up there longer with a shorter rod, not a longer one, but it's really, really inconsequential. what matters more is the acceloration & velocity that the piston sees, with that 150mm rod @ 9000 rpm, it'll see about 52 meters per second, compared to the 51 meters per second of a 178mm rod.
lower (numerical) rod ratio... =less dwell=more resistance to detonation... it seems everyone on this forum thinks 1.75 is ideal for any engine all the time. definitely not true.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
yah, that's wrong. the lower the rod stroke, the more time the piston hangs out close to tdc. ie: a 105mm stroke motor with 150mm rods (1.42:1) is over 102.91mm from 160 through 200 degrees, while a 178mm rod (1.7:1) is over 102.74 mm from 160 through 200. as you can see, it's a *HUGE* difference.
to clarify, it does sit up there longer with a shorter rod, not a longer one, but it's really, really inconsequential. what matters more is the acceloration & velocity that the piston sees, with that 150mm rod @ 9000 rpm, it'll see about 52 meters per second, compared to the 51 meters per second of a 178mm rod.
11-08-2005, 10:38 AM
#14
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (cubish)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cubish »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">just curious.. why 10.5 to 1 compression?</TD></TR></TABLE>
We have a 2140cc 89mm bore x 86mm stroke 9:1cr, 1.85r/s. So that takes care of our lower compression experiment. We've already seen 560+ on a stock block K20A2 using our cams - that's 11:1cr. So based on that, I know K-series responds to boost really well with high static cr and has pretty detonation resistant combustion chambers. Provided tuning is good, we should be fine (hopefully).
-Ron
We have a 2140cc 89mm bore x 86mm stroke 9:1cr, 1.85r/s. So that takes care of our lower compression experiment. We've already seen 560+ on a stock block K20A2 using our cams - that's 11:1cr. So based on that, I know K-series responds to boost really well with high static cr and has pretty detonation resistant combustion chambers. Provided tuning is good, we should be fine (hopefully).
-Ron
11-08-2005, 11:38 AM
#15
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Die Thieves, NJ, 07456
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (edo)
Ron excellent work, your really plowing the way for the k series.
I have a quick question though. Evans tuning has pushed a stock block k series to over 500 hp and so have you. B series have been pushed past 700 hp stock blocks.
Evans tuning has made the statement that the sleeves on the RSX block look thicker and sturdier than the earlier b series.
At what point would you recommend sleeving? I know its obvious benefits but the k series has proven to be extraordinary in terms of boost capability. What do you think the reliability issues would be like on a stock block rsx at 450hp.
I have a quick question though. Evans tuning has pushed a stock block k series to over 500 hp and so have you. B series have been pushed past 700 hp stock blocks.
Evans tuning has made the statement that the sleeves on the RSX block look thicker and sturdier than the earlier b series.
At what point would you recommend sleeving? I know its obvious benefits but the k series has proven to be extraordinary in terms of boost capability. What do you think the reliability issues would be like on a stock block rsx at 450hp.
11-08-2005, 12:09 PM
#16
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (NJslvrtypes)
I have the option with this motor to test that very concept. However, I want this motor to be as strong as possible and that means resleeving. Perhaps down the line I will take up the stock block limit experiment, just not right now.
As far as 450whp on a stock K20A2 goes, ask Branden or St00pid about that one. They've been thrashing that block for quite some time now.
As long as you don't double your tq from say 180 to 360 in less than 400 rpm window, and bring on power gradually - instead of a shock - the stock rods may live awhile. But you never know.... At least now with oside's SC+100shot test - we know the limits of the stock rod.
-Ron
As far as 450whp on a stock K20A2 goes, ask Branden or St00pid about that one. They've been thrashing that block for quite some time now.
As long as you don't double your tq from say 180 to 360 in less than 400 rpm window, and bring on power gradually - instead of a shock - the stock rods may live awhile. But you never know.... At least now with oside's SC+100shot test - we know the limits of the stock rod.
-Ron
11-09-2005, 04:21 PM
#17
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Peg City, 204
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: K-series: 2525cc - the 105mm crank is going to see boost! (xyrth)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by xyrth »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yah, that's wrong. the lower the rod stroke, the more time the piston hangs out close to tdc. ie: a 105mm stroke motor with 150mm rods (1.42:1) is over 102.91mm from 160 through 200 degrees, while a 178mm rod (1.7:1) is over 102.74 mm from 160 through 200. as you can see, it's a *HUGE* difference.
to clarify, it does sit up there longer with a shorter rod, not a longer one, but it's really, really inconsequential. what matters more is the acceloration & velocity that the piston sees, with that 150mm rod @ 9000 rpm, it'll see about 52 meters per second, compared to the 51 meters per second of a 178mm rod.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm not sure if you understood my comment, you seem intelligent so I'm assuming I'm just communicating myself badly... But if I am actually wrong then I guess everyone in the Engine masters competition this year was wrong as well because the hot setup was short rods, tiny chambers and small bores all in efffort to resist detonation. Higher rod ratio=Slower piston speed and more dwell. Lower rod ratio, higher piston speed and less dwell.
Here's a quote directly from hot rod magazine that agrees with me:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hot rod magazine »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">*The short rod accelerates more quickly away from TDC than the long rod. If running a big cam, the piston notches won't have to be cut as deep with a short rod to avoid piston-to-valve interference. Breathing at and immediately around TDC is less restricted because the dome spends less time in the vicinity of the combustion chamber. And some nitrous oxide racers feel that the short rod's reduced piston TDC dwell-period leaves less time for detonation to occur with volatile laughing gas.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It's from this article http://hotrod.com/techarticles/pit/index14.html i just quickly searched through google to back me up, there's probably like 20 more where that came from.
It's a known fact, man.
to clarify, it does sit up there longer with a shorter rod, not a longer one, but it's really, really inconsequential. what matters more is the acceloration & velocity that the piston sees, with that 150mm rod @ 9000 rpm, it'll see about 52 meters per second, compared to the 51 meters per second of a 178mm rod.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm not sure if you understood my comment, you seem intelligent so I'm assuming I'm just communicating myself badly... But if I am actually wrong then I guess everyone in the Engine masters competition this year was wrong as well because the hot setup was short rods, tiny chambers and small bores all in efffort to resist detonation. Higher rod ratio=Slower piston speed and more dwell. Lower rod ratio, higher piston speed and less dwell.
Here's a quote directly from hot rod magazine that agrees with me:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hot rod magazine »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">*The short rod accelerates more quickly away from TDC than the long rod. If running a big cam, the piston notches won't have to be cut as deep with a short rod to avoid piston-to-valve interference. Breathing at and immediately around TDC is less restricted because the dome spends less time in the vicinity of the combustion chamber. And some nitrous oxide racers feel that the short rod's reduced piston TDC dwell-period leaves less time for detonation to occur with volatile laughing gas.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It's from this article http://hotrod.com/techarticles/pit/index14.html i just quickly searched through google to back me up, there's probably like 20 more where that came from.
It's a known fact, man.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
gulf imports
Honda Prelude
8
07-24-2003 08:22 AM
