how hard and expensive would it be to make a naturally aspirated

>>15549002
you need to specify a number. as an example a 3 litre 2JZ can make 1000hp.
to get a 3 litre NA car to make that it needs to be F1 spec and will be dead after 3 hours

It doesn't have to be as powerful because it has a broader more useful powerband and instant throttle response. With e85, meth injection, nitrous you can get some good results.

>>15549054
what about forged internals and some porting?

>>15549078
I know people from 9th gen civic forums that have put k20 heads onto their k24 block. From the research I've done on it, I've found that it is expensive as hell because of extensive customization and yields about 260whp. Probably could be more with cams, and other mods.
Still though for the money you're spending you could get a much more powerful F/I build.

>>15549111
even with an intercooler and transmission rebuild? i'm not doubting you're right i just want to get a clear view in my head by getting all my misconceptions out of the way.

>>15549009
>6 liter.
>220hp
This isn't 1977 dude.

3.8l v6's pull off 305hp with factory emissions.

Big thing about going N/A is you can jack up the compression.

Most tarbos will run 8.5:1, but you can easily run 11.5:1 N/A on pump gas.

Both are working on the same concept- getting more air/fuel mixture in a smaller space.

The higher you rev, the more pony's you will get.

>>15549054
This is the biggest thing.
Torque.
A big v8 will spin the tires at 3,000 RPMs, whereas that 1.8 tarbo has to be revved up to 6k.

Real world works on torque, benches work on horsepower.

>>15549147
why do most cars in gt racing use turbos?

it would vary on the engine, probably about 5x harder and 4x more expensive

Can I make a miata engine(normally 95whp) n/a make 170whp?

That's an easy goal for a turbo miata.

Can I o so by allowing it to rev higher, itbs, increasing compression? What?

>>15549127
If you have to ask you most likely don't have the skills or cash to build your own engine. There's a reason most people go the F/I route.

>>15549172
and i'm asking for that reason, as in what aspects cost the most. is it the flow tests? is it the balancing of the rods and shafts? i want to know the nitty gritty aspects of how to gain power from natural aspiration and how to do it as efficiently as possible.

>>15549183
not him btw but you're asking really nonsensical questions anon

>>15549187
how is it nonsensical? what's nonsensical about a flow test or balancing? are you fucking kidding me? i'm asking how hard this is and your only response is this? you're slipping harder than your miata in the corners.

>>15549147

>changing the displacement
You're a fucking idiot
First of all that's unfair
Second of all you are a child.

>hurr muh v8 will beat your turbo four cylinder
in an argument that is turbo vs na that point is moot, I bring a turbo v8 now. Fucking retarded asshole

how hard would it be to make a jaguar,bmw, or mercedes v12 have f1 specs in terms of power output? would you have to replace all the internals with titanium and harness the inner nazi?

>>15549218
from a stand still with no advanced notice an equivalent V8 will be quicker off the line than a 4 banger producing the same amount of horsepower and torque because the v8 only has to spin up to about 2,500 before it starts making power.
CHECK MATE.

>>15549237
except all that wheelspin will lead to lost energy because it won't retain traction to the ground. kekm8

>>15549229
how much is f1 spec?

>>15549156
in a race theres not a lot of stop and go, in the real world there is and low end torque is more important

>>15549054

thats bullshit, the Turbo engine will also have more Torque which negates the benefits of powerband and throttle response.

Key example Boostang vs v6stang. ecoboost has only 10 more hp but the ecoboost will out run it in every gear even from a dig.

>>15549269
can't i save money by not having to make my own designs and just copy another engine? then it's materials and fabrication.

>>15549283
it would be easier (and probably cheaper) just to buy an old f1 engine

>>15549147

>Big thing about going N/A is you can jack up the compression.

meaning you would need to get new heads and rods to raise compression on the n/a

Well on a Turbo car you go with a screw driver, turn a screw. And low and behold, more Compression (boost)


Also Turbo cars put out more torque then N/A

>>15549254
Not if you use tires worth anything

CHECK MATE.

>>15549322

why compare a v8 to a turbo4. Why not v8 to Turbo6

>>15549335
V8 will still be faster.

Do I have to say it?

>>15549345

GTR

On an NA build you will need intake, headers, exhaust, injectors, manifolds, cams, cam gears, valves, springs, retainers, piston heads, rods, fuel rail, fuel pump, some sort of cooling upgrade, a tune, and finally money left over for whatever breaks or goes wrong.
All of this and maybe MAYBE if you're lucky you might be making 100hp more than stock.

File: maxresdefault__5_.jpg (1MB, 2304x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2304x2304px

>>15549167

>>15549401
This is the perfect example of my last post.
>>15549376


He poured probably around 8gs into that setup to make 185whp....
If this is your hobby, like you really enjoy building NA engines, then awesome more power to you. However, for someone who is simple trying to build a cool car and extract as much power as possible going NA route is simply retarded.

>>15549229
They have insanely low tolerance for the size of the piston and engine block
Because the better sealed your compression chamber is the better power you're gonna have
F1 engine can't start when cold they're seized until they heat up because of that
A regular engine loose power because of that

>>15549281
Even then the turbo equivalent will have a much broader powerband than the equivalently powered atmo variant.

It sounds like OP's funds would be better put towards a well matched turbo or supercharger.

>>15549434
I was also under the impression a lot of F1 motors over the years had the cylinder head and block as one piece, a a gasket of any material would struggle to stay intact over race distance with those sorts of cylinder pressures.

