How much hp do you think an LNF 2.0 thats naturally aspirated would make to the flywheel?

bump

160 maybe?

thats a good guess!^^^^

wouldnt it be less then a 2.2 which is 148

id think its easily capable of the 150-180 range

yeah im thinking 100hp from the turbo, right

wouldnt it be less then a 2.2 which is 148

The 2.2 isn't a performance-minded motor... The internals are weaker, it doesn't use direct injection, etc.

wouldnt it be less then a 2.2 which is 148

VVT and DI would help it to get more hp

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say 170-190hp.

I'm basing this off of the fact that the internal dimensions are similar to the LSJ, and although it would be naturally aspirated, it would still have direct injection and cam phasing on its side to make up for the difference.

I've thought about this question before myself. I contemplated getting a copy of HP Tuners in the future and set the commanded parameters to atmospheric/sea level pressure to play around with it and see. Although it wouldn't be truly naturally aspirated still, you could at least get a feel for what the engine can do on its own.

Edit: The more I think about it and read the good thoughts some of you have, the more I think it would be lower.

stock boost is 16lbs... each psi says to be 10hp

so 100 hp

stock boost is 16lbs... each psi says to be 10hp

so 100 hp

i wouldnt think so, but you might be right

stock boost is 16lbs... each psi says to be 10hp

so 100 hp

Thats being tuned for a turbo i assume that if its tuned for the motor it will be much more!

stock boost is 16lbs... each psi says to be 10hp

so 100 hp

I like the thought process. I'd add a bit more to it though I think.

Not only is it a 2.0... but it is like a 9.2:1 Compression Ratio, iirc.

It wouldn't be much. I'd say less than 150hp.

stock boost is 16lbs... each psi says to be 10hp

so 100 hp

Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha....


No.

With your genius HP guessing equation... that would mean that 10psi from a stock turbo... and 10psi from a GT42R would make the same amount of power. Ummmm... Okay.

120-140hp seem fair?

There is really only one way to find out... and that would be to do it. There are WAY too many factors that go into it. Like, Cams... how well will the stock cams work in a N/A situation... manifolds, etc, etc.

i totally forgot about direct injection and vvt in the LNF.

the camaro is n/a and it makes 304 hp out of a 3.6L
and vvt adds some power like in the accord and cobalt 2.4.

so im thinking it probably makes about 180

i wonder if somebody has tried it?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha....


No.

With your genius HP guessing equation... that would mean that 10psi from a stock turbo... and 10psi from a GT42R would make the same amount of power. Ummmm... Okay.

perfect example of why ppl dont get on .net anymore.... 2 many dickheads

i think it would be stupid to do, so i can only guess that no one has tried it

USM is your senior, and you are to respect him as such

perfect example of why ppl dont get on .net anymore.... 2 many dickheads

...Yea it's because of the dickheads with the correct answers/idea, not the ones that blast B.S. and pull incorrect info outta there anus.

:rolleyes:

...Yea it's because of the dickheads with the correct answers/idea, not the ones that blast B.S. and pull incorrect info outta there anus.

:rolleyes:

the OP states "How much hp do you think an LNF 2.0 thats naturally aspirated would make to the flywheel?"

key word THINK i stated how much I would THINK it would be... and there isnt CORRECT info because no1 would know the correct answer buddy, there is no exact number :thumbsdow

...Yea it's because of the dickheads with the correct answers/idea, not the ones that blast B.S. and pull incorrect info outta there anus.

:rolleyes:

thats MY job :lol:

the OP states "How much hp do you think an LNF 2.0 thats naturally aspirated would make to the flywheel?"

key word THINK i stated how much I would THINK it would be... and there isnt CORRECT info because no1 would know the correct answer buddy, there is no exact number :thumbsdow

But if what you "think" isn't based on any technically true merit what you "think" really isn't worth much is it?...

and it starts again

FWIW, buddy of mine ran his stock LSJ on a dyno with the boost bypass done wrong, valve stayed open and the car made 0 boost. Put down 130 somthing. I'd assume the LNF would be slightly higher with the DI and VVT, but how they would react to just pulling boost out of the stock tune, I wouldn't know. IF the engine was specifically tuned for NA, then you can't really compare, as the tuning would make the difference.

