Originally Posted by dan l

6 bolt 4g63 = fastest 4 cylinder in the world. You and the whole world can put a K20 up to the 4g63 but so far, it isn't enough.

Originally Posted by iTune

i was a k-series boost pioneer...and my knowledge in this area is very extensive. I was one of the first to boost the K20A2 and also was one of the first to test the GReddy turbo kit for the K20A2 using a mitsubishi T517Z turbo. I worked closely with Hondata(there were several of us testing) in the development of the k-pro, which is the best engine management you can have for any k-series engine. I know exactly what it takes to make big numbers with this motor, stock and built. I can tell you this, there is not a single inline4 in the world that is more engineered than this engine. It has a better VE, a better head design(cams, ect.), better combustion chamber design, better bottom end design(minus the rods and pistons), internally balanced crank that can handle more power than you can throw at it in stock form(the whole rotating assembly is balanced from the factory), better block bracing....under piston skirt oil squirters, i mean the list goes on and on! Some of these things the 4G63 does have, what the two engines share is very old school in design.

The k20a2 can make more than 500whp in stock form very safely with the correct parts and of course, a good tune. It's been done time and time again and very few people have had failures. The ones that did were mostly caused by bad tunes or improper protection protocols(i.e. lean protection, overboost protection ect.) or from running the engine at too high of a engine speed(over 9000rpm). This kind of stuff happened very rarely, but can happen to not only a 500+whp engine, but a 250whp engine, as most of you know. The weakest point in the stock k-series bottom end is the rods/pistons. The rods are the typical i-beam cast rods that are perfect for N/A applications, but not good for ultra high revs and boost.

It's very important to understand that all these things make the k20a2 such a great engine. The head may flow a little better than the evo's 4G63 head(intake flows more and the exhaust is a little less), but that only tells about an 8th of the story. Like i have said before, you have to take into account all the other factors involved, like combustion chamber design, valve and valve seat design, piston design..ect. Just the crank alone is worth a lot as the crank alone is worth a lot more power. It's a extremely well engineered engine and if it were meant for a turbocharged application, the pistons and rods would have been upgraded from the OEM, this would literally make the k20 perfect in just about every way, in stock form.

Now, even with just a simple swap to forged pistons, @9.5:1 static CR and a good set of h-beam billet rods and a set of headstuds and OEM head gasket...and you have an engine that can handle 600+whp with simple bolt ons(even the stock sleeves are good for this power, although sleeving is deff recommended at these power levels). It's not only a well designed engine, it can make very cheap power, even on stock cams(really long duration of the stock cams= more cam overlap which is bad for boosted engines)!

I see the 4G63 needs soo much to make lots of power, even with a lower static CR.(of course, read my ealier post in regards to static and effective CR's)....a cam change is needed right off the bat, it can't handle too much boost on pump gas.....and is kind of watered down in stock form.... You can make a ishload of power, but you have to spend a lot of money building the bottom end getting it preped for the supporting bolt on mods that are obviously needed to make big power. With a k20, just swap pistons/rods(obviously this is the super cheap way, but still makes a lot of power very safely with a good tune)......bolt on the turbo/mani of your choice and tune away.

It's important for you to know that i have both of these engines. I love my EVO for the chassis and drivetrain.....i don't really care for the engine at all. I have a turboed RSX-S for it's engine and engineering.....although the chassis is not bad, the fact that it's FWD is it's lacking point.

back to the heads of these monsters: just because you flow more CFM's does not mean you will make more power, it's all about keeping velocity% of the port as close to 100% as possible. A head that flows 240cfm@28" @400" lift at 90% port velocity will make more power than a head that flows only 270cfm@28" @400" lift at 70% port velocity. This even applies to forced induction set-ups, although not as much, but does apply for sure.

There are just too many variables and very few constants to sum everything up about these two engines without getting really deep and long winded.....But for my money and my knowledge my opinion is the K20A(2)(Z1) is the best 4 cylinder made, by anybody at any time...ever. Don't think that i am taking anything away from the 4G63.....it's a close second for sure, even though it's technolgy is somewhat archaic in certain terms.


CJ

Originally Posted by iTune

fast does not mean anything...lol. I can put a 125 crank HP SOHC D16 on a 100lb riding lawnmower and kick your *** all day........lol. I hate it when people think ET's and trap speeds equate to engine performance and/or engine superiority. What a useless post. Your talking about power to weight ratios, i'm talking about internal combustion engine science.


CJ

Originally Posted by DrivenInovation

Umm 2.0-liter turbocharged ECOtec is the fastest 4 cylinder engine in the world

Originally Posted by dan l

Well then take your science and make the fastest 4 cyl in the world. You should have the advantage with such a "superior" engine correct?

Originally Posted by iTune

fast does not mean anything...lol. I can put a 125 crank HP SOHC D16 on a 100lb riding lawnmower and kick your *** all day........lol. I hate it when people think ET's and trap speeds equate to engine performance and/or engine superiority. What a useless post. Your talking about power to weight ratios, i'm talking about internal combustion engine science.
CJ

Originally Posted by iTune

my place in this matter still stands.... Engine science should not be confused with chassis and power/weight ratios. Although, i'm impressed by those numbers, i'm not a drag race kind of guy. So they mean nothing to me. No offense.