>>15549311
>meaning you would need to get new heads and rods to raise compression on the n/a
u wot? that's not how engines work

>Well on a Turbo car you go with a screw driver, turn a screw. And low and behold, more Compression (boost)
and that doesn't apply on 99% of turbocharged cars

>Also Turbo cars put out more torque then N/A
good work sherlock

>>15549009
umm, except 6 liter v8's make 400+hp. they did before emissions and they do now. they only sucked from like 1974-90

>>1554he fell right into that

>>15549425
>He poured probably around 8gs into that setup to make 185whp
this is the problem with retarded kids who think they want to play at being a "tuner" or whatever the fuck else.
no ingenuity, just throw money at it.

>>15549167
makes no sense to build n/a all motor unless you're working with over 4 liters

>>15549496
>that actually is how engines work

>it does though

>you're a fuckin idiot

>>15549477
cylinder pressures aren't an issue on f1 cars.
top fuellers sure. hell a wrc car will run way more cylinder pressure than an f1 car and it will use an mls head gasket which plenty of road cars run these days.

>>15549521
nah it's pretty good fun to do as a hobby, doing your own machining etc. actually really satisfying. provided you like that sort of thing.

>>15549515
I sort of agree with you, but at the same time I can see the appeal in it.
If you have the money and tuning is something that really makes you happy then I say go for it.

>>15549528
son i've been working on cars since you're in diapers don't try and school me, you'll fail.

>>15549496

Why, yes that is how engines work. You have to decrease the space inside the piston to increase Compression. This is done with new pistons and heads.

>Doesn't apply to 99% of cars
Except it does, Its literally just turning the Wastegates actuator

>>15549541
>doesn't think swapping piston heads and rods changes compression
>don't try to school me diapers
Lol okay faggot.

>>15549549
>>15549556
no one changes rods to increase compression. pistons sure.

>>15549311
the compression from a turbo and the compression from a piston are two different things that have bugger all to do with each other.
read a fucking book or something.

>>15549564
>backpedaling like a bitchboy
>implying a longer rod wouldn't increase pressure
>implying people building NA engines only buy heads without rods
Just stop.

>>15549575
a longer rod would put your piston through your head you daft cunt

how hard would it be to 3D print cast molds for f1 engines?

>>15549009
četniče oš kurca?

>>15549588
HAHAHAHA kid you're embarrassing yourself. Longer rods are a common purchase when tuning NA.

>>15549599
Very difficult and extremely pointless

>>15549611
why would having a powerful engine be pointless?

>>15549588
Not if it's just slightly longer. If it's just a little longer, it will reach farther and give more compression.

Also I guess you don't know that every turbo car has a waste gate and most times a boost controller

>>15549620
most cars are built to a tolerance where longer rods could only ever be slightly longer and get you such a small bump in compression it's not worth it for the cost.
really it's a stupid thing to do when aftermarket pistons exist.

>>15549549
most cars have electronically managed boost that you can't fuck with with a screwdriver without the ecu getting all pissy.
and you wouldn't use a screwdriver anyway, a wrench sure.
but you've never worked on a car so i'll forgive you.

>You have to decrease the space inside the piston to increase Compression
this also makes no sense. what "space inside the piston" are you referring to?

>>15549635
Do you realize why aftermarket pistons can raise compression.. BECAUSE THEY'RE SLIGHTLY BIGGER. Just like slightly longer rods.
God I swear this whole board is retarded.

>>15549679
no one builds engines with the piston halfway down the bore at tdc since about 1950.
i seriously doubt you've worked on a car with this shit you're posting

>>15549729
What part of slightly bigger do you not understand..

>>15549748
what part of tolerances don't you understand
you don't just chuck in longer rods because you want more compression unless you're an idiot who likes wasting money
it's the most inefficient way to get what can only ever be a tiny bump in compression.

File: news_jasonline.jpg (4MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4256x2832px

pro stock engines make fucktons of power and they're naturally aspirated

but that doesn't answer your question OP because pro stock cars are both hard to build and expensive to race

>>15549564
You're wrong, not that other guy, but increasing stroke increases dynamic compression. Stroker kits involve changing rods & crank.

>>15549571

Compression is the pressure inside the engine.

FI cars use low compression engines because Turbos create..... PRESSURE.

Pressure and compression are the same, one comes from an external, one is created by the space inside the engine.

>>15549813
it'd be better for everyone if you read a book about engines or something

>>15549798
stroker kits are another story, and if you're keeping your original pistons and fitting a longer stroke crank and changing your rods you'd generally want shorter so i can't really see what relevance that has here.

>>15549679
So what after market company makes rods for any popular tuning engine that's .001 longer than stock rods to increase compression? Fucking retard you'd be better off spending a fraction of the price for shallower head gaskets. Shut the fuck up you have never actually worked on a car and are a internet bench racer going off """theory"""

>>15549002
To make more power, you need to increase airflow. All forced induction is is a different way to increase airflow. By compressing incoming air, you increase density, therefore increasing volume, therefore increasing flow. On an NA engine, you can increase airflow with better intakes, exhausts, and carbs or injectors. You can do the same with forced induction, but you also have the option of improving somehow the compressor.

Some engines are cheaper to build NA, simply due to parts support and common mechanical knowledge. Other engines are already designed or engineered for forced induction, and respond better with modifications to the compressor.

Making power through NA is not a lost cause. Everyone just follows the loudest voice, and right now, that voice wants forced induction.