I'd guess 150-160hp, if everything was left stock but boost was disabled. Assuming the car would still complete the pull.

FWIW, buddy of mine ran his stock LSJ on a dyno with the boost bypass done wrong, valve stayed open and the car made 0 boost. Put down 130 somthing. I'd assume the LNF would be slightly higher with the DI and VVT, but how they would react to just pulling boost out of the stock tune, I wouldn't know. IF the engine was specifically tuned for NA, then you can't really compare, as the tuning would make the difference.

I'd guess 150-160hp, if everything was left stock but boost was disabled. Assuming the car would still complete the pull.

Well, then it was doing 130hp, while still having a belt going to a supercharger.

130hp - supercharger to spin + DI + VVT = ?

thats why i like the 150-160 range

I'd say about 160-170...Maybe you should start a poll to see what the majority thinks.

Well, then it was doing 130hp, while still having a belt going to a supercharger.

130hp - supercharger to spin + DI + VVT = ?

With the bypass valve opened, drag from the blower is minimal. Under 1hp according to most sources. There is no boost, so no pressure against the rotors, no real work being done.

My guess is not more then the L61. So 110-115whp, or 130-140bhp.

L61......LNF
-------------
DIS: 2.2 vs 2.0
CR: 10:1 vs 9.2:1
CAM: NA vs VVT turbo grind

Its not going to make more than the L61. Like USMC said, stop pulling shit outta your asses please and stop using "ricer math" :lol: ;)

But if what you "think" isn't based on any technically true merit what you "think" really isn't worth much is it?...

Even still... regardless of how wrong and pointless anyone's guess is. I'm with Pimp.... it may just be a wild guess based on no facts. But the guy responding didn't need to be a dick about it. He could have just said "Hey, there's no facts to base that on so it can't be taken seriously" or something to that effect and made his point about two different turbos. Instead he just blasted out with dickheadism. <-- my new word.

See what we're saying?

It's no more wrong than anyone else here blurting out random numbers. For that Pimp get's blasted... that's not right... It's not about the answer, it's about respect.

With the bypass valve opened, drag from the blower is minimal. Under 1hp according to most sources. There is no boost, so no pressure against the rotors, no real work being done.

Very true. I was just thinking from a mechanical efficiency pov though. I'm not familiar with how easy/hard those things windmill on their own.

sorry but I would disagree with you guys and say that this engine without the turbo would make around 135hp

VVT and DI would help it to get more hp

but the missing .2l and the much lower compression would kill it, and VVT is more of a fuel economy thing than a power booster thing (the new 2.2's have VVT anyway) The LSJ's for example were 128bhp without the blower, with crap torque. The LNF i would imagine to have 135-145hp with even worse torque due to an even lower CR

but the missing .2l and the much lower compression would kill it, and VVT is more of a fuel economy thing than a power booster thing (the new 2.2's have VVT anyway) The LSJ's for example were 128bhp without the blower, with crap torque. The LNF i would imagine to have 135-145hp with even worse torque due to an even lower CR

but wouldnt it have to change the comp ratio as well as tune?

wlel supposedly the LAF is supposed to put down like 185 hp or so and thats going to have vvt still as well as DI in a 2.4 the 1.8 L vvt eco in the astra puts down 140 or so ...

