Spinoff of Audible Mayhem's 305HP thread
04-17-2007, 11:51 AM
#21
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle (area), WA
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nismo 350z
And how long do u expect that 600whp stock K20 to last? Take a look at all the NA VQ tuners in Japan. They are in the deep 300s NA. The most I have seen with turbo K20s on the stock block that are streetable are in the 240-260whp. Stock to mild bolt on Z's will rape em alive.
240-260 whp is pathetic for a turbo k20, 400 whp on stock block is the norm on a turbo k20, go cruise around in the fi section of clubrsx. 600whp doesn't last forever on stock block, but it lasts quite some time
this is the last you'll hear from me saying anything regaurding k20's
jeremy, sorry for hijacking the thread and turning it into a vq vs. k20 war
04-17-2007, 11:51 AM
#22
Originally Posted by warmmilk
the lexus is350, also a 3.5L v6, puts down better power than the vq, 13.6 1/4 bone stock miles times are a testament to that
The 1/4 mile times are not a testament to bone stock comparative power output of the motors.
There is no testament to power output when another very important variable (gearing) is also at work.
The final drive gear ratio of the IS350 is much higher (stock) than any of the Nissan stock gears. And gears play a very large role in 1/4 mile times.
Just put a 3.9 final drive into a stock Z to see what it does to ET's. It makes a significant difference in ET's but does absolutely nothing to the engine output. (I'll testify to that)
So there is no saying "1/4 mile times are a testament" to anything engine output related. Not here. Only a direct dyno comparison and careful data analysis can do this.
So if you ask why Nissan chose their gears like they did, I don't know, but that is also a different subject.
Last edited by Hydrazine; 04-17-2007 at 11:54 AM.
04-17-2007, 11:53 AM
#23
Originally Posted by warmmilk
http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=308216
thats one 300whp k20 (ok its a k26), and if u read the thread, its on a bad tune
http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=270906
here is a k22, this is on a dynopack, so dynojet #'s would be 250-260, but this one still on a stock head, so add cams and a nice port and polish and u'd be really close to if not over 300whp on a dynojet
and this one takes that cake
http://www.intrinsicperformance.com/K10.html
362 whp
thats one 300whp k20 (ok its a k26), and if u read the thread, its on a bad tune
http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=270906
here is a k22, this is on a dynopack, so dynojet #'s would be 250-260, but this one still on a stock head, so add cams and a nice port and polish and u'd be really close to if not over 300whp on a dynojet
and this one takes that cake
http://www.intrinsicperformance.com/K10.html
362 whp
"HP sells cars. TQ wins races."
04-17-2007, 12:01 PM
#24
Shift_Dorifto
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Plano/Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrrr, i'm afraid to post b/c this isn't a good comparison but the 997 GT3 has a 3.6l 415hp flat 6. I'm not complaining about Nissan b/c i think our motor can make crazy power if you have the money, just throwing this one out there.
04-17-2007, 12:02 PM
#25
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle (area), WA
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got any response to the deficiency of torque in built honda k20 engine when compared to stock or mild modded vq35de's?
"HP sells cars. TQ wins races."
"HP sells cars. TQ wins races."
04-17-2007, 12:40 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by warmmilk
http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=308216
thats one 300whp k20 (ok its a k26), and if u read the thread, its on a bad tune
thats one 300whp k20 (ok its a k26), and if u read the thread, its on a bad tune
Originally Posted by warmmilk
http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=270906
here is a k22, this is on a dynopack, so dynojet #'s would be 250-260, but this one still on a stock head, so add cams and a nice port and polish and u'd be really close to if not over 300whp on a dynojet
here is a k22, this is on a dynopack, so dynojet #'s would be 250-260, but this one still on a stock head, so add cams and a nice port and polish and u'd be really close to if not over 300whp on a dynojet
Originally Posted by warmmilk
04-17-2007, 12:50 PM
#27
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle (area), WA
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 03BrickyardZ
On C16 race gas, with an extra .7 L of displacement, theyre still only getting 235 lb-ft at the wheels.
That is the uncorrected number.... the corrected numbers were 246 whp and 172 lb-ft of tq... And since this dyno (by admission of the thread) reads 10% high, that would be about 222 whp. (corrected) Thats a gain of about 40 over stock.
Peak TQ was 233 lb-ft.
That is the uncorrected number.... the corrected numbers were 246 whp and 172 lb-ft of tq... And since this dyno (by admission of the thread) reads 10% high, that would be about 222 whp. (corrected) Thats a gain of about 40 over stock.
Peak TQ was 233 lb-ft.
this dyno is on c16 also, but the k20 put down 360 hp
and 233 is right around what the stock or mildly modified vq puts down in torque, with 900 cc's over the 2.6, again i was never saying anything about torque cause everybody knows that torque comes from displacement and fi
04-17-2007, 12:52 PM
#28
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ yea i was reading that also. Preety much not impressive. But lets stray away from that. Bottom line . I would drive a modded or stock Z then drive a 300rwhp k20 on race gas . lol im sorry. Im a driving enthusiast also but cmon lets not get carried away with the k20 vrs VQ debate.
