Welcome to the SR20 Community Forum - The Dash.
Register
SR20 forum logo

Thread: Building a large cam SR20De

+ Reply To Thread
Posts: 21-30 of 36
2009-02-14 18:37:14
#21
Originally Posted by Setzer
Yea what he said Or just save time and money and get a VE.


My built NA DE made more power from 3000rpm+ than any VE setup that i've seen locally. With a few other mods 220whp SAE is not hard to do with the right parts. The VE head flows slightly more than a LO port head to start with but minor work and a LO port head flows really good. The DE also has the Cam advantage over the VE with all the large profiles and cam selection is very broad.
2009-02-14 18:41:49
#22
Originally Posted by snickers
My built NA DE made more power from 3000rpm+ than any VE setup that i've seen locally. With a few other mods 220whp SAE is not hard to do with the right parts. The VE head flows slightly more than a LO port head to start with but minor work and a LO port head flows really good. The DE also has the Cam advantage over the VE with all the large profiles and cam selection is very broad.


Finally, someone who understands.

And to those saying GO VE! Read my signature. Besides, this engine is being built for my brother, not me.
2009-02-14 19:19:43
#23
Do some more reading, use the mighty search...all this has been done before and will be done again. For example, MK's car with DPR head:

"The engine made 164.1 hp@ 6300 rpm and 151.8 ft/lb of torque@ 4500 rpm at the wheels on DRR's Dynojet chassis dyno. This equates to almost 190 crank hp."
...
"The following external bolt on parts were added: Hotshot header, Greddy exhaust, JWT POP charger air filter, JWT POP ECU, JWT street grind cams (the race cams made less power on a stock head and stock cr motor), Nology wires, Nology power booster, JWT motor mounts, Clutch masters 11 lb flywheel & stage 3 clutch and a Maxima MAF (mass airflow meter, this did not do anything for power at this point). The JWT ECU raises the rev limit to 7700 rpm..."

Mike Kojima's 200SX SE-R

A stock motor w/o any internal modifications:

The Limit of Bolt-Ons

"...As Mike Kojima has illustrated, to get upwards to 200hp on a naturally aspirated SR20DE, you are going to open the block and get high tech. The moral is that unfortunately you can only get so far with bolt-ons."

and that includes cams and extensive ECU tuning work w/JWT.

For example, Jagy's goals may not be reached with the S4's. Coleman hit 160's whp with the C2's and they have 0.500" lift and 9 degrees more duration, and other than the bolt-ons, the JWT ECU tuning, no internal head mods, etc.



The mods were pretty much the same as they are now in my sig (add UR pulleys and few other usual bolt-ons), with the exception I'm not running the C2's due to autocross classing and the hp being mostly up top where I can't use it on an autocross course.
2009-02-14 21:21:15
#24
Ive made 168ps at crank with just S4, ECU nad HS cai. With stock exhaust, cat and header. I think its possible to hit 190ps with Charles header and 2.5" exhaust.
2009-02-14 21:58:01
#25
I'm at 160whp, 150ft/lb on a un-touched low port head with C2's at 0,0 and 16ve pistons and a SSA header with 2.25" system.
2009-02-14 22:11:11
#26
which cams do you guys recommend with spring and retainer kits on a N/A DE
BC stg 2 or JWT S3
or
BC st 3 or JWT S4
2009-02-14 22:26:22
#27
Stage 3's if your gonna spend some time on a dyno dialling them in. Or S4's for a great drop in cam.
2009-02-14 23:00:45
#28
^ +1
2009-02-14 23:58:24
#29
Originally Posted by jagy
Ive made 168ps at crank with just S4, ECU nad HS cai. With stock exhaust, cat and header. I think its possible to hit 190ps with Charles header and 2.5" exhaust.


My mistake, I thought you were looking at wheel hp (or ps). If you're conservative and figure 15% loss to the wheels, that is certainly a reasonable goal.
2009-02-15 00:00:21
#30
Originally Posted by GTi
I'm at 160whp, 150ft/lb on a un-touched low port head with C2's at 0,0 and 16ve pistons and a SSA header with 2.25" system.


Nice. Do you know the CR with those pistons? I've read it somewhere, don't remember. Seems like they had some other advantages in mass or something similar, too.
+ Reply To Thread
  • [Type to search users.]
  • Quick Reply
    Thread Information
    There are currently ? users browsing this thread. (? members & ? guests)
    StubUserName

    Back to top