LAF

The LAF is an direct injected 2.4 L that delivers an estimated 180 horsepower (134 kW) @ 6700 rpm and 172 lb.-ft. of torque (232 Nm) @4900 rpm. It uses technology based on GM’s other four-cylinder direct injection applications, but with unique features designed for its specific application. This includes an 11.4:1 compression ratio that helps build power, slightly dished pistons that increase combustion efficiency and injectors with an application-specific flow rate.[

so i'm going to say... probably about 150-160 as the cam grind will be more agressive ( not necessarily better) but still

now that i think about it...how is 10psi from a Garett turbo any different than a stock turbo. if its still going through the same intake manifold, its still the same lb's of pressure per square inch.... wtf is the difference? Im still learning here, not trying to come off like an ass. I would just like to be educated. I thought Garrett turbo's and such just put out higher PSI than stockers. i didnt think that each PSI of their turbo was better than stock

now that i think about it...how is 10psi from a Garett turbo any different than a stock turbo. if its still going through the same intake manifold, its still the same lb's of pressure per square inch.... wtf is the difference? Im still learning here, not trying to come off like an ass. I would just like to be educated. I thought Garrett turbo's and such just put out higher PSI than stockers. i didnt think that each PSI of their turbo was better than stock

I'm a bit of a novice too... but I think it "flows" more. More CFM (cubic feet per minute) at whatever given PSI. Like voltage and current, or even just water. You have so much pressure at your faucet. Get a bigger faucet with the same pressure and more comes out.

Since its isn't optimized in any way for a N/A application I would say it would run slower than shit (low compression ratio, turbo cam profile) and make ~120hp.

but wouldnt it have to change the comp ratio as well as tune?

the CR would remain the same...and the tune could as well..., though the tune would likely change. The original question is how the LNF would perform without the turbo, not how much power a completely new 2.0l DI VVT motor would make.

i dont know much but it not about PSI its about CFM's if two turbos are pushing 10 psi but one flows 100cfm's and the other flows 200 cfm's the on that flows 200 cfm will make more power

I'm a bit of a novice too... but I think it "flows" more. More CFM (cubic feet per minute) at whatever given PSI. Like voltage and current, or even just water. You have so much pressure at your faucet. Get a bigger faucet with the same pressure and more comes out.

Well i guess that makes sense then. thanks for the info :)

now that i think about it...how is 10psi from a Garett turbo any different than a stock turbo. if its still going through the same intake manifold, its still the same lb's of pressure per square inch.... wtf is the difference? Im still learning here, not trying to come off like an ass. I would just like to be educated. I thought Garrett turbo's and such just put out higher PSI than stockers. i didnt think that each PSI of their turbo was better than stock

cooler IAT2s. larger turbos tend to have better adiabatic efficiencies. think like the M62 at 20psi....its really really hot and doesnt make much power. Then the TVS at 20psi isnt very hot at all, and makes a lot more power at the same boost level. also, 20psi at 70* is going to be more CFMs than 20psi at 170* (since the colder air will be denser). So you will be able to run more timing, with more airflow, at the same psi level

you might wanna verify this with someone else, but this is my understanding of it

ive heard its rounf 130 hp.

why?

cooler IAT2s. larger turbos tend to have better adiabatic efficiencies. think like the M62 at 20psi....its really really hot and doesnt make much power. Then the TVS at 20psi isnt very hot at all, and makes a lot more power at the same boost level. also, 20psi at 70* is going to be more CFMs than 20psi at 170* (since the colder air will be denser). So you will be able to run more timing, with more airflow, at the same psi level

you might wanna verify this with someone else, but this is my understanding of it


Wouldn't the same restriction still be inplace at 10psi with either turbo thou? The intake or exhaust port, intake manifold ect.... ?? At 10psi the stock turbo is still efficient i would guess , the garett would show it's self at higher boost where the stocker is out of its range?? I'm just guessing this and is more of a question than anything else.....i'm a turbo noob.hehe

Wouldn't the same restriction still be inplace at 10psi with either turbo thou? The intake or exhaust port, intake manifold ect.... ?? At 10psi the stock turbo is still efficient i would guess , the garett would show it's self at higher boost where the stocker is out of its range?? I'm just guessing this and is more of a question than anything else.....i'm a turbo noob.hehe

as am I...im a supercharger guy. But while the same restriction would still be in place, 10psi at70* would flow more than 10psi at 140*, like i said earlier. It's the turbo's efficiency that will create more power at the same boost level. Typically, a larger turbo is more efficient than a smaller one at the same boost pressure. I really dont know size/efficiency comparisons between the K04 and a garrett turbo, so i cant say for sure if that is the case in this instance, but the ridiculously quick spool time, and low end torque the K04 provides leads me to believe its a pretty small guy, which would also imply its less efficient than the garrett, even if it is still inside its efficiency range