>>15549798
>but increasing stroke increases dynamic compression.
Only if you've made an incredibly ill informed choice if rods and pistons, or you were aiming to increase compression.
A "stroker" does not have to maintain the same TDC chamber volume as a shorter stroke counterpart.
A "stroker" does not raise compression in itself.

>>15549002
Very hard and very expensive. Big NA power is and always will be extremely expensive. Extensive time and labor must be put into making the cylinder head flow as well as possible and all parts of the intake and exhaust must be painstakingly tuned for maximum efficiency. High revs are necessary and with them comes the necessity for a lightweight and very strong bottom end and a radical camshaft. Contrary to what some tell you, NA is NEVER the cheaper or easier route to big power. Take for example the ease with which someone can make 300hp with an ancient Volvo Redblock, you see these turbobrick guys slapping junkyard holsets on 100,000mi+ engines and making 300whp, all that's required is a decent tune and a durable bottom end. Try to make that with the same engine naturally aspirated, you'll spend several thousand on the head, several more on the lightweight forged and balanced bottom end, and several more on the ITBs and custom tuned header. Turbo power is the easy way and the cost effective way, that's why you rarely see NA builds that make the kind of specific output turbo builds make. If you're just after power, don't bother with NA unless you have an enormous budget. NA is for applications which require extreme responsiveness, not big numbers.

>>15549912
A lot of V8s like F bodies and modern mustangs benefit form longer rods..

>>15549994
so basically i should just go for a ls1 twin turbo in a nissan silvia?

>>15549147
>Real world works on torque, benches work on horsepower
Fuck off dieselcuck.

>>15549618
Because F1 engines aren't cast into one piece they're machined which gives it the properties of that variant of metal
Cast iron is heavy and shitty compared to the space magic metal F1 uses

>>15549269
Toda race cams can be had for a paltry $10000, that is unless you're a poorfag of course

>>15549311
>tarbos put out more torques than N/A's

Like, on Jupiter?
Because that's not how it works on earth....

File: 1466311786728.jpg (282KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1600x1200px

>>15549401
Mmm, this is yummy.
Nice build.
Want to race for pink slips?

Ignore the filename, on tablet it was easier to save. I already time-stamped once before.

>>15550396
what heads do you have on that thing?

Bait thread?

Bait thread.

>>15550377
That's how it works everywhere. Take your 454 CID veeyate and strap a pair of turbos to it. Have fun doing burnouts every time you so much as look at the gas pedal.

>>15550400
Afr 185's with 52 cc chambers, no air injection, "strip" port (AFR has 3 levels of porting jobs, this is the middle one). Other chamber option is 76cc iirc
I'm pulling 11.2:1 with 7 pounds of boost.

>>15550438
AFRs worth the money?

>>15550428
I actually rarely drive it now.
Sketchy as fuck.
Fun as hell when I'm in the mood though.
Melt the tires in first, still get sideways grabbing third.
Torques are cool.

>>15550438
afr or compression? still those are fucking decent heads. wish I had the cash. I am currently trying to spec out a budget build and I want to do a 351w, but it seems like a lot of work. I will probably be looking for a 97 explorer to rip the heads off of, but I don't know if I should just take the stock 5.0, put on a dizzy and a edelbrock RPM performer intake and a 750 cfm carb and some upgraded valvetrain and a cam and call it

I just don't know what I want to do.

File: port18.jpg (82KB, 704x467px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 704x467px

>>15549994
>NA is NEVER the cheaper or easier route to big power
Unless it involves a tube of JB-Weld and a 2" holesaw.

>>15549002
Well then you need as much air without obstruction, and as much fuel you can get. Probably increasing the displacement wouldn't be a bad idea either.

>>15550450
Twisted wedge are slightly cheaper and great performance.
I hit 592 on the dyno on a tune I did myself (twEECer rt piggyback ecu after a friggin year learning ford ECU's).
Honestly, the only thing better "maybe" is dart or that other company I can't think of because I'm at the bottom of my 12 pack.

>>15549002
Easy, if you don't consider nitrous oxide cheating. Next to impossible if you do, an engine is just an air pump and to make more power you need to get more air in and out. With very good head and manifold design you can get a VE of a little over 100% in an NA engine over a few hundred RPM with a turbo or supercharger you can get 200% over most of the rev range and a lot more than that over a very limited range if you want a dyno queen.

>>15550461
11.2:1 compression
My AFR is a fat 14 on throttle. Leans out to 20+ downhill coasting. Can be in the 12's at times.
Still working on my ecu map.
Having a wideband gauge in-car is very different. I'd love to see one in a "stock" car and watch it bounce around.
Those gt40 heads are more than respectable.
Performer is the standard.
750 is too much though. A 350ci engine @5,000 rpms only pulls something like 400cfm (can't remember actual number, but its 400 something).
You'll lose torque and responsiveness.
Biggest I'd go is 600.
Vacuum secondary if automatic, double squirter if manual.
You'll actually see better day-to-day power and drivability and fuel economy with a 450 cfm vac secondary carb 4 bbl.

>>15550531
*my air fuel ratio is a fat 40 on throttle
*edelbrock performer manifold is the standard


Too many similar terms for any lurkers trying to follow.

Not to mention using "gt40" nomenclature on a pair of heads for the 5.0 used in a damn explorer...

>>15550531
interesting. what kind of bumpstick should I get for a daily driver cam that I occasionally take to the track? I liked the look of the lunati voodoo, and they are only like 130, but I don't know the difference of drivability of a roller vs a flat tappet. I know I will go hydraulic though, but what is better suited to babbies first engine build on a budget?

