Turbo or N/A?

[kccord]

(Copied from Accord Section)

Hey guys, playing with N/A, what do you guys recommend and give any tips to changing the F22B1 to high compression piston (like 12:1) and aluminium/steel conrod?

I did like some search over turbo but in the end I would have to forged the internals anyways but what if by changing the compression ratio makes the same amount of power as standard turbo + better fuel mileage for daily driving and - eng certificate n pits. Bisimoto ftw lol.

any comments on reliability n power over turbo?

[beeza]

NA all the way unless you simply want a Turbo.

NA is way more reliable and cheaper.Cheaper to run and insurance.

The other thing I personnally like about NA is a linear power/torque curve,if I was 18 I may like 'boost' but I'm all about a smooth delivery :)

If done correctly NA can make great power numbers at a good price.

[dzyn3]

NA all the way unless you simply want a Turbo.

NA is way more reliable and cheaper.Cheaper to run and insurance.

The other thing I personnally like about NA is a linear power/torque curve,if I was 18 I may like 'boost' but I'm all about a smooth delivery :)

If done correctly NA can make great power numbers at a good price.
n/a is more reliable.
BUT.
boosting is more bang for your buck.

[90LAN]

ditch the f22 and put a h22 in
then turbo it later

[beeza]

n/a is more reliable.
BUT.
boosting is more bang for your buck.

That's a very contradicting statement.

[Mr_will]

That's a very contradicting statement.

no its not.

n/a is is more reliable. n/a engines tend to fail less than boosted engines.

however, for the same amount of money you will get more power out of a turbo setup.

therefore, n/a is more reliable but boost give better bang for buck.

[beeza]

Well,it's not correct.

It may be viewed as 'more bang for buck' now but there's a high probability of coming accross problems on a Turbo'ed engine.Problems = Money.So until it 'bangs' it will always be viewed as 'more bang for buck' but real thought easily allows one to see that this is simply not the case.Turbo engines will more often than not require repairs and repairs = Money.

[Mr_will]

Well,it's not correct.

It may be viewed as 'more bang for buck' now but there's a high probability of coming accross problems on a Turbo'ed engine.Problems = Money.So until it 'bangs' it will always be viewed as 'more bang for buck' but real thought easily allows one to see that this is simply not the case.Turbo engines will more often than not require repairs and repairs = Money.


noone ever said that 'bang for buck' had to take into account the long term scenario.

[beeza]

no its not.

n/a is is more reliable. n/a engines tend to fail less than boosted engines.

So NA costs less and is more reliable.


however, for the same amount of money you will get more power out of a turbo setup.

therefore, n/a is more reliable but boost give better bang for buck.

But,it's not the same amount of money because a tubo'ed engine will cost you money to keep it on the road.And the chances are it could cost you a lot of money.
It's wishful thinking to say 'for the same amount of money'.
Many have fallen victim to this thinking simply because they 'want boost' and that statement in thier mind justify's buying one,only to learn it wasn't the 'best bang for ya buck' at all.


So after analysing the statement
'n/a is more reliable.
BUT.
boosting is more bang for your buck'.

I will say it's very contradicting :D

[beeza]

noone ever said that 'bang for buck' had to take into account the long term scenario.

What the!?!

Guys that are looking for the best 'bang for buck' option don't regulary change thier engines...

[Mr_will]

What the!?!

Guys that are looking for the best 'bang for buck' option don't regulary change thier engines...


thats a pretty sweeping generalisation.

maybe the OP is just looking for something short term because he/she plans to change cars in the near future, or maybe its a second car.

in any case, a low boost turbo set up can be very reliable, so nomatter how you look at it youre wrong.

[beeza]

At the end of the day Turbo's can be very reliable and cheap to run but that is the minority.Generally they are the opposite to that.

[DNYALL]

ditch the old, get a h22, then build that up befor you put it in the car and keep it NA!! unless you want a dyno queen, then boost it :)

[kccord]

thnks for replies. yeah had that idea before then i had all sorts of cost to make the car 200hp at the wheels and it aint cheap. like with the h22 in order to use aftermarket forges piston i have to sleeve the block and most parts comes from either japan or US with shit exchange at the moment :(....it's pretty hard to get good numbers with N/A ei...


Say, is it possible to make 190hp at the wheels if i use 12:1 Cr piston on the f22? (with I,H,E,Hondata)

[Limbo]

reliability and life span are slightly different.

Within a certain period, turbo & n/a will be just as reliable.
Turbos will not last as long as n/a, unless you have a very high revving n/a >8krpm
n/a is cheaper to run, but if your wanting more power turbo is more economical $ for $.
to make lots of power in n/a it cost alot more.

Just to state these a general terms above. In certain circumstances these may not hold

[vtecprelly]

hrrm was wondering bout turboing my prelly. or should i super charge. was thinkin bout seein what the motor can do NA then bolting something on (with work of corse). i would have to say that turbo cars do cost more. i also have a soarer which i have spent 4 grand on a single turbo conversion cos one of the stock turbos blew. was a pain in the ass

[Elwood]

Cheap, Fast, Reliable..

Pick two..

[beeza]

Hmmmm

Fast and reliable!!

:)

[destrukshn]

i'm driving a built b18c2 turbo motor in a dc2 atm, making 300hp atw atm.
ever since i got it back on the road, i've never had it off road for reliability issues.
and it does have about 25,000kms on the motor.

you use good parts, then build it properly, and get it tuned properly, and you should have a issue free time, with boost. also get more mileage out of your car as well.

[beeza]

Makes perfect sense to me!

[destrukshn]

btw power for power wise.
try spend 6k n/a on a f22 and see what results you get. next to nothing. lol.
spend 6k boost on a f22, and you will make a considerably alot more power. on a very mild boost level.
we all should know that, though, reliability wise, yes the turbo motor may fail prematurely compared to the n/a, but do it right, and it may last just as long.

[kccord]

300fwhp?? that's insane. I have a stock iron sleeves on my engine and haven't done leak or compression test yet. engine has done 90 000kms (as far as I know)...I think it would be a good idea to start with the beefing the engine (new bearing, conrod, piston, polish head) bit more... maybe after winter for now (unless AUD rises).

Anyone familiar with treadstone performance in US? guy doesn't take credit card or paypal...he (Jason) wants cash....just want to make sure if he isn't a scammer.

destrukshn, you have to get eng cert right? do you think they will notice if I change my ecu to OBD1 (hondata) coz my car is obd2.

cheers

[beeza]

btw power for power wise.
try spend 6k n/a on a f22 and see what results you get. next to nothing. lol.
spend 6k boost on a f22, and you will make a considerably alot more power. on a very mild boost level.
we all should know that, though, reliability wise, yes the turbo motor may fail prematurely compared to the n/a, but do it right, and it may last just as long.

And that pretty much sums up the whole argument! :)