Wouldn't the same restriction still be inplace at 10psi with either turbo thou? The intake or exhaust port, intake manifold ect.... ?? At 10psi the stock turbo is still efficient i would guess , the garett would show it's self at higher boost where the stocker is out of its range?? I'm just guessing this and is more of a question than anything else.....i'm a turbo noob.hehe

Nope pressure makes no difference really. Flow is what matters. Some turbos flow more air on the same car at 10 psi as others at 20 psi. Pressure is kinda un important here flow is. ;)

[QUOTE=USMCFieldMP;3942947]Not only is it a 2.0... but it is like a 9.2:1 Compression Ratio, iirc.

It wouldn't be much. I'd say less than 150hp.


QUOTE]

Im gonna go with the "WON'T EVEN RUN" option. This motor has a low compression, and without a turbo thats just retarded! lol. but seriously an actual number if you could get it to even turn over it would be like 80hp.

Now, if you didn't have the low compression, then my guess is that it would be 160hp.

as am I...im a supercharger guy. But while the same restriction would still be in place, 10psi at70* would flow more than 10psi at 140*, like i said earlier. It's the turbo's efficiency that will create more power at the same boost level. Typically, a larger turbo is more efficient than a smaller one at the same boost pressure. I really dont know size/efficiency comparisons between the K04 and a garrett turbo, so i cant say for sure if that is the case in this instance, but the ridiculously quick spool time, and low end torque the K04 provides leads me to believe its a pretty small guy, which would also imply its less efficient than the garrett, even if it is still inside its efficiency range

Yep lower temps mean denser air charge which translates into a larger airload and more power. :)

The good news is that you would actually be able to run it to 7k RPM and actually make power.

Maybe. Cams probably fall off though.

The good news is that you would actually be able to run it to 7k RPM and actually make power.

Maybe. Cams probably fall off though.

Huh? Oh, you mean Na. Yes probably up to 8K as long as you upgrade the valvesprings.

[QUOTE=USMCFieldMP;3942947]Not only is it a 2.0... but it is like a 9.2:1 Compression Ratio, iirc.

It wouldn't be much. I'd say less than 150hp.


QUOTE]

Im gonna go with the "WON'T EVEN RUN" option. This motor has a low compression, and without a turbo thats just retarded! lol. but seriously an actual number if you could get it to even turn over it would be like 80hp.

Now, if you didn't have the low compression, then my guess is that it would be 160hp.

9.2:1 is not that low.

My motor is at 8.9:1 Compression right now, so your saying im lucky to be making 80hp? Thats .3 lower then the LNF. Stock honda motors average a 9.2:1 CR on most of their d15, d16, and b18 motors. They make from 107 - 138hp and they are MUCH smaller then the LNF is in displacement. I think you need to do get a better understanding on motors. Start with something simple then move up to the LNF. ;)

[QUOTE=CudaJoe;3945149]

9.2:1 is not that low.

My motor is at 8.9:1 Compression right now, so your saying im lucky to be making 80hp? Thats .3 lower then the LNF. Stock honda motors average a 9.2:1 CR on most of their d15, d16, and b18 motors. They make from 107 - 138hp and they are MUCH smaller then the LNF is in displacement. I think you need to do get a better understanding on motors. Start with something simple then move up to the LNF. ;)

meh, whatev, lol. The point is you won't make the max power at that compression that the motor is capable of handling N/A

poop!!!

Remember that the LNF head flows poorly on the intake side. I'd guess 115-120 at the wheels, maybe 135-140 at the flywheel.

Somebody could test this and get a very rough estimate....just take one of those "Dynolicious" programs for the Ipod touch or the "G-force" hp device. Then when you drive the car to start the test, give it just enough gas to get a bit below the 0 mark on the boost guage. Should similate a naturally aspirated setup fairly closely.