>>15550554
Ehh screw it, not fixing my post

>>15550565
I know they don't flow as well but it seems like GT40s are a lot less of a PITA than the Ps are when doing headers and machining and everything for not much of a hp penalty

>>15550556
I get paid a lot of money to tell people what kind of bumpstick to use.


Always go roller if you can.
Free 15+ pony's and a lot less wear.
I've seen a fair amount of broken ears on roller lifters though, so don't cheap out.
Fuck ford crap for that.
If you're using an older block, you'll have to use married lifers, and they can be loud.
Newer roller blocks have boss' in the lifter valley to bolt down the spider for lifter alignment so you don't have to run link-bar lifters.

tq vs hp is my fav meemay

HP=TQ(RPM)/5252

Want to make power n/a? Make more RPM and let it breathe

Put the turbo on the bottom and pretend it isn't there

>>15550588
thanks man. you think the voodoo would be a good cam? also looking to go for 9.5:1 compression so I could run pump gas. going to be a vacuum-advance mechanical dizzy, not sure on the rocker ratio yet. don't know if I want flat top pistons or what ever.

>>15550575
Any build you should do a match job on.
Literally nothing lines up with factory castings.

Also, spend the extra $140 and buy a set of cometic mls (multi layer steel) head gaskets.
You'll have to do some research on how to prep the head/block, and you better be sure you're ready when you do the install because there no going back... But you'll never blow a head gasket.

>>15549147
>Real world works on torque, benches work on horsepower.

you're retarded, you know that?

the only reason torque is good is because the engine spins, i.e. it makes horsepower.

horsepower is directly related to the amount of energy the engine can put into the wheels.

>>15550608
Gimme lift and duration on the voodoo.
Automatic or manual.
I already know its in a '65 F100 long bed, so thats like 4,100-ish pounds.

You have to decide heads before pistons.
Some will requires reliefs.
Flat tops with the gt40's on a 351 9.2 deck will be around 9+ iirc

>>15550632
Hey everyone, watch this--- I'm gonna piss off the ricer even more....


>torque is a measurable twisting force.

>horsepower is an imaginary number created in a formula using torque and rpm's

>>15550671
>Horsepower is a measure of the amount of work the torque does at a certain engine speed
>Horsepower doesn't matter only torque does lol i'm such a contrarian

File: 387C97BE-32C0-43A7-B06D-0A96745001EE-251-00000062C5176E9B_zps694da0e9.jpg (282KB, 764x1024px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 764x1024px

NA power capabilities completely depend on the motor.
LS you just chuck in cams, headers and tune. easy gains because they are so big.
Honda and other high rev motors make power easily because revs plus flow equals power. Honda motors are also reasonably cheap to mod for NA because of the aftermarket and also stock options, think K24/K20 franken builds.
Miata motors need lots of work for NA because they have heads that arent made for NA. small valves, low lift cams, non-interference. On the other hand there are guys that have done good NA builds and if you can find parts cheap you can just copy and make around the same power.

It's all specific.

>>15550671
>the speed at which work is done doesn't matter
my wetback workforce feels the same way but at hey least they're cheap :)

>>15550709
Which is exactly why we laugh at you HP ricers.
>I have 300hp
At 8,000 rpms
>what do you have under that curve?
Uhhh, like 75HP at 3,000 rpms, like maybe 170 at 5,000 rpms.

Meanwhile all the TORQUE guys have POWER from idle-on.
Making 200hp at 2,200 and just climbing after that.
Like, do you drive an F1, that spends its life wound the piss out?

Seriously, just splerg and go rent a real car from Hertz or something for the weekend.

I'm seriously tired of benchers with moms civic saying "nuh uh, HP man, HP..."

>>15550756
You're confusing "power" with "max potential"
Hondas rev, but are only worth a damn revved.
LS will pull off the line, from an idle.
Honda is bouncing off the rev limiter to do the same thing.

Big difference.

>>15550786
>these heavily exaggerated examples prove my point
This is literally only a problem if you're too inept to use a gearbox competently.

>>15550796
that's the fun of it though

>>15550799
But the exaggeration is minimal.
Actually its not.
I can let out my clutch, start rolling, mash the gas and burn my tires across an entire intersection (without the supercharger, I actually took it off to rebuild).
Can you do that?
Honestly.
I'll post a video if you will.

I didn't think so.
Because you lack actual power.
>but I can rev the piss out of it, fan the clutch, and grab gears

Because all you have is imaginary HP.

NA is an expensive way to go slow

you can easily spend 2x the money and effort to get the same or most likely even less power

>>15550854
Or you can actually build an engine that does 450-ish HP N/A and then do forced induction up to 592, because you know, its built and can handle it.
Same cost.
Pic
Related
>>15550396

>>15550871
I actually want to swap the Paxton for a vortech, pretty sure i can hit 700 with a new tune

>>15549002
It's impossible.

And the people saying an N/A car will have a more usable powerband fucking lol. Nocars need to leave this board.

>>15550608
Looked up stats on the voodoo.
You talking about the 219/227- 499/522?

>>15550880
Congrats on reading one post and then putting in your 2 cents.
Welcome to 4chins shit poster of the month runoff.

>>15549401
>10000 dollar FM longblock
>180whp

this is why we turbo. Im not saying I prefer turbo, because is take that engine any day of the week, but Tbh ive seen non intercooler turbo miata setups with that much hp

>>15550871
If you build an engine for N/A you'll have a couple of things to consider if you plan to turbo it later. The first is that a large amount of the work will be wasted: the correct exhaust pulse tuning is entirely irrelevant with a turbo for example. The second is that you're going to build it for high compression, so you'll be changing the pistons out when you turbo it anyway. So you've actually picked the worst and most expensive way to go about it.

