Leave the poor guy (Jim) alone... he's just voicing his opinion... YES, he has a valid point.

However... scalbert hit it on the nose... its reliability. It's not too tough to make 400-500whp... but I still don't know of any Honda making that kind of power and driven everyday! You can upgrade the internals all you want... they won't break... its the little things... seals (crank, main), gaskets (head, oil etc.)... these are NOT designed for reliable use while making 500-600whp... for that matter 600-700 crank hp!!! If you track the car twice a month... it will last a LONG time.... drive it everyday and it will fail. The oil-pump for example on Hondas are notorious... however strong your internals are... no oil... problemo! Axles take a punishment... hub, bearings... transmission etc. This is a $30K car... I can't really treat it like a $2K plaything.

It's from that point of view that I decided on NA. Yes... if I don't floor it everyday... it should be ok... but can you resist having 600+ hp and not punching it at least ONCE a day!

On the flip-side... yes, NA is much harder to tune and extract horsepower... and maybe it will never run a 12s E.T., but if it can run ten 13.2s passes consistenly... I am happy.

 

 

my engine tuning experience is along the lines of classic muscle cars. ive owned 2 actually. a 1973 mustang with a 351 "cleveland" V8 which when i bought was running like shit and had 115,000 miles on it. i did alot of work on it and found it VERY easy to get more power out of it, AND keep it running much smoother than it was when i bought it. some of the work i did on that vehicle was replacing the entire ignition system, intake manifold, carb, exhaust, timing chain changed out to timing gears, new cam and other minor stuff. so while im not up on the tuning of tiny little 1.8 liter v-tec motors, i am not unfamiliar with the internal combustion engine. additionally, i owned a 1969 buick GS California with a 350 small block that didnt require much attention, as it only had 17k original miles on it and was mint (god i miss that car) but i was very familiar with tuning it and keeping it running exceptionally well. tweaking such things as the timing and the carb, etc.

astroboy, obviously your porsche isnt a POS, i was just pointing out the fact that you are talking down no F/I like its not good or not impressive, youve been telling me all along that its "the easy way" to get power or something that ANYONE can do. I am saying that you are wrong to say that F/I isnt respectable and that it is not as simple as just "bolting it on" in case you didnt notice, others agreed with me on that point, including allmotor.

please refrain from rolling your eyes at me and telling me im not a car enthusiast just because id prefer to see a monster 500 hp CL-S as opposed to a CL-S that puts out the same power others have before it, regardless of the method of doing so.

as far as reliability is concerned, a custom built turbo system on a car that wasnt designed for it will probably have issues, but most vehicles that have factory turbos seem to hold up pretty well, with a few doggish exceptions that are prone to turbo failure.

there are many examples of quality, high-reliability F/I applications such as the GTP. that car may have crappy build quality and cheap interiors but those 3.8 motors with the supercharger are bulletproof. and the modding options are nearly endless with that motor. some guys are pushing 400 whp with stock internals and running 11 second 1/4 miles with full interiors in car that weights about the same a the CL-S.

what about all the IS300 guys with there turbos that push 500+ hp and yet still are daily driven and have no problem with reliability? is it because the inline 6 is a better motor? or because its RWD?? why wouldnt the CL-S be able to handle the same thing?

 

There is a world of difference between a mechanical system such as a carb and point ignition and a full EFI system with knock control. Unless you run a fully programmable DFI or have several compensating gadgets tuning is extremely difficult. Even a programmable DFI system isn't a piece of cake.

The L67 motor has an iron block with lower CR from the factory making it well adapted and easier to make power from forced induction. Try to take the N/A 3800 Series II motor and make 400 WHP; that would be a feat. Also, the 4T65E transaxle is strong in those cars but will fail at 400 WHP level not to mention breaking half shafts. They may be driven daily but only when they are not being worked on.

There are more components than the engine to break when making power. Plus I don't believe allmotor was out to make the most powerful CL; he wants to make respectable power that won't require weekly or even monthly maintenance. Many of the examples cited require maintenance frequently.

 

allmotor, good luck bro


IMO< I give more props to someone who goes all NA versus turbo, since NA poower is much harder to extract. Also, usually the reliability of an NA buildup is better and longer than A Forced induction buildup of the same power.>

 

jim if your engine experience is more along the lines of american muscle, then why not admit that nowadays seeing a turbo on a civic isn't rare or unheard of. Just like back in the day when you saw a 4-71 blower on a 350 it wasn't anything spectacular. Even to this day its like that. You hear/see a blower you look for a minute then move on. Nothing great. Turbo set-ups on imports making 3-400whp isn't anything spectacular. With the exception of a few supra's i've seen making 7-900 whp which is insane.

 

did anyone mention port & polishing????

 

Hey Allmotor,

Can u post what are all the things u have in mind that u plan on doing to ur CLS to achieve 300WHP.


