Honda / Acura K20a K24a Engine Forum banner

1161 - 1180 of 1195 Posts

·
Arouse the DAMPFHAMMER!
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
Injectors are 850s from performance fuel injection in Canada. I haven't got any fuel pressure or injector duty cycle numbers for you. This is my first turbo build, and alot of the tuning stuff is beyond me
Aaaahhh...now I got it right, the peak power already sits at 6000 rpm. Now everything come into acceptable and K-series typical ranges. Thanks alot for the clarification :up:

BTW the duty cycle should be around 62 % if you run them at rated pressure where 800 ccm/min where stated. Engine efficiency is 30.8 %, which is ok for an K-series Turbo engine setup. I assumed your 252 whp are really rated at wheel not as stated by the dyno sheet at flywheel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Here is my other civic

K24/K20
12.5 compression
4 Piston head
Drag cartel 3.2 cams
ASP header
Ktuned intake
DnR 2.75" custom exhuast
DnR ported RBC with S2 70mm tb

290whp & 211 tq


For full engine details
http://www.edwin-performance.com/news/
Was there ever a re tune of this build with any changes done? If so what parts changed?
 

·
Arouse the DAMPFHAMMER!
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
Wasn't sure. Article mentioned changing some parts up and a re tune. Have been looking for a build using RBC/RRC that went over 300WHP. Still a great build
300 whp with an RRC only if you increase bore...increasing engine speed brings it wit a 87x99 engine to choke around 320 flwhp. Or is there one out there?

Gesendet von meinem HTC U11 mit Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
300 whp with an RRC only if you increase bore...increasing engine speed brings it wit a 87x99 engine to choke around 320 flwhp. Or is there one out there?

Gesendet von meinem HTC U11 mit Tapatalk
Thought about a center feed solution if RBC/RRC wasn't possible. Still need to check 100% but supposedly I can now get E85 local. So if that's the case was thinking 12.5-13.1 and 88x99. I see most the same bore/compression on E85 are 320+,but I am 1558-3200ft above seal level depending on where i go. mostly mountain, so need to take this into account. Tq is way more important through out the rev range,but Hp needs to be there for those street pulls or impromptu track days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
I did bought a S2 ultra street manifold and a 74mm s2 throttle body for this build but ended not putting them in. I was shooting for 300 whp but I’m happy with 290 whp and 210 tq
 

·
Arouse the DAMPFHAMMER!
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
Thought about a center feed solution if RBC/RRC wasn't possible....E85 local. So if that's the case was thinking 12.5-13.1 and 88x99.
For 310 whp the engine need an VE capacity at 8200 rpm of 1.25 (0.206 m³/h), which is too much for an RRC IM within a 99 mm stroke engine. This is an level of bigger valves, ported head and ITB's or adapted IM's. 320 whp need 8500 rpm, which is already a level of upgraded rod bolts, ..., for an endurance engine. For DD it is maybe acceptable...

I see most the same bore/compression on E85 are 320+,but I am 1558-3200ft above seal level depending on where i go.
A 320 whp engine on sea level will pull down 290 whp at 3200 ft. For your varying altitude I would recommend a speed density (single throttle body) IM. ITB's are challenging for that to have a constant lambda of an operation point on different altitudes, if it has no sophisticated MAP measuring. SAE correction incl. altitude for your advantage by around 5 hp :wink:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
For 310 whp the engine need an VE capacity at 8200 rpm of 1.25 (0.206 m³/h), which is too much for an RRC IM within a 99 mm stroke engine. This is an level of bigger valves, ported head and ITB's or adapted IM's. 320 whp need 8500 rpm, which is already a level of upgraded rod bolts, ..., for an endurance engine. For DD it is maybe acceptable...