>>15550671
Friendly reminder that the M1 Abrams tank weighs something like 70 tons and can still get up to 40+ MPH despite its turbine engine making a paltry 366 ft-lbs of torque. It's the 1500 brake horsepower that makes that magic happen.

>>15550905
See this is what happens when we give moms civic to someone in first year auto shop.

Focus.
Answer this.
>engine A has 8:1 compression and 14 pounds boost.
>engine B has 12:1 compression and 7 pounds boost
>engine C has 9.5:1 compression and 10 pounds boost.

Besides those factors, the engines are identical.

Which one makes more power?

File: ls1-engine-illustration-1.jpg (102KB, 640x432px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x432px

This entire thread is bull crap. The best naturally aspirated engine to ever be created is the LS series. This motherfucker is everywhere in American junkyards. Good torque and horsepower output. Cheap and easy to maintain and modify. I like force induction too, but naturally aspirated just seems to have a better power band.

>>15550923
A, obviously

File: 28930_800px.jpg (60KB, 800x597px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x597px

>>15550924
Thinking about swapping an LS engine into my project mustang. This is what I want it to look like but with an LS

>>15550923
the same?

>>15550914
Umm, wrong branch to bite on.
3d armored cavalry here dude.

>no 1.
Turbine

>no.2
Have to spool up in order to break tread

>no.3
1/2 mile to the gallon

Yep, we can hit 40mph- guess how many have died actually seeing the rocket coming in but they couldn't get out of the way fast enough because they were idling....

File: 1469885534913.jpg (87KB, 809x576px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 809x576px

How easily achievable is it to make extra power from a duratec3.0 v6 in a mazda 6? I want to boost it for under 3k.
I have a simple mechanical background working at my granduncles shop pulling parts and fixing old hondas.

File: 6_9-7_3_IDI.gif (57KB, 338x324px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 338x324px

ok
here is a tough one.

all the talk here is mostly about gas.

what about this old oil fed pig?

its naturally exasperated and makes not much power, or torque, and barely eeks out 12mpg. Could this old thing, with assuming zero aftermarket support, or interest, be made to make more power? And would sticking with na or tossing on a turbo for an engine not designed for one be practical?

>>15549009
>v8 has 220HP on half of its RPM range
>4cyl has 220HP exactly at 6999rpm, one rpm too high or too low drops output down to 20HP
y-yeah

>>15550940
I hate to go all PTSD, but if the Abrams had torque and not "horsepower", I'd have 17 more buddy's at my 4th of july picnic.

Excellent example of why toque matters .

So for anon that pointed out the Abrams performance- I hope you read this and understand the difference between " power" and "horses".
BTW, your civic is still a shitbix.

>>15549002
Well from my knowledge turbocharging increases the atmospheric pressure (oxygen density), so increasing compression would probably be the closest thing, but you'd literally need a different engine entirely(read: "a completely different thoroughly modified version of the original block, and crankshaft"), and theoretically the same octane fuel as the turbo version. All that without the cooling benefits of an intercooler (if the turbo engine is intercooled), more reciprocating mass, and more friction from the longer compression stroke.

>>15551030
In short, you're making life extremely hard for yourself to accomplish OP's goal.

>>15550928
BTW, you're wrong.

>>15549002
>how hard and expensive would it be to make a naturally aspirated engine make as much power as though it was given forced induction, but without going that route?
Extremely hard, and pretty expensive to boot. Instead of going with a 'good enough' top end like you'd do with a turbo, you'd need extremely good components, like ITB's, CNC ported heads, a very specific cam and lifters selection, a reasonably high CR ratio, and some of these things can massively hurt driveability.
>is making power through natural aspiration a lost cause?
No, because certain racing classes are n/a only, making for a competitive field. There's always advantages like throttle response and glorious exhaust and induction noise.

>>15549054
Nitrous is considered a power adder though, and methanol and E85 aren't nearly as effective on an n/a car as they are on boosted cars, since there's no heated intake air to cool down.

>>15549218
>First of all that's unfair
Higher displacement is literally the most reliable and easy way on an n/a engine to gain more power.

>>15549229
In terms of raw output, a 2016 Mercedes F1 power unit makes about 850hp on full kill, 160 of those are from the KERS unit, so about 700 hp in total.

The Mercedes M120 unit used in the Pagani Zonda could be had with up to 670hp in road legal trim, and up to 800hp in racing trim.

>how hard would it be to make a jaguar,bmw, or mercedes v12 have f1 specs in terms of power output?
Not that hard.

>>15549599
Why 3D print and then cast it, when you could just mill a block of aluminium?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KLNJ8d8Vqc

>>15549748
what part of zero deck height to you not understand?

>>15551184
2013 super snake Shelby mustang (5.4 liter) is 950hp.
The Shelby 1,000 is (shocker) 1,000hp in California emissions trim, fucking 1,150 hp n 49 state model ( I have a nice pic of Shelby's personal "1,000" BTW).

Just to repost
I can buy a 5.4 liter mustang with 1,150hp and a factory warranty.

>>15550589
You're assuming torque will remain consistent, which it won't.

>>15550002
That's not necessarily true and its based on the idea that longer rod/stroke ratios improve performance at high rpms by increasing piston dwell at tdc. It's mostly bullshit and there are many other parameters that you should optimize and then let the rod/stroke ratio be whatever it needs to be to fit provided it isn't to extreme on either end.

