mazda/nissan

iTrader: (2)

to get any power out of a miata motor it will need to be enlarged to 2 liters and THEN have stronger rods, about 10.5 or so pistons, then the intake/exhaust, then the head. There is a reason that it comes last besides the headache it causes to work on compared to an intake, because it will usually net you the least amount of horsepower comparatively. However with a 2 liter i believe 160+ is very achievable, but you don't have 2 liters do u?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I really wish Gibb was a member here....Better yet Fuji Racing.


http://www.cardomain.com/ride/350414



all the head-flow in the world ain't going to make up for the lack of cam flow, displacement, compression, and revs...


hell, rev a stock BP motor to 15,000RPM and it'd be close to 150rwhp, assuming it can maintain 50rwtq and the rods and valvetrain haven't exploded.

m2cupcar

iTrader: (5)

Just throwing this out there: I bought a salvage 99 engine from Mazmart and it made 133whp with an ecu, header and straight pipe. That's bone stock 9.5:1 static compression. It may have made a little more if leaned out up top.

Stealth97

iTrader: (5)

Hell, I'm about $4000 into my engine not including standalone, header, exhaust, etc. its pretty much a 99 engine with more displacement, larger valves and a bit more compression.... and I make about the same power as m2cupcar there but more torque. If I wanted 160rwhp I would probably need to sink in another $2-3k on porting, a better header, cams, IRTB...

I say it flat out cannot be done under $5k, Talking a long block + manifold only, unless your dremel can bore the cylinders and do a valve job, and you have a flow bench...

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

No, it's not stupid. If it's your thing, then it's your thing... like guys with remote mounted turbo's and shark teeth in their grill.

The point everyone is trying to make is that it costs a ****-ton of money to do it. $2k will get you a set of custom cams, a decent valvetrain, exhaust stock, and maybe the rest of the hardware.... maybe even enough for MS (build yourself) and some injectors (used) and a fuel pump (used). And maybe enought for about 20 other odds and ends that pop up.

Then if you did every single bit of labor, and had the greatest port job in history that somehow magically came out to flow evenly across all 4 cylinders, then managed to do all your tuning via wideband on the street, the just spent $50 more for 3pulls with your local club... you still wouldn't get 160whp. It's just not gonna happen.

Cutlass, remember, this thing started cause you told some newb he could... but you have yet to produce anything but wishful thinking. Your response that "it's not my job to prove anything" is crap. If you're telling guys that it's possible, but the reason nobody has done it in the history of several million cars with BP's sold in them is because it's stupid to do it...?

Do us this favor at least if you're that convinced you're right.
Start a thread over at miata.net in the NA Power Forum with this title:
"I know how to make 160whp NA for $2k".
Then do a writeup of your magic formula... and we'll see what kind of response you get from a really wide audience.

m2cupcar

iTrader: (5)

Here's a 99 engine, totally stock bottom end with B&B. Head was decked to make 10:1 compression (rule limited). Cams, the Mazdacomp "Production" shim-under-bucket valve train, adjustable cam gears were added. Same ecu and header/exhaust that was on the stock motor above - and same dyno tuner. These cams were focused on torque vs. peak hp for roadracing. I don't think this was the last dyno tune on the car, but the peak numbers were very similar, just worked more on the power after the peak torque. There's probably right at $5k in this setup with ecu, bottom end work/build, and cylinder head parts. That said, the build was based on a set of rules, so doing what you want to make the same power would probably be cheaper. I'd much rather get the same power from a turbo just so I didn't have to live with the lumpy cams. They're cool, for a short time.

soflarick

iTrader: (8)

"You're a dick" "No, you're a dick". Geezus, get over it. Some of the "tech" thrown down here is wrong anyway, from all sides. Enough with the name calling. Yea, it's fun you can say nasty stuff on this forum, but sometimes enough is enough.

Saml01

iTrader: (9)

I think its possible for cutlass to reach his goal, absolutely. Just think, Honda S2000. 2 liters 250 hp. Stroke the miata engine to 2L and rev it to 9000 rpm like the Honda engine and you can make 250HP........at like 9000 rpm. You gotta love math right.

bripab007

Of course, but, as the Miata can only use one cam profile, it'll probably have to idle at ~2500 RPM and it'll belch and spit when taking off from a standstill at anything less than 4000 RPM...but if that's your thing...

Zabac

iTrader: (39)

the whole point here is under $2000

patsmx5

iTrader: (16)

We also raised the deck height on the 302. We machined a plate that went on top of the deck, and the wetsleaves pressed into the plate/block assembly. I think the plate was 1" thick.

We bored the cylinder out to the water jackets, and installed wetsleaves. We milled the sides of the sleaves so that when pressed into the block, they touched each other from cylinder to cylinder. Then bored the sleaves to a 4.230" bore. That leaves .150 between the cylinders, but more everywehere else.

This gave us a 4.230 bored, and a 4" stroke. Area of a cylinder is equal to pie times the radius squared, times the height. That half of 4.23 is 2.115. That number squared is 4.473. That number times pie is 14.05. That number times the stroke is 56.212. That number time 8 cylinders equalls 449.7 cubic inches.

I believe it was 440 cubic inches when it was done, so I think the stoke may have been slightly less. Anyway, got to go to Linear Algebra.

boardboy330

iTrader: (5)

I would like to throw my .02 in the ring...

I built a 575 HP 350 block...which could run 91 octane...it ran solid for 3 years (racing)...and I only put $1300 into it...

No one can ever say something is impossible...for all we know...the OP could have been an engineer and was trolling for advice...

1967cutlass

How can you compare a small block v8 designed in the 1960's to a BP? It's not valid.

1967cutlass

I'm sorry but that's kinda sad. I haven't dynoed my car but based on the cars I've raced my BP has to be putting down 130hp, maybe slightly more.

1967cutlass

No that's un-possible!

If you knew what you were doing you could cut some corners and still make 160hp compared to that setup, the driveability would just suck.

1967cutlass

what's nice about the older motors is you can tune them pretty easily with the VAF

That setup with adjustable cam gears and a little more tuning would be great for the price.

1967cutlass

Ding ding, now you've figured out why there aren't $2000 160hp BP's... it would only be effective for track use, and even then it would be far worse than a turbo.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

uhhhh but i thought you were arguing it?!

1967cutlass

Oh no, no, no. I never EVER said it would be a good idea, my original response was to the jackass on m.n that wanted a miniscule turbo that makes full boost at 2000rpm or something, and I sarcastically told him to just build an NA for response if he just wants 160hp. It's possible, but like building a 160whp turbo setup, it's a waste of money IMO.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Dodge Caravans and Honda Odysseys?

You've just recieved a bunch of real-world examples of people NOT doing what you obviously think is "easy". Calling every setup that doesn't agree with your theory "sad" isn't going to make the stock bottom end 160whp car just magically appear. The people you're insulting now have more experience than the both of us combined, so tread how you will on that one.

1. Honda S2k = 240bhp
2. S2k = 202-205whp even with boltons
3. 9000rpm = not possible on a stock bottom end
4. If heads were hoses, the F20C would have a fire hose and the BP would have a coffee straw