Joined
·
936 Posts
At one point CZT made a valve train kit that could supposibly handle 10,000 rpm. It was their stage 4. But only a couple were made due to the cost.
individual throttle bodies
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Joined
·
13,263 Posts
I'm guessing they're also making under 100wtq due to porting and really messing up the low RPM airflow.Chet96pgt said:
If you are talking about peak numbers, you are insane.Fastest95PGT said:
100wtq would produce 280whp at about 14000rpms.
Highly tuned DOHC motors are more typically producing 70-90lbs of wtq for every liter, and 120hp or so.
Without a fancy variable valvetrain a la every new car worth its salt on earth, you can't do this without a shitty idle and low torque figures at low RPM.
Its highly unlikely that the peak torque numbers of a 280whp KL would be anywhere less than 160-180wtq.
Joined
·
13,263 Posts
I'll admit I was exagerating. However, such a free flowing intake would dramatically hurt torque. The KL likes to run with fairly even numbers (whp/wtq) and every mod you do will change that slightly (ie: phenos and larger bore TB will tend to give more HP but lower peak torque).skiingman said:
A very free flowing intake (ITB's mounted right at the heads for example) would put a big hurt on the torque I would think by giving TOO MUCH air to the engine at the low end. Similar results to a 3" catback on our vehicle NA.
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Piece of crap, eh? Do some research before making ill-judged statements like that :idea: Sounds like you don't understand exactly how pivotal the VRIS technology has been over the past 15 years or so, from impacting the LeMans RX, to the high-end Ferraris running around with variable length intake runners.Chet96pgt said:
Its not about "too much" or "too little" flow, its about the (inser term here....impedance may be most appropriate) matching between the IM and the atmosphere at a given frequency. Short, fat runners work the best at high rpm, the opposite for long skinny ones at low rpm.Fastest95PGT said:
I know you know this, I'm just stating it out loud for the benefit of others.
Short, fat runners will put a big hurting on torque in the low end. If the rest of the motor is built for it, they will produce similar torque at high rpms. Like Schwinn noted, it has to be the whole package. You are correct that if you don't dramatically alter valve events with the cams and cam timing, you will see a drop in torque across the board with a wide open short ITB type intake.
The valve events are critical. If you don't dramatically alter the cams, your wide open intake ports and short fat ITB intake runners will be more trouble than they are worth.
The lack of widely available dramatic cams for the KL engines is why the idea that torque and HP figures will be closely related regardless of mods persists. Nothing will change that relationship as wildly as a cam will.
The KL mod path is silly in this regard. People should pick suitable cams and cam timing, then bolt on parts that complement that choice. Instead, people complain about how boltons lead to small HP gains on the motor. 164hp at less than 6000rpms is pretty damn good for a stock 2.5 liter motor. The sillyness is that people want to make 200 or 220hp with a 2.5 liter internally stock motor...at around 6k rpms.
again, i know you know all this, it just seems like an appropriate place to reiterate it, in a thread about an ill advised mod to a motor like this.
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Being that many have gotten much more power out of it using the stock manifold, I'd say this person you're going "buy" is the "bolt neck."
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
I didn't say N/A, and apparently skiingman is the end-all authority as to what every person on this planet has done with a KL.
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
^ Thanks I guess, but still, you never really know for a fact that a KL hasn't gotten over 280 hp N/A do you? Either way, I'm the noob who can't tell when people aren't quoting him :help:
When a tree falls on an MX-6 in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
When a tree falls on an MX-6 in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
I can pretty much categorically state that no KL has made 280whp NA. At least not in anything without a tube frame. I'd love to be proven wrong. That would be one badass KL.
Your statement, that people have made more than 280whp (with FI) with stock KL IMs is of course quite true.
I'd love a new IM, but just so I don't have to reinstall that mess of vacuum lines sitting on my bench in the garage now...
Your statement, that people have made more than 280whp (with FI) with stock KL IMs is of course quite true.
I'd love a new IM, but just so I don't have to reinstall that mess of vacuum lines sitting on my bench in the garage now...
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Dyno sheets aren't a timeslip :argue:skiingman said:
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