The two most well developed n/a engines, F1 & pro stock have completely different design philosophies but both are the most advanced engines out there (not in a purely technological sense). Pro-stock engines have r/s ratios approaching 1.6 whereas F1 engines are well above 2.

>>15549549
you can do it with just heads. Only reason to change the pistons is if they couldn't handle the compression

>>15550905
>the correct exhaust pulse tuning is entirely irrelevant with a turbo for example.
Not really, it would help the turbo spool faster and decrease turbo lag.

>>15550923
Effective compression ratios (engine compression times (1+(boost divided by 14.5))):
>A: 8x2 = 16:1
>B: 12x1.5 = 18:1
>C: 9.5x 1.75 = 16.6:1
Theoretically, it should be B, since it has the highest effective compression. However, A will be following closely behind, because it will have most of it's compression in the supercharger, which is generally a more effective compression (since it's not done inside a hot engine), and since it can be intercooled. Therefore, the mixture inside the engien will be more resistent to knock, allowing more aggressive ignition timing.

>>15550976
Diesels make very, very little power n/a. You're almost always better of strapping on several huge turbos.

>>15551264

This, and often diesels are limited only by the strength of the components and fuel flow as opposed to being knock limited.

>>15549002
Turbos fake a bigger displacement.

How to have the power of a turbo without being a turbo? get bigger displacement. Anything else can ALSO be used with a turbo so it would not really count.

>>15551292
Tubos are not the only method of forced induction.

v8

>>15551299
No, but then you could pick up a fucking dragster supercharged engine and say "LOL LOOK AT ME MY ENGINE IS NOT TURBO BUT IT DOES MORE POWER THAN MOST TURBO ENGINES LOL TURBO BTFO!"

What i said applies to any kind of forced aspiration, incluiding NO2.

You have a turbo in a 2.0 that emulates the displacement of a 8.0? A 8.0 will make the same peak power, have much better low and mid end power, maybe make some more power since it could have better compression, be heavier, have better cooling and more fat and resistant parts.

From a junkyard if your motor came from the factory with a tarbro option

>$1000 or less

IF it never was designed for Boost

>$3000+

You basically have to rebuild it unless its a fucking tank block/head stock and you want 10psi+ reliably

>>15551258
Wouldn't B have a somewhat better torque curve though?

>>15549345
>>15549373
Riggity rekt

>>15550377

IT how it works everywhere,

Take two engines same hp one with turbo one N/A and the Turbo will be putting out more torque.

>>15549147
You don't know anything.

>>15551484
*peak torque

If you had to pick between the same power, one in N/A and another one turbo the N/A will be making better times because of its low and mid end power.

I find it ironic how it's perfectly OK to put a pump in the fuel line, but put a pump in the air intake and suddenly people start sperging.

>>15551502

Eco boost vs v6 mustang.

Same weight, and same horsepower.

The Ecoboost shit all over the v6 in times.

This isn't the 80's where turbos spool up at 3k rpm. They spool pretty damn quick

>>15551380
Sure, and it would be more responsive and less laggy. In raw power, it'd probably be B > A > C, in terms of response it'd be B > C > A.

>>15551502
>N/A will be making better times because of its low and mid end power.
That is so incorrect it hurts.

>>15551557
How is that incorrect?

>>15551532
If both cars have the same weight and power then its not the engine that makes the difference in times.

>>15551502
Nah that's wrong.

I love the responsiveness of my NA engines as much as anyone else, but the thing you just said is false because there are just too many confounding factors.

>>15551571
how so? isn't it that the increased peak torque of the turbo isn't everything since most of the torque band could be shit?

>>15551568
>How is that incorrect?
Because a turbo charger has the ability to develop a much stronger, broader torque curve than an atmo counter part with similar peak power under its own breath.
The only theoretical shortcoming of a well matched turbo is the boost threshold which hampers only the lower RPM scale. Which is only a problem if you don't know how to use a transmission.

I'm not sure how you think a turbocharger delivers boost across an RPM scale, but it's not shaped like a centrifugal supercharger if that's what you think.

>>15551585
You're wrong though.
Depending on the turbo size and engine specs it could be a laggy race-me-from-a-roll-breh machine or it could have more torque from 3,000rpm to just before redline than the NA equivalent has at its peak.

>>15551585
>isn't it that the increased peak torque of the turbo isn't everything since most of the torque band could be shit
Er, generally the torque band on a turbo engine is anything but shit... Unless you're putting an 88mm turbocharger on a peaky two and a half litre engine.

>>15549009
Aprilia's naturally aspirated v4 has 230hp
And it's a bike engine

>>15551590
So you are saying that turbos dont have lag and they produce power at low RPM too?

>>15551604
But then we wouldn't be talking a N/A and a turbo at the same power.

>>15551611
>So you are saying that turbos dont have lag and they produce power at low RPM too?
I literally didn't say anything like that. Did you even read what you replied to? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you're drunk.

>>15551611

There Lag is only for the first 1k or so rpm. After they spool your going to have more torque over the RPM range then the v6 will.

>>15551611
>But then we wouldn't be talking a N/A and a turbo at the same power.
Wrong again. You can easily have two turbo engines with the same power output; one with a ton of lag and one with fast spool and loads of mid range torque. All you have to do is use an old school turbo and a low compression ratio on one of them (think T3/T4 and 8:1) and a fast spooling modern turbo with a higher compression ratio on the other (think GTX and 9.5:1)

It's plain to see that the only turbo cars you have experience with are old school laggy ones.

