Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

any new info on S2000 vs E30 M3 cylinder head performance?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • any new info on S2000 vs E30 M3 cylinder head performance?

    Hello all,

    I've only had my M3 about 6 months, and long before I acquired it, I recall reading an online alaysis by US-based cylinder head builder Joe Alaniz, covering the E30 Sport Evo's head, versus the famous Honda F20 head from the S2000.

    Alaniz is a well known Honda tuner, and has made a name for himself building some sickeningly fast Honda drag cars. Prior to his setting up his shop however, he worked at DPR (Dan Paramour Racing,) and actually spend some time based here in the Philippines, where he built the cylinder head that eventually found its way onto my Mitsubishi Evo (270 @ the wheels, stock turbo, stock boost pressure).

    I had forgotten about the article until recently when I was surfing for M3-related information, and rediscovered the analysis, which as it turns out was done together with Gustave.

    The conclusion was that the F20 cylinder head is still really the "king of heads", but that there were indications that the head on Gustave's car could be improved in certain areas. The jury remained out on whether the S14 could be made to flow as well as the F20, as the question is an empirical one, and would require further experimentation on an actual head with a flow bench.

    Has any work been done in this area? Anyone have any new data on the F20 vs the S14 since the time of that article?

    Cheers!
    2006 Ruf RT12 (650HP)
    2006 Porsche GT3 (415HP)
    2006 Jeep SRT8 (415HP)
    2003 911 Turbo (420HP)
    1999 MB E55 (365HP)
    1998 Evo 5 (400HP, track spec)
    1987 BMW M3 (2.3L, Alpha-N, CF airbox)

  • #2
    i dont think so...but who really cares.

    Get your head to flow the best it can for your car....not the best it can compared to a honda.

    Comment


    • #3
      and I would hope most 2000 and on head designs flow better than 1986 designs :p

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ADA///M
        i dont think so...but who really cares.

        Get your head to flow the best it can for your car....not the best it can compared to a honda.
        er... thanks for the helpful and constructive post. :sosad:

        all due respect adam, but my point was not that i want my head to flow better than a honda. all i'm trying to say is that someone out there (who just happens to be good at head porting with hondas) seems to have some ideas about how to make he S14 head flow better.

        the F20 just seems to be a good benchmark, because it performs very well in this department. at the end of the day, i don't care if its a ferrari or a porsche or a honda or a Trabant for that matter. the point is that its good to know what's possible, and having a lofty target seems a good way to achieve real gains for our cars.

        and if we learn from what other people or other manufacturers have done, what's wrong with that?
        2006 Ruf RT12 (650HP)
        2006 Porsche GT3 (415HP)
        2006 Jeep SRT8 (415HP)
        2003 911 Turbo (420HP)
        1999 MB E55 (365HP)
        1998 Evo 5 (400HP, track spec)
        1987 BMW M3 (2.3L, Alpha-N, CF airbox)

        Comment


        • #5
          S14 head, circa 1985 design.
          F20 head, circa ten or less years later.

          if this post was in the racing forum, maybe your statement about learning from what other people/manufacturers have done would carry some weight... but there is no point in this arena. We already play around with airflow in our engines. But with repect, there isn't much point in trying to make an F20 out of an s14 is there? Especially at the street level.
          Horses for courses.
          m

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mmark
            S14 head, circa 1985 design.
            F20 head, circa ten or less years later.

            if this post was in the racing forum, maybe your statement about learning from what other people/manufacturers have done would carry some weight... but there is no point in this arena. We already play around with airflow in our engines. But with repect, there isn't much point in trying to make an F20 out of an s14 is there? Especially at the street level.
            Horses for courses.
            m
            hmm... very well, seems the consensus is that my question and subsequent comments were somehow misplaced. if i've offended anybody, then my apologies :sosad:

            i've owned my M3 for about 6 months now, and love it to bits, having lusted over one since my college roommate had one new in '89. i guess i don't fully understed the board etiquette yet. i've been coming here almost daily to browse, especially many of the older posts. i must say, the level of technical expertise and knowledge about the cars on this board has been mighty impressive, especially coming from boards of certain other cars (evos in particular) that seem to be littered with posts about "i street raced so-and-so car and won!". i'd say this is much more of an enthusiasts board, and I love it for that.

            i'm looking to finally upgrade my engine next year, and inevitably, the route of modifying the cylinder head has crossed my mind as something to do at some point in the future. hence my curiosity about the subject matter.

            anyway, thanks for the comments.

