DEK Pt 2.
12-31-2011, 07:51 PM
#45
n what WTQ????...... this kinda also proves its power robbing to do a 3.5 swap with 3.0timing... the only one that did it correctly obviously dynoed more and auto at that... but to not compare, the reason i would rather still do the 3.5 is because even if one was to get similar numbers the wtq will possibly be a lot more making the 3.5 car significantly faster
But all this is debatable either way. The bottom line is that you can't argue with simple physics. There is no replacement for displacement. So regardless of what might or might not be variable on the motor (IVT, EVT 00VI and whatever other acronyms we have for our motors), you will always make more useable power when you have more displacement to start with given all other factors are equal.
I can see a 280-300whp dyno with these heads sitting on a 3.5 block with stock internals. But again, that's not what this thread is about. Ceff's car moves like a **** now and all his work payed off. I'm waiting to hear some more kill stories.
12-31-2011, 08:00 PM
#46
12-31-2011, 08:02 PM
#47
12-31-2011, 08:22 PM
#49
01-01-2012, 08:29 AM
#50
I wouldn't exactly call it power robbing. You can make the cam spacers to specific specifications to optimize the power output versus rpm based on where you need your powerband to be. Cam choice and rev limit are major influences to decide what is the best way to set the adapters.
But all this is debatable either way. The bottom line is that you can't argue with simple physics. There is no replacement for displacement. So regardless of what might or might not be variable on the motor (IVT, EVT 00VI and whatever other acronyms we have for our motors), you will always make more useable power when you have more displacement to start with given all other factors are equal.
I can see a 280-300whp dyno with these heads sitting on a 3.5 block with stock internals. But again, that's not what this thread is about. Ceff's car moves like a **** now and all his work payed off. I'm waiting to hear some more kill stories.
But all this is debatable either way. The bottom line is that you can't argue with simple physics. There is no replacement for displacement. So regardless of what might or might not be variable on the motor (IVT, EVT 00VI and whatever other acronyms we have for our motors), you will always make more useable power when you have more displacement to start with given all other factors are equal.
I can see a 280-300whp dyno with these heads sitting on a 3.5 block with stock internals. But again, that's not what this thread is about. Ceff's car moves like a **** now and all his work payed off. I'm waiting to hear some more kill stories.
01-01-2012, 09:16 AM
#51
So yes you're right about overall area under the curve, but with the right gearing, rev limit, cam timing, the useable power band will be the same. Obviously, you would prefer to do this with tuning (3.5 electronics) over swaping out/redrilling cam spacers. (3.0 timing)
01-02-2012, 03:51 PM
#55
unfortunately the 3.0 is always going to underachieve from the 3.5 in the N/A category... and with every dyno it will unfortunately be the topic of discussion, because with a 3.5 swap being so readily available and so easily done, when you throw a lot of money into the DEK and make less power than a 3.5 then these are discussions that will always come up granted that we all know you didnt do this because you were comparing numbers between the two, more so trying to push you're current motor to its limits or somewhere close or that makes you comfortable...
I also blame this partially on myself and every other DEK orger or lurker who just sits around waiting for a guinea pig to copy his mod list n hope for the same, (granted i dont wait for somebody to prove something that common sense should) ive never really been into proving a DEK to be better or worse than whatever other motor made for our cars, its great the results that you got and i think its a result i would be comfortable with if i really wanted to stick with the motor that came with the car.... good stuff cef...
I also blame this partially on myself and every other DEK orger or lurker who just sits around waiting for a guinea pig to copy his mod list n hope for the same, (granted i dont wait for somebody to prove something that common sense should) ive never really been into proving a DEK to be better or worse than whatever other motor made for our cars, its great the results that you got and i think its a result i would be comfortable with if i really wanted to stick with the motor that came with the car.... good stuff cef...
01-02-2012, 06:51 PM
#56
100 + HP / L on 10:1 CR revving < 8K would be impressive for porsche - let alone a 15+ year old nissan engine design.
01-02-2012, 07:41 PM
#57
and thats a win how???.... so if a .5 liter motor produced 140whp why do i care???.... if you gotta really going into all this math n physics and what not to prove what seems to be a point then o.k i guess....
01-03-2012, 07:16 AM
#58
02-12-2012, 05:52 PM
#65
jesus christ will you guys knock off all the 3.5 talk. Every thread where a 3.0 is over 200whp "oh it will be so much cheaper to just swap a 3.5", seriously shut the **** up already. Can we just be happy that a 3.0 has made this kind of power on STOCK COMPRESSION. Go argue 3.5s somewhere else.
02-12-2012, 07:11 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,349
jesus christ will you guys knock off all the 3.5 talk. Every thread where a 3.0 is over 200whp "oh it will be so much cheaper to just swap a 3.5", seriously shut the **** up already. Can we just be happy that a 3.0 has made this kind of power on STOCK COMPRESSION. Go argue 3.5s somewhere else.
02-12-2012, 09:30 PM
#68
02-14-2012, 09:20 AM
#69
HP Sells cars, TQ wins races.... Errr
HP wins MOTQ, TQ makes better track times #fixed
jesus christ will you guys knock off all the 3.5 talk. Every thread where a 3.0 is over 200whp "oh it will be so much cheaper to just swap a 3.5", seriously shut the **** up already. Can we just be happy that a 3.0 has made this kind of power on STOCK COMPRESSION. Go argue 3.5s somewhere else.
In the end 248whp sounds good for a dyno queen, and I think that's what he tried to accomplish.
So good job.
Last edited by aackshun; 02-14-2012 at 09:23 AM.
02-14-2012, 10:44 AM
#70
jesus christ will you guys knock off all the 3.5 talk. Every thread where a 3.0 is over 200whp "oh it will be so much cheaper to just swap a 3.5", seriously shut the **** up already. Can we just be happy that a 3.0 has made this kind of power on STOCK COMPRESSION. Go argue 3.5s somewhere else.
hp = [tq*rpm]/5252. My whole theory on this is, it's a tiny V6, the way it builds power, is by revving it to the moon. So I'm gonna take full advantage of that, period, end of story. IDGAF about WTQ with this car, the topend is awesome and it's a 3.0L with big cams and a big pipe so I'm hardly concerned.
02-14-2012, 11:24 AM
#71
jesus christ will you guys knock off all the 3.5 talk. Every thread where a 3.0 is over 200whp "oh it will be so much cheaper to just swap a 3.5", seriously shut the **** up already. Can we just be happy that a 3.0 has made this kind of power on STOCK COMPRESSION. Go argue 3.5s somewhere else.
especially when some of the guys arguing don't have over 200whp to their name, you know who you are 
Good job Moncef! Nice to see its finally at the stage you wanted it to be. Whats next?
02-14-2012, 01:36 PM
#73
02-15-2012, 06:31 AM
#77
. Say 5k or so. 2.3+ 60', 103-105 trap.
02-15-2012, 06:46 AM
#78
103 if this dyno is the same as a dynojet.... according to everybody it should be in the 270's... with 270's he should be trapping 105-108... with 103 I can see his car dynoing 248 on a dynojet also
02-23-2012, 06:49 AM
#79
Very impressive numbers BTW, congrats! I'll be happy if my DE-K can reach 220 whp
Does anyone have a rough idea of the highest wtq achieved on a NA 3.0? I remember DandyMax was somewhere around 205, and about the same for 98BlackMaxSE. Can a 3.0 get much higher than that?
Last edited by 95maxrider; 02-23-2012 at 10:10 AM.
