13.935 @ 100.28 420a NA (no spray)

[DSM-ZERO]

NO you did not bore me I enjoy reding it

ok
as for raising the red line i just got a set of solid lifters from darrell cox racing......he says that you can take them all the way to 11k and be fine................the reason for solid ones is because the all motor neon was poppong off the stock lifters at high RPM so de carefull...

I think that they would be a good investment for your project...
I alos inquired about a high compression piston with him.
he pretty much told me that he can get me whatever i wanted all the way to 13:1 BUT only his pistons were goning to provide the clearence that the 420a needs.

He also went on to say that he has a pretty bad ass All motor cam grind too, but hes not giving away the specs.
I got some custom cams from him but there a Race turbo grind.

ok IMO if your gonna take it to 10 or 11k you might want to get the dual valve sprins from supertech....just so you dont float a valve or anything.

 

[DSM-ZERO]

I loved what we have talked about and im really considering building an all motor daily driver once i get home

 

[bullettdsm]

I loved what we have talked about and im really considering building an all motor daily driver once i get home

Cool, I can shoot the sh*t for hours on end. It does help to get the thought process going.

You're right about the dualies for 10 to 11k. Then they would be necessary. As for the solid lifters; I haven't done a lot of research on these (none for the 2gnt). I have done a little bit for the 4g63 (yeah, I know, different design blah blah ) and it wasn't promising. My buddy who puts out around 700 sprayed reving to around 8500(?) tried them out and had problems. He eventually took them out and the problems went away. Not very meaningful research . I do understand the concept behind maintaining the pressure at 10-11k. Yeah, certainly food for thought.

BTW, keep your freakin' head down. And good luck WHEN you get back

MB

 

[DSM-ZERO]

hmmm....well we will just hav to see what happens once i start testing the race car
but
Darrell said he had very good sucess with the solid lifters with his race cars.." of course he gonna promote his product, but you can blame him right"..im pretty stoked about getting the cams and lifters for my car....

but
what size tire were you using???
how did the car feel to you??

 

[bullettdsm]

hmmm....well we will just hav to see what happens once i start testing the race car....

, LOVE IT! That's the way to be, .

what size tire were you using???
how did the car feel to you??

I'm running 24.5x8x15 slicks on steelies. Car felt pretty good. Not at all squirrelly if that's what you are getting at.

MB

 

[DSM-ZERO]

www.modernperformance.com

has new 12:1 comp. pistons in stock.....i dont know how the motor will run on pump gas with the higher comp pistons though..

 

[bullettdsm]

www.modernperformance.com

has new 12:1 comp. pistons in stock.....i dont know how the motor will run on pump gas with the higher comp pistons though..

Hmm......I was wanting use my current head so I was concerned about bringing it to 12.9 comp. If I use the 12.1 I'll go to 12.5. And they are JE's, what I like to run. Also, not bad on the price.

As for the pump gas, Hell, I'm not skeered

MB

 

[DSM-ZERO]

what d oyou have done to your head now?????

are you building a spare head or block??

 

[bullettdsm]

what d oyou have done to your head now?????

are you building a spare head or block??

Right now I have an extra .020 taken off the head which is an approximate .4 of comp. The head has my P + P on it. I also installed SS valves (stock size. IMO, all that is needed NA). This is the head that I'm using right now. I got over 9k on this set-up so I really need to break her down anyway, so I'm THINKING about building a bottom end and then installing my current head on that when I put her back in. A lot of my money for this comes from breaking down dsm's and selling the parts so money is pretty tight to me.
(I figured it out the other day and with all my mods together - including suspension etc. - it came to 5k). So spending the time and money for another head (plus the block etc.) would put a crimp in my budget .

MB

 

[DSM-ZERO]

What will you do next to the bottom end..??
have you thought about stroking the motor to a 2.2

 

[bullettdsm]

What will you do next to the bottom end..??
have you thought about stroking the motor to a 2.2

IF I do go with the 12.1, I will do nothing else to the bottom end except balance and lighten (that would incude lighter rods). I didn't do that the first time around because I was proving a point about stock set-ups (rods, springs, crank etc) being able to take the "abuse" of higher comp and higher rpm. I'm believing that the bulk of your power is unlocked via the head and valve train. It's all about the flow

As for the stroker idea, that would break my "rules" of having a 2.0 . But in addition to that, with the stroker you are gaining low end torque but sacrificing top end. Obviously, low end torque is not really a problem at the track with our cars. I'm looking at gaining rpm's and the stroker would just make it that much harder. Just my wacked out opinion.