            PEACE!
            2006 Ruf RT12 (650HP)
            2006 Porsche GT3 (415HP)
            2006 Jeep SRT8 (415HP)
            2003 911 Turbo (420HP)
            1999 MB E55 (365HP)
            1998 Evo 5 (400HP, track spec)
            1987 BMW M3 (2.3L, Alpha-N, CF airbox)

            Comment


            • #7
              I think you have a very legit question/comment that is very much e30m3 relevant and may be pertinent to others. Being able to utilize the knowledge that has been gained from 1987 to 2000 via a very high-flowing head (F20) and seeing what is applicable to the S14 head can be valuable for many who are looking port & polish their head or are simply interested in engineering. I imagine this was one of the reasons Gustave & Alaniz looked into it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like anybody here has the answer.

              The great thing is that almost anything here goes as long it is E30 M3-pertinent...

              However, many here seem to get their panties in a bunch when people discuss topics that go across the grain of conventional wisdom, especially if the word Honda is mentioned. Hopefully someone here can chime in...

              I read somewhere that Honda studied the S14 in its development of the F20. Who knows if it is true or not!

              90 Sterling 2.5L E30///M3 lifer
              97 Porsche Carrera S
              13 Audi S6
              SOLD 03 Audi RS6 daily
              GONE 88 E28///M5 project

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SeattleE30///M3
                However, many here seem to get their panties in a bunch when people discuss topics that go across the grain of conventional wisdom, especially if the word Honda is mentioned. Hopefully someone here can chime in...

                I read somewhere that Honda studied the S14 in its development of the F20. Who knows if it is true or not!
                hehehe well, i'm glad someone agrees that there's a lot to be learned from other manufacturers and tuners.

                you know what's really funny, i partly got tired by some of the evo boards because too many people on there spend way too much time crowing about what "kills" they've had on the road. and the favorite targets seem to be Porsche's and M3's!!!

                around a tight racetrack (well, there are really only 2 here in the Philippines, so i have to qualify my statement to cover only these two tracks,) a properly sorted evo will be a few seconds faster than a mildly tuned E30 M3, assuming equal driver skill. but the evo has over 100HP more, and 4WD. having driven both cars back to back, i can say that the M3 is MUCH more fun and rewarding. so if i was going for an all out quick lap time, i'd take my evo, but for just having fun, it will be the M3 each and every time.

                having said that, its very nice to go from one car to the other, because you really appreciate each for what it is good at. but if i had to keep only one, it would be the M3!

                cheers!
                2006 Ruf RT12 (650HP)
                2006 Porsche GT3 (415HP)
                2006 Jeep SRT8 (415HP)
                2003 911 Turbo (420HP)
                1999 MB E55 (365HP)
                1998 Evo 5 (400HP, track spec)
                1987 BMW M3 (2.3L, Alpha-N, CF airbox)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello all, I'm a new user and I have read the artical on Gustave's site and I would like to offer an opinion. I would say that the s14 head could be made to flow as well as the F20 but it would not be a good idea. The advantage the F20 has the advantage of variable valve timing and lift and therefor can be allowed to flow much better than a head that uses a fixed cam timing set up.

                  The problem we encounter in trying to get a cylinder head to flow well we have to increase the port cross sectioal area and volume. Unfortunatly this reduces the gas velocity and the lower velocity allows reverstion of the gasses in the ports during valve overlap leading to poor low speed running. The variable valve timing system on the F20 engine avoids gas flow reversion by having almost no lift during overlap when running on the milder cam profiles used at lower engine speeds therefor allowing good low speed running whilst having the large cross section and volume required for 8k+ rpm running on the high engine speed cam profile.

                  The only info available to me for the cam profiles used on the F20 is from the CatCams website and for a comparison the specs for the mildest Cat Cams profiles for the F20 are follows.

                  PRIMARY IN EX
                  Duration 237 / 233
                  Max lift 7.10 / 7.10mm
                  Lift at TDC 0.50 / 0.50mm

                  SECONDRY
                  Duration 241 / 236
                  Max lift 7.60 / 7.60mm
                  Lift at TDC 0.65 / 0.50mm

                  VTEC
                  Duration 295 / 284
                  Max lift 12.10 / 11.10mm
                  Lift at TDC 3.95 / 3.35mm

                  As you can see on the milder profiles there is only a maximum of 0.50mm lift at TDC when running on the primary and 0.65mm on the secondry. Now compare this to the Schrick 284/276 set up.

                  Duration 284 / 276
                  Max lift 11.5mm / 11.3mm
                  Lift at TDC 3.5mm / 3.2mm

                  With the Schrick cams there is over 3mm of lift at TDC and this one cam profile has to work from idle to 7k+ rpm. If we had a comparable cross section and volume to the F20 the enging would be unmanagable at low speeds although it would produce good peak power.

