Apart from the cost factor what engine would be better to turbo b18 or b16?
Printable View
Apart from the cost factor what engine would be better to turbo b18 or b16?
the 1.8 litre of course!Quote:
Originally Posted by rpm boy
The b18 has got more torque...
What makes you say that? The 1.6 will make just as much power just at a higher rpm - and can have off boost torque with a shorter final drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
the torque of a 1.6 will always be less than a 1.8
and a lower final drive is useless in a boosted car. Your looking for longer ratios rather than shorter.
end of the day larger displacement will always get your more power
A shorter final drive on a higher redline will make it behave similarly to a higher capacity lower redline engine, it was just an example completely whithin the context of the engine. Torque at the flywheel always less, but not where it counts if you have the right gearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbo
When it comes to stock B motors, it really doesn't matter which one, it's all the tuning and the B16's don't have much combustion time to sit around and detonate - honda-tech has a hell of a lot of powerful stock b16a's, some guy making over 500whp (american hp) on a stock block.
wat limbo said. u would want longer ratios for boosted setups, dnt understand why u would want shorter ratio unless someone can explain. and a larger displacement will definately benefit u in terms of power if that isnt obvious hence why most people are doin b18 swaps and k24 (the largest displacement of its kinda).
dont forget the b18c is a much stronger block in terms of the bottom crank girdle also!
However b16a's are much cheaper option here in NZ and plentiful, i've got like 4 of them i cant sell for $100 bucks! (short blocks)
on a boosted car, you hit redline so fast its not funny. In a Turbo setup turque isn't too much of a problem.
Shorter ratios are generally for N/A high revving engines with small torque.
If you've driven a boosted car you would understand
Tunning is always a must in any high capacity application.
But in terms of capacity;
With the same turbo a larger capicity engine will make more power.
Also a larger capacity engine will also boost quicker on the same turbo.
And lastly a larger capacity engine will be able to run a bigger turbo without the lag as a smaller engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by string
dunno about that. I always thought the bottom ends were pretty much the same, but your right on the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Songling
.. Heaps stronger maybe a slight exaggeration, however they are stronger and the B18c bottom end is linked together with girdle as opposed to open like the b16a's,Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbo
I brought gear ratios into it to compare 1.6L to 1.8L, nothing to do with boost. A 1.6L revving 10% higher making 10% less torque will act virtually the same as the 1.8L. Now of course things don't scale completely linearly with capacity but thats all part of the fun (*).Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbo
In a boosted application, the turbo will ultimately determine the max power. You can have all the capacity you like but you won't get any more power if you're blowing hot air. Maybe you meant 'at the same pressure level', but you didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbo
A higher rpm engine is more resistant to detonation, and when it comes to stock motors, any form of reliability is a good.
A larger engine will boost "quicker" only in terms of engine RPM, not wheel rpm. With a shorter final drive on the 1.6L, you are getting the same (*) TORQUE for a given wheel speed, but at a higher engine RPM. You might boost later in the RPM range, but it will be at the same road speed.
Now, if we look at the engines in question, a B16A doesn't have gear ratios short enough and redline high enough to account for the lack in engine torque, especially when considering how short the gears in the 1.8type-R are, but the theory still stands - and in practice, the power made on stock B16A's is suspiciously high, coincidentally.