04-17-2007, 01:01 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by warmmilk
this dyno is on c16 also, but the k20 put down 360 hp
and 233 is right around what the stock or mildly modified vq puts down in torque, with 900 cc's over the 2.6, again i was never saying anything about torque cause everybody knows that torque comes from displacement and fi
and 233 is right around what the stock or mildly modified vq puts down in torque, with 900 cc's over the 2.6, again i was never saying anything about torque cause everybody knows that torque comes from displacement and fi
Originally Posted by warmmilk
this dyno is on c16 also, but the k20 put down 360 hp
and 233 is right around what the stock or mildly modified vq puts down in torque, with 900 cc's over the 2.6, again i was never saying anything about torque cause everybody knows that torque comes from displacement and fi
and 233 is right around what the stock or mildly modified vq puts down in torque, with 900 cc's over the 2.6, again i was never saying anything about torque cause everybody knows that torque comes from displacement and fi
Originally Posted by RBlover69
^^ yea i was reading that also. Preety much not impressive. But lets stray away from that. Bottom line . I would drive a modded or stock Z then drive a 300rwhp k20 on race gas . lol im sorry. Im a driving enthusiast also but cmon lets not get carried away with the k20 vrs VQ debate.
Last edited by 03BrickyardZ; 04-17-2007 at 01:04 PM.
04-17-2007, 01:01 PM
#31
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle (area), WA
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kwiker
Lets not forget that the RSX is WWD <---Wrong Wheel Drive
i agree with rb, i'd rather drive a z than a 300whp race gas any front driver
the point i was trying to make is that the vq doens't make impressive na numbers for the size of the engine
and it also costs an arm and a leg and half my right nut, and there isn't much reward for the sacrifice
bolt ons only or built engine for fi is my only option for the vq, trying to make impressive numbers na is IMO a waste of money
04-17-2007, 01:09 PM
#32
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle (area), WA
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i've seen a few bolt on z's in the 290's, maybe they had cams, i'm not sure, but from there a 15 hp jump is not worth 5k+ and it can grow rapidly from there for the cost of a short block
04-17-2007, 01:48 PM
#34
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by warmmilk
i've seen a few bolt on z's in the 290's, maybe they had cams, i'm not sure, but from there a 15 hp jump is not worth 5k+ and it can grow rapidly from there for the cost of a short block
04-17-2007, 02:41 PM
#36
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle (area), WA
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i guess we all have our limits on what we're willing to spend, i'm not willing to blow 5k+ for 15 rwhp, that money could be put to much better use IMO
04-17-2007, 02:54 PM
#38
Registered User
iTrader: (55)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORLANDO, FL
Posts: 5,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
warmilk,
You're also missin out on the fact Jeremy does not have the creme of the crop headers or cams. I bet your *** those k20 motors are running extrmely wild cams of up to 305 degree of duration or 13 of lift.
Go ahead and find a K20a that's pumping out this power on a cam like Jeremy's spec which are JWT. JWT is a mild cam. Not aggressive AT ALL.
I know Jeremy in person, i have seen his car run, i know what work has been put on it. Jeremy still has some weight reduction to do, still some more power to pump out and still more tuning to do. His clutch isn't the most functional one as well. He's had issues with it sticking during his last runs.
.. At the end of the day Jeremy still has the power to take 99.8% of NA hondas here in orlando ANYDAY on the strip. Brag about what you put out on the dyno. Those K20a cars you posted were most likely rolled on a Dynapack straped to the hub. the last 362 hp K20a was OBVIOUSLY at the flywheel.
All of this on a VQ35DE motor. I can't wait and see what HR will do on the strip. Can somebody say "GTFO Honda!"
No dis intended on honda members. I was a big H fanboy before i got my Z..
Money for money.. Who the hell cares. That is a debate for those who have no other discussion and save that line when there's no other resort.
You're also missin out on the fact Jeremy does not have the creme of the crop headers or cams. I bet your *** those k20 motors are running extrmely wild cams of up to 305 degree of duration or 13 of lift.
Go ahead and find a K20a that's pumping out this power on a cam like Jeremy's spec which are JWT. JWT is a mild cam. Not aggressive AT ALL.
I know Jeremy in person, i have seen his car run, i know what work has been put on it. Jeremy still has some weight reduction to do, still some more power to pump out and still more tuning to do. His clutch isn't the most functional one as well. He's had issues with it sticking during his last runs.
.. At the end of the day Jeremy still has the power to take 99.8% of NA hondas here in orlando ANYDAY on the strip. Brag about what you put out on the dyno. Those K20a cars you posted were most likely rolled on a Dynapack straped to the hub. the last 362 hp K20a was OBVIOUSLY at the flywheel.
All of this on a VQ35DE motor. I can't wait and see what HR will do on the strip. Can somebody say "GTFO Honda!"
No dis intended on honda members. I was a big H fanboy before i got my Z..
Money for money.. Who the hell cares. That is a debate for those who have no other discussion and save that line when there's no other resort.
Last edited by Zexy; 04-17-2007 at 02:57 PM.
04-17-2007, 02:59 PM
#40
Originally Posted by kwiker
Errrrr, i'm afraid to post b/c this isn't a good comparison but the 997 GT3 has a 3.6l 415hp flat 6. I'm not complaining about Nissan b/c i think our motor can make crazy power if you have the money, just throwing this one out there.
and +1 to our decent VQs torque!Especially considering the new M3(4.0L V8) is rumored at 420hp and only 295tq. I'm hovering around 295tq currently... of course on a dynapak.
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bmw_m3.asp
Zquicksilver