CJ

Originally Posted by iTune

back to the heads of these monsters: just because you flow more CFM's does not mean you will make more power, it's all about keeping velocity% of the port as close to 100% as possible. A head that flows 240cfm@28" @400" lift at 90% port velocity will make more power than a head that flows only 270cfm@28" @400" lift at 70% port velocity. This even applies to forced induction set-ups, although not as much, but does apply for sure.

Originally Posted by dan l

Very nice post.

Unfortunately you are overlooking a few things. Stock early DSM motors have held 600+ whp dyno pulls. A few evo's have held together mid 500whp pulls. Even stock crankwalking 2g motors have held 500+ whp. On par or bettering the K20

The 4g63 doesn't need cams, people just jump to them for an "easy" mod. I feel cams and headbolts are unnecessary most of the time. I ran ARP's and hated them. I had better luck with the original head bolts in my car.

Here is my hacked together, stock ecu, stock motor (yes stock cams) DSM. 160K on the clock in most of this video......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB3yxIo2usM

EDIT:

mid 11's at 130+ mph on a stock motor if you don't want to watch the video.

Originally Posted by dan l

Thats fine and I actually agree with you from an engineering standpoint (my profession). The 4g63 is a tractor motor, designed in the mid 70's. It detonates, pisses, moans, and is one ****ing stout as **** motor that takes amazing abuse.

Originally Posted by Ted B

It applies to ALL engines.

Originally Posted by iTune

I'm not talking about big numbers just for a few dyno pulls, i'm talking about safe reliable and easy to attain daily driver numbers on the STOCK block. Not dyno queen, three pulls at xxpsi then back down to safer boost pressures once the tires hit the streets.
CJ

Originally Posted by iTune

i was a k-series boost pioneer...and my knowledge in this area is very extensive. I was one of the first to boost the K20A2 and also was one of the first to test the GReddy turbo kit for the K20A2 using a mitsubishi T517Z turbo. I worked closely with Hondata(there were several of us testing) in the development of the k-pro, which is the best engine management you can have for any k-series engine. I know exactly what it takes to make big numbers with this motor, stock and built. I can tell you this, there is not a single inline4 in the world that is more engineered than this engine. It has a better VE, a better head design(cams, ect.), better combustion chamber design, better bottom end design(minus the rods and pistons), internally balanced crank that can handle more power than you can throw at it in stock form(the whole rotating assembly is balanced from the factory), better block bracing....under piston skirt oil squirters, i mean the list goes on and on! Some of these things the 4G63 does have, what the two engines share is very old school in design.

The k20a2 can make more than 500whp in stock form very safely with the correct parts and of course, a good tune. It's been done time and time again and very few people have had failures. The ones that did were mostly caused by bad tunes or improper protection protocols(i.e. lean protection, overboost protection ect.) or from running the engine at too high of a engine speed(over 9000rpm). This kind of stuff happened very rarely, but can happen to not only a 500+whp engine, but a 250whp engine, as most of you know. The weakest point in the stock k-series bottom end is the rods/pistons. The rods are the typical i-beam cast rods that are perfect for N/A applications, but not good for ultra high revs and boost.

It's very important to understand that all these things make the k20a2 such a great engine. The head may flow a little better than the evo's 4G63 head(intake flows more and the exhaust is a little less), but that only tells about an 8th of the story. Like i have said before, you have to take into account all the other factors involved, like combustion chamber design, valve and valve seat design, piston design..ect. Just the crank alone is worth a lot as the crank alone is worth a lot more power. It's a extremely well engineered engine and if it were meant for a turbocharged application, the pistons and rods would have been upgraded from the OEM, this would literally make the k20 perfect in just about every way, in stock form.

Now, even with just a simple swap to forged pistons, @9.5:1 static CR and a good set of h-beam billet rods and a set of headstuds and OEM head gasket...and you have an engine that can handle 600+whp with simple bolt ons(even the stock sleeves are good for this power, although sleeving is deff recommended at these power levels). It's not only a well designed engine, it can make very cheap power, even on stock cams(really long duration of the stock cams= more cam overlap which is bad for boosted engines)!

I see the 4G63 needs soo much to make lots of power, even with a lower static CR.(of course, read my ealier post in regards to static and effective CR's)....a cam change is needed right off the bat, it can't handle too much boost on pump gas.....and is kind of watered down in stock form.... You can make a ishload of power, but you have to spend a lot of money building the bottom end getting it preped for the supporting bolt on mods that are obviously needed to make big power. With a k20, just swap pistons/rods(obviously this is the super cheap way, but still makes a lot of power very safely with a good tune)......bolt on the turbo/mani of your choice and tune away.

It's important for you to know that i have both of these engines. I love my EVO for the chassis and drivetrain.....i don't really care for the engine at all. I have a turboed RSX-S for it's engine and engineering.....although the chassis is not bad, the fact that it's FWD is it's lacking point.

back to the heads of these monsters: just because you flow more CFM's does not mean you will make more power, it's all about keeping velocity% of the port as close to 100% as possible. A head that flows 240cfm@28" @400" lift at 90% port velocity will make more power than a head that flows only 270cfm@28" @400" lift at 70% port velocity. This even applies to forced induction set-ups, although not as much, but does apply for sure.

There are just too many variables and very few constants to sum everything up about these two engines without getting really deep and long winded.....But for my money and my knowledge my opinion is the K20A(2)(Z1) is the best 4 cylinder made, by anybody at any time...ever. Don't think that i am taking anything away from the 4G63.....it's a close second for sure, even though it's technolgy is somewhat archaic in certain terms.


CJ

Originally Posted by trinydex

what about the stookie motor?