A 320 whp engine on sea level will pull down 290 whp at 3200 ft. For your varying altitude I would recommend a speed density (single throttle body) IM. ITB's are challenging for that to have a constant lambda of an operation point on different altitudes, if it has no sophisticated MAP measuring. SAE correction incl. altitude for your advantage by around 5 hp :wink:.
Yes. Single plane manifold is what I will be sticking with. I am planning to use a 4 piston cylinder head since this will be a frank motor (K24/K20) In the process of just looking for a block for pistons/rods. Most of that is not needed,but for longevity's sake a little extra insurance is always welcome. That in turn leaves me choices in cylinder heads. (PRB) for the Pro 163 4P version with a 1mm oversized valve,which they recommend for 350-450hp applications (I think for me this version is overkill) and the Choice of the 156v2 package that still uses the stock valve or an option to go 1mm larger and use an RBC casting with this version. So many of you are close to 300 hp a lot of this in probably unnecessary,but while its in pieces make it the best it can be. Thinking of DC 4 or 4.5 cams as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Which cylinder head are you focusing?
Being that the 2 versions of 4P heads I can use use a different casting Pro 163 uses a PRB casting (Wont fit in RBC casting) or 156v2 and use an RBC or PRB casting. So either is kind of up in the air at this moment.

I think the Pro163 is a little overkill for what I'm looking to do,but still learning.
 

·
Arouse the DAMPFHAMMER!
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
...or 156v2 and use an RBC or PRB casting...
I would stick on that, not only because of the elevated working conditions, also because of the requirement you have given.

Elevation:
The impulse mass x acceleration is lower because of the lower density. This can be compensated partly by smaller cross sections. So if you go to higher cross sections at intake you contradict this twice.

Requirement of proper torque everywhere:
Proper torque means power curve should be up everywhere. This is more easy to reach with choosing not the biggest port and valve sizes, as this emphasis torque more on the higher and highest engine speeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I would stick on that, not only because of the elevated working conditions, also because of the requirement you have given.

Elevation:
The impulse mass x acceleration is lower because of the lower density. This can be compensated partly by smaller cross sections. So if you go to higher cross sections at intake you contradict this twice.

Requirement of proper torque everywhere:
Proper torque means power curve should be up everywhere. This is more easy to reach with choosing not the biggest port and valve sizes, as this emphasis torque more on the higher and highest engine speeds.

So basically as to put the actual scenario together of Using RBC head with 156v2 porting which intake manifold selection would be best? Throttle body pairing as well. I was thinking along the 80mm units with 3.5" intake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
06 Acura rsx type s
Motor: stock k20z1
Cams: stock
Fuel injectors: stock with skunk2 fuel rail
Intake: 4in custom short ram intake with velocity stack, 74mm skunk2 throttle body, ported skunk2 pro series manifold, asp custom header with 3in megaphone
Exhaust: 3in piping, no cat, 3in vibrant performance resonator and muffler
Transmission: ACT Twin disk clutch, 5.8 final drive, synchrotech carbon syncros and springs, stock gears.
On a dynapack the car made 258 hp and 181 tq with a 8300 rpm Redline. Ecu is ktuner below is the dyno graph.
 

Attachments

·
Arouse the DAMPFHAMMER!
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
So basically as to put the actual scenario together of Using RBC head with 156v2 porting which intake manifold selection would be best? Throttle body pairing as well. I was thinking along the 80mm units with 3.5" intake.
The 156V2 is definitely the better choice. There is one even even better because of the smaller cross section, which is the TSX head approach of 4P. It would offer the better power curve from low to high at your elevation level. Ok, you need an TSX head as basis...

...TB size: think of the elevation, there is no use of big cross sections as the mass impulse is lower, you need to improve air velocity on intake side. A 70 mm TB would do the better job from low load crusing up to WOT. Think of it, your engine isn't specific for sea level, it is specific for up to 1000 m above see level, that means 0.90 bar atmospheric pressure. And your aim is to have a proper torque everywhere to get out the corners in serpentines...no need for huge.

Motor: stock k20z1...Cams: stock...Fuel injectors: stock with skunk2 fuel rail...dynapack...258 hp and 181 tq with a 8300 rpm Redline...
Thanks for sharing lonso909. Is it the flywheel rated power? The stock injectors (310 cc/min) are at 100 % duty cycle at around 245 whp. Also the BMEP level of your dyno would better fit for a flywheel rated curve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
So basically as to put the actual scenario together of Using RBC head with 156v2 porting which intake manifold selection would be best? Throttle body pairing as well. I was thinking along the 80mm units with 3.5" intake.
The 156V2 is definitely the better choice. There is one even even better because of the smaller cross section, which is the TSX head approach of 4P. It would offer the better power curve from low to high at your elevation level. Ok, you need an TSX head as basis...