MB

 

[Locke]

with the stroker you are gaining low end torque but sacrificing top end. Obviously, low end torque is not really a problem at the track with our cars. I'm looking at gaining rpm's and the stroker would just make it that much harder.

The added torque from a mild stroker is most noticed on the low end, but I slightly disagree with it sacrificing top end.

The increased throw of the crank is there, whether it is spinning at 2000rpm, or 7000rpm. Therefore, since (Torque*RPM)/5252=HP, more torque in the upper rpms means more HP. Along that same train of thought, more RPM also makes more HP. (assuming torque doesn't drop off) The common problem is that with the longer stroke, come an uglier rod angle and increased piston speeds, which generally means a lower safe limit. Reducing your limit reduces power that may have been made in the lost rpm area.

Long rods will bring the rod angle back in, but will have a longer dwell time. This, in turn, will increase the rate at which the piston accelerates, which puts more of a shock on the bottom end.

To stroke, and keep (or even raise) your rev limit, the solution is a bullet proof bottom end. (duh, right?) Doesn't Crower make a gnarly connecting rod? ($$$)

Either way, that would take you out of the 2.0 arena.

I know you are not made of money, but have you considered destroking (off-set grinding) the crank to push your rev limit higher?

Enough rambling from me. Whatever you decide to do, I hope it gets you down the 1320 faster.

 

[DSM-ZERO]

so you are using stock rods right now?

what rods would be lighter
Eagle or Crower......or other????

Personaly I would not stroke the motor either.

 

[Blitzeclips]

The largest issue without FWD high HP cars is traction off of the line. You can spend money for the LSd, axles, and dirivng courses, but the extra low-end torque is going to only benfit you. Torque is essential when getting off the line. VERY helpful with these cars. That's where you'll make up most the time.

Also flows, well, theoretically, 10% more power then the 2.0L.
Which is ideal for any type of drag car.
2.2L FTW !

 

[bullettdsm]

The common problem is that with the longer stroke, come an uglier rod angle and increased piston speeds, which generally means a lower safe limit. Reducing your limit reduces power that may have been made in the lost rpm area.

Long rods will bring the rod angle back in, but will have a longer dwell time. This, in turn, will increase the rate at which the piston accelerates, which puts more of a shock on the bottom end.

To stroke, and keep (or even raise) your rev limit, the solution is a bullet proof bottom end. (duh, right?) Doesn't Crower make a gnarly connecting rod? ($$$)

Either way, that would take you out of the 2.0 arena.

Enough rambling from me.

Never enough rambling from you, Locke. Great respect. For expediency's sake, I explained that I would sacrifice power in the top end, because I didn't want to go into the long drawn out explanation of needing more build up in the bottom end to support the higher rpm's etc. etc. etc.
But you did it a bit more succinctly ($$$$) .

Way back when in VW air cooled times the stroke argument was many and heated. We need to stroke our engines because we basically had no low end (or top end for that matter ). The theories about the size and length of stroke that was safe to do brought on fists and anger. The next thing you knew beers were being thrown and THAT was just wrong! .

I've seen the arguments on this site about to stroke or not etc. so I kinda wanted to stay out of all that by being expedient. It generally leads to theory chasing and I tend to stay out of that. But what you state is exactly as I understand, I need more cash (and time for that matter ). But more importantly, I got a 2.0 and she stays 2.0. Thanks again for the support though. I appreciate

DSM-ZERO, yeah, I used stock rods because I had seen on these sites so much conversation about needing aftermarket rods to run higher RPM's or more power. I just didn't buy that and I put my money where my mouth was (what little money I have). That's why I chose to specifically put on USED stock rods. They can take it. I may even do that for my tur.....oops wrong subject.

