all motor
09-13-2011, 04:09 PM
#31
MFz Regular
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Plant City Florida
Posts: 66
I think it is possible to get 170whp with a stock short block. I am pretty sure it has been done with later model BPs (can't prove it)
Recipe:
*Cylinder head (it should not and does not need to be drastic)
*Shim under bucket lifters
*Camshaft that is matched well with the cylinder head and Stock bottom end.
*Lighten the accessory load
*Light Clutch and Flywheel
*Some induction mods
*Full exhaust with quality well matched 4:1 header
*Engine management
*Stiffer drivetrain (helps to tune driveshaft and axle angles)
*If it turns under power outside the short block, make it lighter (except balancer)
It is not cheap, but you should consider the fact that a normally aspirated car at 170whp will be as fast as a ~200whp turbo car. I never could figure out why, but it is well documented, at least in the drag race scene.
Recipe:
*Cylinder head (it should not and does not need to be drastic)
*Shim under bucket lifters
*Camshaft that is matched well with the cylinder head and Stock bottom end.
*Lighten the accessory load
*Light Clutch and Flywheel
*Some induction mods
*Full exhaust with quality well matched 4:1 header
*Engine management
*Stiffer drivetrain (helps to tune driveshaft and axle angles)
*If it turns under power outside the short block, make it lighter (except balancer)
It is not cheap, but you should consider the fact that a normally aspirated car at 170whp will be as fast as a ~200whp turbo car. I never could figure out why, but it is well documented, at least in the drag race scene.
09-13-2011, 04:47 PM
#32
BAMFr
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,787
I think it is possible to get 170whp with a stock short block. I am pretty sure it has been done with later model BPs (can't prove it)
Recipe:
*Cylinder head (it should not and does not need to be drastic)
*Shim under bucket lifters
*Camshaft that is matched well with the cylinder head and Stock bottom end.
*Lighten the accessory load
*Light Clutch and Flywheel
*Some induction mods
*Full exhaust with quality well matched 4:1 header
*Engine management
*Stiffer drivetrain (helps to tune driveshaft and axle angles)
*If it turns under power outside the short block, make it lighter (except balancer)
It is not cheap, but you should consider the fact that a normally aspirated car at 170whp will be as fast as a ~200whp turbo car. I never could figure out why, but it is well documented, at least in the drag race scene.
Recipe:
*Cylinder head (it should not and does not need to be drastic)
*Shim under bucket lifters
*Camshaft that is matched well with the cylinder head and Stock bottom end.
*Lighten the accessory load
*Light Clutch and Flywheel
*Some induction mods
*Full exhaust with quality well matched 4:1 header
*Engine management
*Stiffer drivetrain (helps to tune driveshaft and axle angles)
*If it turns under power outside the short block, make it lighter (except balancer)
It is not cheap, but you should consider the fact that a normally aspirated car at 170whp will be as fast as a ~200whp turbo car. I never could figure out why, but it is well documented, at least in the drag race scene.
EUDM/JDM intake manifold
BP5 (mazdaspeed) intake cam
an ECU + Dyno and tuning.
With that, you can add in a cold air intake/cowl intake and a full exhaust and I am sure you will hit 170hp.
Now, to clarify some things in above post, shim n' bucket setup will not add power, and neither will adding lightness (although it does "add" power indirectly). lightweight clutch and flywheel will improve throttle response, but they don't increase power either and if "stiffer drivetrain" is referring to stiffer motor + differential mounts, then those won't add power either. They will on the otherhand improve shifting, throttle response, and stability in corners.
09-13-2011, 04:59 PM
#33
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tampa, FL; Lake Jackson (Atlanta), GA
Posts: 1,902
Do you mean because the lower rotational mass everywhere makes it rev quicker? While possible, I would think that some designs of dynos measure that drag in the rotating mass differently from others accounting for the variations in reported hp. It is well documented that two different dynos could have enough variation in design and interpretation of forces being measured to have the same car making 170hp and 200hp as well. I think there are too many variables for me to support that claim.
09-13-2011, 05:03 PM
#34
MFz Regular
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Plant City Florida
Posts: 66
Now, to clarify some things in above post, shim n' bucket setup will not add power, and neither will adding lightness (although it does "add" power indirectly). lightweight clutch and flywheel will improve throttle response, but they don't increase power either and if "stiffer drivetrain" is referring to stiffer motor + differential mounts, then those won't add power either. They will on the otherhand improve shifting, throttle response, and stability in corners.
Anything that is moved by the crankshaft will benefit powerwise if made lighter. The only exception is if in the process in making it lighter you create severe harmonic issues. The harmonic issues will rob power.
Let me be clear that I am not talking about say, a lighter seat or hood, but lighter valvetrain components, axles, or clutch.
Also, flexing drivetrain robs power. Put a knuckle between a socket and an extension and try loosening a stuck bolt at an angle. We are not talking a lot, but it is power nevertheless.
09-13-2011, 05:18 PM
#35
MFz Regular
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Plant City Florida
Posts: 66
Do you mean because the lower rotational mass everywhere makes it rev quicker? While possible, I would think that some designs of dynos measure that drag in the rotating mass differently from others accounting for the variations in reported hp. It is well documented that two different dynos could have enough variation in design and interpretation of forces being measured to have the same car making 170hp and 200hp as well. I think there are too many variables for me to support that claim.
Hell, my car would probably make 180whp max, and I doubt it is even that high.