...TB size: think of the elevation, there is no use of big cross sections as the mass impulse is lower, you need to improve air velocity on intake side. A 70 mm TB would do the better job from low load crusing up to WOT. Think of it, your engine isn't specific for sea level, it is specific for up to 1000 m above see level, that means 0.90 bar atmospheric pressure. And your aim is to have a proper torque everywhere to get out the corners in serpentines...no need for huge.

Motor: stock k20z1...Cams: stock...Fuel injectors: stock with skunk2 fuel rail...dynapack...258 hp and 181 tq with a 8300 rpm Redline...
Thanks for sharing lonso909. Is it the flywheel rated power? The stock injectors (310 cc/min) are at 100 % duty cycle at around 245 whp. Also the BMEP level of your dyno would better fit for a flywheel rated curve.
This was done on a dynapack dyno so it's to the hubs, the tires were removed, and the cam timing was altered to get a few more hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
So i parted out the Fn2 i had and sold it bought a tsx/accord and just finished my build a month ago obviously with transitional changes.



K24a3
Body : CL9 k24a3 stock standard sub with k20z4 head slightly worked with BC Stage 2 cams i actually bought the set back i had in the FN2. 50deg vtc gear pinned to 35 degrees. Well tractuff says 35 but on the logs iam only getting 33 degrees.
Exhaust size : 63mill dual exit two box system no center box. Hoping to upgrade the front portion to 76 mill with centre box soon.

Induction type and size : 3.5 inch Clownperformance I need to add a velocity stack to this with a much bigger filter.
Intake : RRC intake j37 throttle body OH RDX injectors
Header type : Noise Boys
Piggyback/ECU type : Hondata Flashpro with tsx ecu
Power figures : 213kw 271nm

Added dyno sheet.
I have just gotten an option to swap the BC stage 2's for the prayoonto stage 2's do you guys think it would be beneficial.
 

Attachments

·
Arouse the DAMPFHAMMER!
Joined
·
5,684 Posts
k24a3...with k20z4 head...with BC Stage 2 cams...213kw 271nm...
Very nice. The dyno print out layout looks similar to one of engines I did tune for one, who came from a tuner using a similar printout layout with an aweful tune. Are you from SA? Why did you pin VTC to 35°? Is it just a recommendation by BC or did you clay the engine?

I have just gotten an option to swap the BC stage 2's for the prayoonto stage 2's do you guys think it would be beneficial.
The differences of those are small. Wouldn't it be smarter to increase the CR instead of fiddeling with similar stage 2 cams? Do you have limitations to increase CR, like high temperature and or or low octane fuel or quality?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Very nice. The dyno print out layout looks similar to one of engines I did tune for one, who came from a tuner using a similar printout layout with an aweful tune. Are you from SA? Why did you pin VTC to 35°? Is it just a recommendation by BC or did you clay the engine?

Hi yes iam from SA i was suppose to send you pics of the branch i had on my FN2 but completely forgot to do it.
BC recommended no more than 40°. I clayed the motor and it can go to 40° but due to other restrictions i was forced to pin it at 35° which i later discovered i was only getting 33. I am clearly loosing a nice amount of mid range because of this but fortunately for me my gear ratios allows me not to be totally affected by this as every gear change from just before the limiter drops to about 6500 rpm.

I will PM you what happened.

The differences of those are small. Wouldn't it be smarter to increase the CR instead of fiddeling with similar stage 2 cams? Do you have limitations to increase CR, like high temperature and or or low octane fuel or quality?

That was my thought exactly the cams are to similar to warrant me doing all that work even though it's a straight swap and then there is the risk of the car actually making less power :) I think iam going to pass.

The car is currently running on PUMP and running fine i can increase the comp but the build was done on the stock SUB because it was still in good health and i wanted to show that i could achieve decent numbers with the stock sub. I haven't tuned the car on the dyno yet to get the vtc dialed in i want to make the hardware changes first.

Max vtc is currently at 33 and goes down to 28 at 8300 RPM.

Will it be safe to rev the car to 8500 or is that pushing it :) Forgot to mention i have the RRC oil pump as well.
:)
 
1161 - 1180 of 1195 Posts
Top