>>15551632
We are talking 2 engines with the same peak power.

>>15551651
Not that guy, but yes, we are.

>>15551653
Ok. We are talking about 2 cars with the same peak torque. Wouldn't the one with the turbo have turbo lag at low RPM and require to spool up first to create the torque?

>>15551664
Yes, hence the previously mentioned quote "he only theoretical shortcoming of a well matched turbo is the boost threshold which hampers only the lower RPM scale".
As another anon pointed out, so long as it's not an inappropriately sized turbocharger, there's no reason you can't be developing positive manifold pressure by 1500-2000rpm all the way out to a ~6500rpm redline.

There are a plethora of manufacturers doing similar things where replacing a the displacement (yes, it is a thing and it does happen) of a previously adequate sized motor with that of a smaller turbocharged version in order to produce similar peak numbers, all with the goal of producing more kW/h per litre of fuel used. The side benefit is the smaller force inducted engines also develop a lot more midrange power than the outgoing larger engines, even if peak numbers are comparable.

>>15551664

They don't have same peak Torque. The conversation was the poster saying turbos don't make more Torque then N/a.

But we were saying a turbo car with same HP as a Na will make more Torque.

>>15551292
Are you stupid? Turbos and forced induction in general acts as a way to make the fuel you have burn more effectively.

Bigger displacement just burns more fuel.

>>15551689
Ah, this.
>>15551664
I think you've sidetracked everyone.

File: 1466415901642.jpg (39KB, 412x355px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 412x355px

>>15551697

>>15551701
Yeah meme harder, anon.

File: Really tired of ur shit.jpg (11KB, 328x277px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 328x277px

>>15551697
wat

>>15551664
No, you idiot, because there are a variety of ways a turbo system can be set up. You can set up a turbo system that gives full boost by 3,000rpm and you'll have more torque than the NA engine from the boost threshold to redline

>>15551714
You need oxygen to make fire. More oxygen (in air) = more fire, so if you inject the same massive amount of fuel and don't give it enough air, it won't burn all that well.

>>15551737
>>15551697
You fuckers miss the fucking point.

We are comparing a small turbo engine vs a big N/A engine of the same power.

Having a turbo wont magically increase your MPGs.

>>15551743
Yeah but in case of two engines with same displacement, one N/A and another turboed, you'll need to change the fuel mapping to increase the injection on turboed, because if you do that on the n/a it just won't be too effective since after getting to certain point, the fuel just won't burn effectively and you'll just be wasting it.

>>15551743
Not the person you're responding to, but it full depends on how either example is driven and loaded up.
The turbocharged variant will usually have more potential kW/h for a given amount of fuel. And contrary to popular belief here, operating a turbocharged vehicle in a way where it uses positive boost does not necessarily equate to a poorer mpg.

>>15550662
Is going to be gt40s. Ported slightly, drilled to take 351 head studs.

>>15550887
I think so. Nothing to wild, it's got to be a street motor with decent vacuum.

>>15551755
Well isn't the whole idea behind the modern paper engines to actually make a tiny displacement engine with a turbo instead of a bigger displacement n/a which leads to better mpg and decent power?

>>15551754
What the fuck are you talking about.

The optimal ratio of Fuel/Air doesn't change due to the amount of intake forced.

>>15551834
Anon, I don't think you understood my point. Lets say you have two cars, one n/a and another with f/i. If you increase the fuel burned on the n/a, the car will get more power since more fuel burned = more power BUT you can only go so far, because at some point the increased fuel just won't burn because of not enough air. So that's when you add more air via forced induction. The engine can breathe properly and it can burn the additional fuel.

>>15551849
HOLY SHIT, YOU MEAN THAT IF I ADD A TURBO INTO A CAR ITS GOING TO BE MORE POWERFUL!? THANK YOU ANON!


And its not like fucking cars choke due to the lack of air burned, F/I doesn't make them breathe more, it just forces more displacement than what they would naturally take.

>>15549054
>injecting nos into your intake still counts as "natural aspiration"
please get off of this board.

>>15551933
This.

NO2 is still forcing more air than what the engine would take otherwise.

>>15549147
>real world works on torque.
wow you're a fucking idiot.

the whole point of gears is to convert speed into torque or vice versa. whatever torque you don't have can be made up for by lower gearing and higher rpm.
all you're doing by adding a stupid amount of torque is making the overall weight of the vehicle higher because of the needed beefing up of the drivetrain components, and you're just making it lose traction because it can't put down the power properly.

torque is a bench racing figure used by boomers on engine dynos and drag strips.

>>15551961
No anon. That's not how it works.

Theoretically its not a bad idea to prefer higher RPM rather than higher torque because you can achieve higher torque without a bigger displacement or increasing weight, however, due to parts wear (increased parts wear at high RPM), increased temps, and, due to the lower displacement, a smaller engine that might not take care of heat very well, plus the fact that with old components like mechanical oil pumps and fuel pumps that were tied to the RPM, high RPM-engine could be rather unreliable and problematic.

On top of that, having a very torque-heavy 800 HP car means that you can set up longer gears than a high-RPM 800 HP engine, which means that you can spend less time bothering about gear changing.

>>15551988
>On top of that, having a very torque-heavy 800 HP car means that you can set up longer gears than a high-RPM 800 HP engine, which means that you can spend less time bothering about gear changing.
That's probably a good thing, as there's a good chance that "very torque heavy 800hp" car only has three forward gears to choose from.

