[fredio54]

In something that resembles your order :

534.070751

To use the word comprehensive in an incomprehensible way, a work of genius.

Gasses have the ability to flow in a laminar state to a far higher velocity than liquids in general. certainly air out flows water every time. Futhermore almost all forms of flow start off laminar and at some velocity break point become turbulent.

Definitely not about looking smart, if it were, i would capitalise my is, and check my spelling more often.

we could indeed get heavily into the maths behind valve physics, hell, we could rig up a testing device consisting of an fe3 head with no block and an electic motor to spin it up. however i posted this here as a source of information for others, not to discuss what cams and springs and lifters to use while reaching a lift of X.

the design of the fe motor is not well suited to high rpm, with a single camshaft, and either 8 or 12 rockers, they cough and weeze by 5k. the fe-dohc on the other hand has the perfect design for revving hard, and producing NA power. the direct acuation cam over lifter over valve is the best possible choice for revving hard, the springs used in our motor are very soft because they can be, thus with only moderate seat pressure(well below a 2v per cyl design) a lot of revs can be achieved.

i'd really like to hear exactly how the material the block is made of or how heavy the crank is effects an engines chances of revving hard... perhaps you could send me a pm to explain those ideas, and keep it the hell out of this one.

may i ask what you think honda and 4age and motorcycle crankshafts are made of?
how light do you think they are?

the weight of these small engines cranks is determined by there smaller stroke, smaller bore spacing, and smaller journals. the weight of the pistons etc doesnt even come into this at all (we arent talking about v6s or v8s).
i wonder what the weight of an h22/23 crank is? they rev pretty hard...

the rods on the other hand face a dificult challenge, to be strong enough to handle those revs, whilst being light enough to not flog big ends faster than you can say "why does my sr20 make that knocking sound", and also to be more smooth, and absorb less power by there reciprocating motion.

inside to make big power, changes that are needed are as follows : rod bolts(min)/rods(max) pistons, cams springs, maybe lifters, maybe valves, but neither of those last two are strictly necessecary.

Its all very well to have personal preferences as to which engine is "well suited" to NA, however it wont help you when you decide to put a 4age in your mx6 will it? this is the engine that has the most potential for rpm that fits into the cars that all of you love(or at least have) thus if one wants to not have a turbo for one of many possible reasons, then who are you to say that they should stay stock or buy a honda?

who said that the fe3 does have vvt? either way, its just another method to have your cake and eat it to, if you are serious about high rpm torque, then you already know that you aint going to have a bottom end, vvt or no vvt.

you would be a complete shmuck to put a plenum on a high reving heavily cammed engine. ITBs with short runners are the only way. i drive an engine like this everyday and damn it sounds good at the end of its torque curve at 7600 or so. it especially sounds good just before the speed cut at 190 in fourth :-)

the point here is, if the thread is about discussing maximum possible lift on the fe3 with stock valve gear, to quote john cleese "what is the bloody point" in saying you could do x y or z else instead. start a new thread entitled "use bigger valves OR more wild cams?"

please stay on topic.

Fred.