09-13-2011, 05:41 PM
#36
BAMFr
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,787
I have proven all the above to the contrary. We are talking power to the wheels here, not to the crankshaft.
Anything that is moved by the crankshaft will benefit powerwise if made lighter. The only exception is if in the process in making it lighter you create severe harmonic issues. The harmonic issues will rob power.
Let me be clear that I am not talking about say, a lighter seat or hood, but lighter valvetrain components, axles, or clutch.
Also, flexing drivetrain robs power. Put a knuckle between a socket and an extension and try loosening a stuck bolt at an angle. We are not talking a lot, but it is power nevertheless.
Anything that is moved by the crankshaft will benefit powerwise if made lighter. The only exception is if in the process in making it lighter you create severe harmonic issues. The harmonic issues will rob power.
Let me be clear that I am not talking about say, a lighter seat or hood, but lighter valvetrain components, axles, or clutch.
Also, flexing drivetrain robs power. Put a knuckle between a socket and an extension and try loosening a stuck bolt at an angle. We are not talking a lot, but it is power nevertheless.
It is most obvious in the higher drag race classes. A N/A car will often go just as fast as a F/I car, even if they (F/I) are making far more hp. Also, when you hear about the well sorted miatas, they all make power well below what the F/I cars make, but they are all very suprised at how fast they are.
Hell, my car would probably make 180whp max, and I doubt it is even that high.
Hell, my car would probably make 180whp max, and I doubt it is even that high.
I am an NA guy, but I realize that I don't stand much of a chance to a FI car, even if he only has 180hp. I have plenty of video to prove this to you at the track. Even with a better exit speed from a corner, a semi-stockish mazdaspeed (intake and a possible downpipe) will pull far from me on the straights.
09-13-2011, 06:51 PM
#37
MFz Regular
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Charleston
Posts: 55
the 01 bottom end over the 99? Thats surprising, I wonder what is different between them other than the thrust bearing? I was lead to believe that the difference is in the head with the VVT and some cooling port changes for improved cooling at the rear (with a sacrifice at the front cylinder).
I still think the mazdaspeed engine has a serious cooling advantage over any other combination of head+bottom end.
I still think the mazdaspeed engine has a serious cooling advantage over any other combination of head+bottom end.
The Variable Tumble Control System I believe killed the power in the 2001 plus. I on the other hand have the VICS and you can feel that thing kick in at 3k!
VICS YO! If it wasn't the VICS then it could be the ECU tune but I have a 99 ECU so I'm set! I found my engine for $750 I blew my BP4w. The BPz3 was cheaper too but had 40k more on it.
09-13-2011, 09:47 PM
#39
MFz Regular
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Plant City Florida
Posts: 66
Track, you are right, those little things individually are not worth much, but when you combine them all together, it is a substantial boost. Those little details are very time consuming and can be expensive, but that is what seperates the dedicated to the inexperienced novices.
As far as N/A hp is more efficient than F/I horsepower debate, I offer very little scientific proof. That is something I have seen debated many times over. Is it that N/A cars are easier to drive, or is there other factors? I do not know. It is just what I have noticed at the track.
I will say that when I had a healthy shot of nitrous on my car it ran 101mph at the track. We estimated the car to be around 225whp. The car is now normally aspirated, and although lighter than before, runs 99 mph at the same 1/4 mile track. Every engine builder I have talked to swears that I can be making at most 170-180whp. Car is probably about 150 or so pounds lighter than when I had nitrous on the car. Math does not add up.
As far as N/A hp is more efficient than F/I horsepower debate, I offer very little scientific proof. That is something I have seen debated many times over. Is it that N/A cars are easier to drive, or is there other factors? I do not know. It is just what I have noticed at the track.
I will say that when I had a healthy shot of nitrous on my car it ran 101mph at the track. We estimated the car to be around 225whp. The car is now normally aspirated, and although lighter than before, runs 99 mph at the same 1/4 mile track. Every engine builder I have talked to swears that I can be making at most 170-180whp. Car is probably about 150 or so pounds lighter than when I had nitrous on the car. Math does not add up.
09-13-2011, 10:04 PM
#40
BAMFr
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,787
Track, you are right, those little things individually are not worth much, but when you combine them all together, it is a substantial boost. Those little details are very time consuming and can be expensive, but that is what seperates the dedicated to the inexperienced novices.
As far as N/A hp is more efficient than F/I horsepower debate, I offer very little scientific proof. That is something I have seen debated many times over. Is it that N/A cars are easier to drive, or is there other factors? I do not know. It is just what I have noticed at the track.
I will say that when I had a healthy shot of nitrous on my car it ran 101mph at the track. We estimated the car to be around 225whp. The car is now normally aspirated, and although lighter than before, runs 99 mph at the same 1/4 mile track. Every engine builder I have talked to swears that I can be making at most 170-180whp. Car is probably about 150 or so pounds lighter than when I had nitrous on the car. Math does not add up.
As far as N/A hp is more efficient than F/I horsepower debate, I offer very little scientific proof. That is something I have seen debated many times over. Is it that N/A cars are easier to drive, or is there other factors? I do not know. It is just what I have noticed at the track.
I will say that when I had a healthy shot of nitrous on my car it ran 101mph at the track. We estimated the car to be around 225whp. The car is now normally aspirated, and although lighter than before, runs 99 mph at the same 1/4 mile track. Every engine builder I have talked to swears that I can be making at most 170-180whp. Car is probably about 150 or so pounds lighter than when I had nitrous on the car. Math does not add up.
All are good ways to acheive an end to the means...more fun!