ALso can u add what u expect to gain from those mods.













Juker008

 

Props...NA is the true test of skill

 

Way to go!!! Please keep us updated on your progress!

 

This project is extreemly challenging:

1) CLS-6 dyno stock at 210-220 WHP.
2) With all botls on I expect some 250 WHP peak.
3) To reach the 50WHP more there should be some internal mods
a) lighter pistons/rods/springs (similar to the RS6)
b) higher rpms with enough top end flow to support the extra rpms.
c) If one can replace the stock ECU with the AEM ( doable since it is 6-speed and there is no VSA) then one can get 300 WHP.

The secret is find out what has to be done to the internal of the engine to support 10,000 rpms!!!

Good luck!

 

YOu need to do a LOT to support 10K RPMS... valve-train will take a barf after 8K, I think! Cams don't support power after 6.9K anyways... so there's no point in tryint to rev the daylights out of this... that kind of buildup will cost upwards of $10K.. and I dont' want that!

You can generate 270-280whp without internal work (rods/pistons etc.)

 

you'll get 280 whp if you do some porting and polishing of the heads and some throttle body work.

 

PnP and/or extrude-n-hone haven't shown too much gain on Scalberts or JohnstypeS.

 

Still you need some 1000 rpm more to get close to 300 WHP...
Example, M3 E46 is 3.2L V6 and needs some 8000 rpms to achive some 275-290 WHP.

 

Or just make 225 lb/ft at 7000 RPM...

 

True, but if allmotor can figure out how to fabricate his own RES then he'd be in business.

 

um didn't scalbert try this already to no avail?

 

Yea he tried but I don't believe his design is what actual RES mod has. Scalberts, and i'm sure he'll correct me if i'm wrong, just increased the volume of the chamber. I really don't have any doubts that Doug's RES incorporated channels to direct air flow to optimze the hemholtz effect. Of course nobody knows for sure but this is what i'm thinking.

 

The E46 is a 3.5L in-line six (I6) isn't it? There are other 'balancing' issues to consider with a high-revving V-6 vs. an I-6. The NSX for example is a very good high-rpm V-configuration.

Reliability... a 10K RPM J32A2 isn't going to cut it!

 

I am down if allmotor is willing to take a stab at designing a RES. I'm willing to throwing in some $$$ for initial development cost. Let us know.

 

Designing a RES or whatever you want to call it is quite difficult. To achieve the benefits of the Hemholtz effect, you need to basically tune the 'length' of the intake manifold.... changing the resonant frequency in there. I don't think this will give you peak horspower... but definately give a boost in mid-range torque... hence the application by Acura.

I would have to see physical gains (proof) of upper-range horsepower to believe this is possible by just intake-tuning!

I do have an idea for the RES, but it won't be a RES anymore.. although I don't know if the gains are worth the expense!

 

Of course I will...

According to the only picture of the RES (from the SEMA show) it replaced the stock manifold cover. With this being the case there was limited amount of room to create channels but in no way am I saying it could not be done.

Mine did only increase volume of the chamber by raising the manifold lid:

 

It is an inline 6 cyclinder but it displaces only 3200cc.

 

The first thing that needs to be determined is what it did. Other than potentially increasing the volume of the center chamber, what was the intention and effect.

We have now learned that it wasn't about increased volume only as mine showed now gains. So what was different about the lid??

Or was it not a complete reality except in certain conditions?? I offered to pay for the attorney and sign an NDA about this product in the hope of making it a reality. But the offers went unacknowledged.

 

There was/is nothing to change in the length of the runners as they (the runner) were not involved in the RES shown in the old picture. This only dealt with the center chamber which have large passages to the front and rear plenums and then to the runners.

 

Floridians.....

 

it would be nice if Doug would hand over the design to someone who will actually do something w/ it.

instead of just letting it rot.


:swear2:

 

Hence the reason for my offer of signing an NDA...

 

I reiterate my previous statement...Floridians.

 

Ah, now I get it....

 

Give us a break we've got enough problems with the old people on the road.


Damm Yankees .









Juker008

 

Scalbert,
It could be as simple as increasing the volume of the chamber. I remember the RES being one solid piece with a the roof being slightly domed. You used the stock cover correct? Since the intake runners are below and not parallel with the roof of the chamber it needs the dome structure to take advantage of the hemholtz effect? Now understand, i'm a complete retard so forgive me if this is dumb

 

To expand on your drawing, see below:



The center chamber is not designed for airflow potential. Just take the cover off and you can see how it is not designed for high flow rates. The passages in/out along with their alignment are not conducive to flow in its self. Plus, with the butterfly valve closed it is basically a dead end.

The center chamber has passages which flow out to the front and read plenums. This is where the paths to the runners start; outside of where the RES was to sit.