                  It would be interesting to see the power and torque curves of a F20 engine running on the highst cam profile only. I would guess that it would produce significantly less torque than a standard s14 up untill 6k rpm ish.
                  Last edited by stevesingo; 12-26-2004, 03:03 AM.
                  Sport Evo No.47

                  My Sport Evo Restoration

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    http://www.automotivetech.org/forum/...?threadid=2571

                    Some good reading for those not well versed in head design(s).

                    T

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by hesperus
                      hmm... very well, seems the consensus is that my question and subsequent comments were somehow misplaced. if i've offended anybody, then my apologies :sosad:

                      i've owned my M3 for about 6 months now, and love it to bits, having lusted over one since my college roommate had one new in '89. i guess i don't fully understed the board etiquette yet. i've been coming here almost daily to browse, especially many of the older posts. i must say, the level of technical expertise and knowledge about the cars on this board has been mighty impressive, especially coming from boards of certain other cars (evos in particular) that seem to be littered with posts about "i street raced so-and-so car and won!". i'd say this is much more of an enthusiasts board, and I love it for that.

                      i'm looking to finally upgrade my engine next year, and inevitably, the route of modifying the cylinder head has crossed my mind as something to do at some point in the future. hence my curiosity about the subject matter.

                      anyway, thanks for the comments.

                      PEACE!
                      No offense taken, no knickers in a twist here, and certainly not ganging up on the outsider either.
                      Imo, the F20 has qualities that make it deficient for my app.
                      These have been listed in subsequent portions of this thread.
                      I personally have little interest in making my specimen an all- singing, all-dancing screamer.
                      I did that with VWs.
                      I'm interested in keeping mine(a battered daily driver as purchased) running and improving myself as a driver in a car that can still be considered a giant killer in stock format.
                      Kudos to those in search of more power, but not all of us will run with the flock.

                      Perhaps those searching for power at both ends of the rev range in the s14 need to realise that beyond a certain point they'll have to change the architecture of the head itself, in which case it is no longer the same animal.
                      m
                      Last edited by Mmark; 12-26-2004, 04:31 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by stevesingo
                        Hello all, I'm a new user and I have read the artical on Gustave's site and I would like to offer an opinion. I would say that the s14 head could be made to flow as well as the F20 but it would not be a good idea. The advantage the F20 has the advantage of variable valve timing and lift and therefor can be allowed to flow much better than a head that uses a fixed cam timing set up.

                        The problem we encounter in trying to get a cylinder head to flow well we have to increase the port cross sectioal area and volume. Unfortunatly this reduces the gas velocity and the lower velocity allows reverstion of the gasses in the ports during valve overlap leading to poor low speed running. The variable valve timing system on the F20 engine avoids gas flow reversion by having almost no lift during overlap when running on the milder cam profiles used at lower engine speeds therefor allowing good low speed running whilst having the large cross section and volume required for 8k+ rpm running on the high engine speed cam profile.

                        It would be interesting to see the power and torque curves of a F20 engine running on the highst cam profile only. I would guess that it would produce significantly less torque than a standard s14 up untill 6k rpm ish.
                        thanks for the insight. i'm not well versed at all in the intricacies of head design, having no engineering background to speak of. but i have an armchair enthusiast's intuitive understanding of the principles, and i see your point.

                        as several others have mentioned, newer engines have the benefit of variable timing technology, and therein lies their advantage.

                        i don't intend to fiddle with the head just yet, but its always on my mind. i'll take things slow, starting with an Alpha-N setup early next year. It is about 60% street driven, 40% track toy, so i need the everyday tractability, and can't give that up in the quest for high RPM power only.

                        cheers!
                        2006 Ruf RT12 (650HP)
                        2006 Porsche GT3 (415HP)
                        2006 Jeep SRT8 (415HP)
                        2003 911 Turbo (420HP)
                        1999 MB E55 (365HP)
                        1998 Evo 5 (400HP, track spec)
                        1987 BMW M3 (2.3L, Alpha-N, CF airbox)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mmark
                          if this post was in the racing forum, maybe your statement about learning from what other people/manufacturers have done would carry some weight... but there is no point in this arena.
                          says who.. come on mark, i think thats a very valid question for GENERAL E30 M3 DISCUSSION.
                          1990 M3/1998 M3 Sedan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the higher a head flows on a flowbench, the more power its going to make. Remember, its all a system, and a very dynamic one at that.....
                            Jefrem Iwaniw

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jefrem
                              Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the higher a head flows on a flowbench, the more power its going to make. Remember, its all a system, and a very dynamic one at that.....

                              EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING

                              I can cut two holes in a head and make it "flow" better than an F20 head. But would it work in "real life"? NO

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X