Sorry blitz I disagree on the torque issue. I have more than enough torque now to pull me out of the hole. (OK I know that horsepower is a function of torque blah, blah etc. etc. This argument has gone on for ages. I have my own "real world " ideas and experiences on it but just to save any arguments getting on here, this could be a good thread for theory;
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255115&highlight=horsepower+function+torque). I'm using torque and horsepower in old school terms. We used to say that torque would get you started and horsepower would keep you there. In reading my dyno graphs, I decided to shift at around 7200- 7400 depending on gear and conditions. This would allow me to go a little past my peak horspower numbers and fall back down a little before my peak horsepower numbers so that I am "shifting into power". I'm basically trying to get my highest "average" horsepower with the curve that I have. Hence the idea of needing my torque (launching at 4700 ish and getting my hook up which brings me into my highest torque area) to get me started and then working my power in the top end. I have to admit that I used to get involved in the theory thing but I pretty much stay out of it now.

Hmm, I'm sorry if I kinda sound either old and tired, or just arrogant . I'm really neither. I just find that the theory arguments tend to turn into lawyer like arguments and I've had enough of them

But believe me, I appreciate all the input (man, rain go away so I can race)

MB

 

[Locke]

I just find that the theory arguments tend to turn into lawyer like arguments and I've had enough of them

I agree.

 

[DSM-ZERO]

that is very impresed that you used stock rods.......good for you!!!

 

[bullettdsm]

that is very impresed that you used stock rods.......good for you!!!

Thanks ZERO. The leap of faith was not that far. I honestly didn't even check on tensile strengths or any of that crap with the stock rods. I knew these would have no problem below 250whp and 9000 rpm's (which I knew I would not reach). Throw a short post of some sort through the piston end of the rod and then try to twist the head. Pretty tough, eh ? It's a little neanderthal but that's all I needed for a test. I looked at the shaft and knew it would hold fine.

But 2 important things; you must make it a free floating piston wrist pin and the rod bolts cannot be stretched. Those would be your trouble points, IMO.

MB

 

[DSM-ZERO]

i can see the ogic behind it .....
i mean if they hold up in a turbo motor why not in a N/A motor ....Right?


man i cannot wait to get home and buid an N/A!!!!!!!!

 

[diddy456]

Nice time! What are some of the fastest times for the N/T guys out there? Sorry for my ignorance on this.

Shane

 

[cs82685]

Nice time! What are some of the fastest times for the N/T guys out there? Sorry for my ignorance on this.

Shane

Mark's 13.9 is the current record

 

[diddy456]

So can we explain why that is the fastest time so far, and say, with all motor Honda's they can be much faster than that? Is it the parts available or what?

 

[DSM-ZERO]

hondas are smaller and lightweight and have vtech the b16a2,b1 and b18c1,c5.. k20, "im not going to name all of ther motors ok" all come with high compression from the factory.............420a's dont.
also hondas have a very strong after market so that has a little to do with it too.

 

[bullettdsm]

In all honesty, I think a big problem that we have is there are so few who try to extend the limits of NA. The more that experiment, the faster they will become. But I don't think that we will ever become CRX fast . I got a buddy who is doing a CRX aiming for around 350whp. The freakin' car has got to weigh like 500lbs, without the engine and tranny. It was a little cockeyed getting on the trailer, so instead of pushing it back and forth, we just picked it up .

Seriously, the next closest time I've heard of is Billy Mack with a 14.6XX (I think he's on here from time to time). The rest are 14.9ish and up. This just shows that there needs to be some more interest in NA's. I think the biggest limiting factor has been that many have tried to do it with the stock ECU. Just can't happen. Once you break out of that, then you can get your power up and your times down. It's looking like we are seeing more interest in the NA recently. Hopefully that will bring on intake experiments, ITB's and longtube headers.

Just thought I would throw a vid I just got from a friend on. Went out to back up the 13's and could only hit 14.023. Got a power problem in 3rd gear, I'll figger it out.

Anyhow, the track clock screwed up and only did the 1/8 time and mph but you can see that she is right around 14.0 (that's with a 2.0 launch).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhxIU4of3VU

later,
MB

 

[diddy456]

What is 420a, 2.4? I just thought with a bigger engine they could possibly make more HP than some honda motors. I know how it is, I had a 93 hatch dx, no power anything with a GSR intake, header, exhaust and a GSR tranny, that is all and could run low 13s easily. I have a friend that owns TriZone a Honda shop in OKC that has an all motor GSR hatch running 10s easy and possibly faster when he is done. But with a built motor. But I guess power to weight is a big factor, what 3200 pounds to like -2400 is a big differance.