>>15551919
Anon you have no idea what you're talking about.

nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about in /o/ so just shut the fuck up

>tfw europoor
>closest thing to a daily driver big displacement RWD car on a tight budget is from all the brands a fucking Opel

>>15551988
>no anon that's not how it works.
yes it does you fucking mongloid.

http://www.onpointdyno.com/?p=3857

reliability? don't even give me that shit, the s2000 has one of the highest hp/l engines ever made, it's one of the highest revving street engines, yet they last over 300,000 miles, even with track use. a fucking corvette shits the bricks after 3 laps.

please tell me you don't actually think the only thing that matters is 0-60 times and quarter mile times because in that case you have absolutely no reason to speak right now.

>>15552006
I am a mechanic but ok.

>>15551849
>If you increase the fuel burned on the n/a, the car will get more power since more fuel burned = more power
More air burned = more power. Air is always the limiting factor. If fuel ever becomes the limiting factor, your engine explodes.

>>15552110
9k RPM its not high revving, anon....


And you are comparing 500 hp to 200.

>>15549054
>meth injection
>naturally aspirated
Bruh ...

>>15550940
That's because it only makes like 50 horsepower while idling. You have to spool it up to make the full 1500 horsepower.

>>15550987
What you mean isn't "if it had more torque," it's "if it idled at 20,000+ RPM." The reason it doesn't probably has to do with its prodigious fuel consumption and the fact that it's always using the same amount of fuel regardless of the load on it.

File: 1462074249835.gif (263KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 500x282px

>>15552148
>not using meth on your car

Step up your game faggot!

>>15552148
Methanol is fuel, breh.

>>15552148
my car runs on mary jane injection

>>15552137
>200hp
it's 250 and from a fucking na 2.0l 4 banger. you were saying how high strung engines are going to be unreliable due to heart and engine wear. that's one of the highest strung na engines ever made and yet they're reliable as fuck and therefore you are wrong and a fucking idiot if you actually believe you will get more performance from high displacement, low revving engines, paired with a heavy chassis and long gearing. that's the recipe for trucks, literally the opposite recipe is the ideal for a performance car. and not just in straight lines. your whole mentality of what a performance car should be based around is fucking idiotic.
look at the "best" performance cars made, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc, as shitty as the companies are, their aim has always been low displacement high revving engines, paired with shortish gearing and they often end up being extremely fast cars from the factory. lotus cars are fucking insanely fast, yet they have Toyota 4 bangers. an aerial atom will spank the fuck out of anything you will ever drive in your life around a track, and why? short gearing high revving, light weight. same thing with almost every racing series that doesn't involve a straight line as the only goal to reach.
why?
because that's how performance cars are fucking built.

>9k revving isn't high
name 3 other factory CAR engines that rev higher...

oh wait you can't because you're pulling shit out of your ass.

>>15550977
>v8 redlines at 1000rpm
>idle is 500rpm
spins the wheels through 4 gears.
overheats because packaging.

s...sure is a fast car guys!

>>15552199
lol i think you are too mad to even use logic senpai.

my talk about RPM vs Torque wasn't in the context of street cars tho. But ok, think what you want to think.

>>15552165
>>15552170
>reading comprehension

>>15552260
>fuel injection
>not natural aspiration

>>15552278
>meth injection
>ever done on naturally aspirated engines

>>15552283
>Implying it isn't

>>15549679
>Do you realize why aftermarket pistons can raise compression.. BECAUSE THEY'RE SLIGHTLY BIGGER.

Do you really know what a piston is? Making a piston bigger (increasing its diameter) isn't the way. You'd probably then continue moving your argument around and say make the cylinder longer to have more air compressed into that same clearance volume when the piston reaches its upper end of travel. That's the "longer piston rod" way of thinking and its not for modern engines.

Your goal to have a N/A engine of the same physical size as a turbo-equipped engine have as much power as a turbo but without using any turbo air compression is doomed. After creating an efficient engine, using a a turbo is the next step up for getting more power out of that engine.

>>15549269

More than you can afford, pal.

>>15549002
it cant be done
the difference is in how the power is delivered

>>15549813
Static Vs. Dynamic Compression Ratio

And boost pressure is different too.

>>15549156
They don't. GTE has two turbocharged cars and three NA cars, the Spa 24 GT3 entry was slightly biased towards more NA models as well and significantly more NA cars overall.

Main reason it's even close is because both of those are meme classes driven by marketing rather than performance anyways, Mercedes kept the NA V8 in the new race car even though the street car has a turbo. Since power and fuel range is equalized anyways the turbo is just drivability and reliability baggage.

Seriously though protip: most modern pro racing is fucking meaningless, it's completely fake and arbitrary with few exceptions

>>15549311
>turbo cars put out more torque than NA

If you had a 2.0 turbo car and a 5.0 NA car making the same horsepower, the 5.0 would produce far more torque.

>>15549254
But it will look sick and get you sluts

>>15554982
>the 5.0 would produce far more torque.
and then you would need a beefier drivetrain to handle the extra torque, and the chassis would need to be beefed up.

while the 2.0 would need shorter gearing to get the same amount of torque at the wheels, while having significantly less weight(which means better cornering, braking and acceleration) all while also being more fuel efficient.

why can't murifats into engineering?

>>15555143
No anon, if the drivetrain/chassis can take the peak torque of the turbo engine then it can surely take the slightly less torque of the low end RPM of a car.

Turbo small engine needing a shorter gearing? what the fuck pal, transmission is not a factor in this.

>>15549172
this