Either way it won't be much hp. I say 150 at the crank.

perfect example of why ppl dont get on .net anymore.... 2 many dickheads

capped off by massive amounts of newbs and misinformation, ie: your first post in here.

Somebody could test this and get a very rough estimate....just take one of those "Dynolicious" programs for the Ipod touch or the "G-force" hp device. Then when you drive the car to start the test, give it just enough gas to get a bit below the 0 mark on the boost guage. Should similate a naturally aspirated setup fairly closely.

Either way it won't be much hp. I say 150 at the crank.

The problem with that is that you're not getting the WOT position on the throttle plate by doing that, so it wouldn't be accurate. I've thought about that myself too.

I think basically tuning your car to top off at 0psi boost would be an alternative though. That way you can floor it (open up that throttle plate) all you want and the turbo would only spin up to 0psi, while your engine is bringing in as much air as it can... well... naturally aspirate. The wastegate would control the turbo revs, so it wouldn't be at risk of overspooling the turbo or anything.

i want to make a poll for this but i dont know how to

can i make one if i am just a regular member?

capped off by massive amounts of newbs and misinformation, ie: your first post in here.

Everyone is a newb at some point. No reason to be asses about it. Misinformation can be corrected... no reason to be asses about that either.

He wasn't an ass in his first post in here so it was uncalled for... for anyone to be an ass to him. They simply could have just corrected him if that's all they wanted to do. So I agree with him completely. A lot of stuff can be settled on this site without being dicks about it but it doesn't happen. Everyone has to try to be somebody on here like it really means something.

Engines tuned for a turbo make less power NA than you would think. I know a guy that had a 2.0 Sunbird GT turbo. The turbo died and he couldn't make it up a hill faster than 50 km/h.

Engines tuned for a turbo make less power NA than you would think. I know a guy that had a 2.0 Sunbird GT turbo. The turbo died and he couldn't make it up a hill faster than 50 km/h.

If you retuned the LNF without the turbo I could see it making 145-155 crank hp. It would probably make about 100 hp if you left the tune alone though IMHO.

well did the turbo die and he drove the car with it heat locked??? cause if he did then he had some major engine back pressure! lol.

Isn't this similar to part of what limp mode does; cut boost?.. or does it simply limit overall throttle range?

Isn't this similar to part of what limp mode does; cut boost?.. or does it simply limit overall throttle range?

Throttle slams shut (or to less than 50% to be more accurate) and the wastegate opens so the boost pressure drops to less than 5 psi. I believe the ECM also pulls a ton of timing too.

Everyone is a newb at some point. No reason to be asses about it. Misinformation can be corrected... no reason to be asses about that either.

He wasn't an ass in his first post in here so it was uncalled for... for anyone to be an ass to him. They simply could have just corrected him if that's all they wanted to do. So I agree with him completely. A lot of stuff can be settled on this site without being dicks about it but it doesn't happen. Everyone has to try to be somebody on here like it really means something.

Its cool man you might be the only one of the few who understands..... let them get there orgasm off of trying to make ppl over the internet feel dumb.... i simply sit back and :lol:

Yeah, he drove it with it locked, died on the way to camping. So it was bad lol

Anyway, the LNF has valve overlap timed for maximum cylinder pressure not exhaust scavenging for optimum air intake.

LNF without the turbo? A 2.2 OHV would be a close match :p. Those guys saying 150+ are out of their minds. Internet mechanics are abound around here.

why doesnt someone go into their ecu and make it so limp mode is on all the time and see what happens. u get no boost then or am i wrong.

why doesnt someone go into their ecu and make it so limp mode is on all the time and see what happens. u get no boost then or am i wrong.

Well, like Terminator2 said, limp mode also limits the throttle to <50%, so although it takes care of the boost portion of it, you're also still not able to hit full throttle either.

To test it without changing up the engine, you'd need to limit boost while also allowing for full throttle.

damn you guys are beating a dead horse unless someone does this. Who is going to try it?

Preferably somebody with a tuned car and HP Tuners already, that can whip up a no-boost tune, try it, and then able to revert it back again.