NA Tech Race to 100whp per 1000cc's

Wow... From what I can see NA tuning is a bigger pain than FI tuning... or maybe all the turbo guys have already done all the trial-and-error. I dunno.
 
NA is always harder and more expensive so it automatically scares most people away.
 
Well, I'm not officially in this race but I'm trying to see how hard I can push my car N/A before I go FI. I've got the Haltech E6X already but I'm finishing up my suspension in the next week or so. Then I'm going to work on the driveline (i.e. clutch, flywheel, etc.) which will take me several months to save the money.

I should be able to do the cams and maybe port & polish before the year is over. (I'm not made of money you know.) I figure that I might be able to push 130-140. It's short I know but I have a 1.6L so it's not too far off. Mind you I could be guestimating way off but at least it'll be fun getting there.
 
i like speed said:
Wow... From what I can see NA tuning is a bigger pain than FI tuning... or maybe all the turbo guys have already done all the trial-and-error. I dunno.
Click to expand...

Got nothing to do with "trial-and-error" on either side of the fence... both methods can be predictably built from an on paper design to an exceedingly high level of accuracy.... its not a black art if you take the time to understand what it is you want to do, and what it takes to get there.

The reason why FI is taken over NA, is that at a certain point (usually the point where you need to rebuild the engine), FI becomes more economical.

For example, to get an FSDE to push 200whp NA, would require some insane custom conrods (to withstand the insane forces involved at the kind of RPM required - anyone who says rod strength is all about power holding is talking out their ass.....the forces involved in moving a rod up and down at the speeds we're talking about are mind boggling), possible destroking of the engine (to help with the rod:stroke ratio, which will assist in cutting down piston accelleration), isnane fuel (so the fuel burn isn't outrun by the pistons), overboring (to get the pumping capacity of the engine back up after destroking it), rediculous amounts of head work, insanely high compresson....a gearbox that can put up with the RPM (single piece synchros don't really like working at 9000+ rpm).... manifolds...the list goes on and on.

To achieve the same horsepower on a turbo build requires much less work. In fact, just to give you an idea of how insane a 9000+ rpm build 200hp NA engine is....using some rough formula's available on the garrett website, our 9000 rpm 200hp NA motor, equates to a boosted motor, at a mere 1bar of boost (and assuming the same kind of work to the engine as the 200hp engine, so about 110% VE before boost), you're looking at around 2x the power at the wheels.... *and thats only on 1 bar of boost*... you ratchet that up to around 28psi (a little under 2bar)... and you're looking at around 575hp...

Now, i wont go through the equations, i've made a lot of assumptions...and its intended to just be a rough guide.... but essentially building a 200hp NA FSDE, is like building a 575hp turbo engine - with all the cost and hard work to match, with the same sort of drivability to boot.... using those numbers as a GUIDE - you can begin to see just how economical, and practical it is to build a 320 to 350hp turbo set up....

*thats* the reason why turbo charging is so attractive. Yes theres a high cost of entry, but compared to doing an NA build that goes like a rat up a drain pipe, its really quite a cheap way out......
 
Last edited:
MakeMeGoFast said:
Did he get a dyno yet? or is he still in the breakin period
Click to expand...

No dyno yet. Still in break in period. Only 150 miles on the new pistons and twiggy cams. Will not be driving the car until I can get Microtech in and tuned. Keeping my fingers crossed that future dyno numbers won't disappoint. There should be much to gain from a good tune.
 
Last edited:
I know everyone has said it before but your playing with fire with the MT. Hate see all that worked gone out the window.
 
Like LW says, it's an expensive process, and not many people are willing to take the risk. Those of us who do go NA are either a. stubborn, b. stupid, c. rich or d. all of the above.

Let me tell you, though... don't get the port and polish before the cams... it's a pointless exercise... and a single runner might be a necessity. I'm still getting up the gumption to take that step. I'm eyeing one right now.

As it stands, I'm at 120% of what I said I'd do when I started on this engine. I've got the full IHE + port and polish + engine management, and soon I'm going to have some decent streetable cams. I just haven't been updating my power figures because the news just isn't good. I've been cycling under 140 whp for what feels like forever. That's why I finally went for the cams... I just couldn't get around that restriction anymore.

I'm just summoning the courage to go another 30% and get the intake runners sorted out. After that... well... I'm just praying the engine doesn't blow... but if it does... well, gee... 11:1 compression sounds awfully nice.

But I don't see a 9000 rpm screamer in my future. Just don't have the guts to build anything like that.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

New Posts and Comments

C
    • Like
What is your CX-5 “Must have”?
Replies
11
Views
305
N7turbo
N7turbo
2
Is the CX-90 Really that Bad? Owner Feedback?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
28K
kornholio
K
W
Lost key fob but car starts and drives
Replies
13
Views
773
sm1ke
sm1ke
jadmt
No transmission maintenance interval recommended in owner's manual?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
sm1ke
sm1ke
B
  • Question Question
2025 CX-5 USB-C Flash Drive Compatibility
Replies
7
Views
255
RedBaron
RedBaron
C
2.5L NA Cracked Cylinder Head with Oil Leaking
27 28 29
Replies
567
Views
191K
courtlw@yah
C
View more…

New Threads and Articles

Back