"overrevved" is not actually the same as "revving high" though is it ?
(just so we can go even more off topic...)
Printable View
"overrevved" is not actually the same as "revving high" though is it ?
(just so we can go even more off topic...)
lol yeah i guess so, but higher revving i've seen engines throw pistons and bearings. More chance of problems happening at high rpm.
That being siad i love high revving engines.
Then get bearings and rods and pistons that can handle the high revs. Honda rods can do it fine. Parts don't just break magically, the wonders of engineering allows us to make things strong enough not to break.
B16A 8200 vs B18CR 8900 is in the head. Put the ITR head internals into a B16A head and it'll rev that high, with far lower piston speeds. Less likely to throw a rod with a 77mm stroke than an 87mm stroke.
The car in question is a EG hatch. They are light. B16A will get him the power goal he needs, be cheap as hell, realiable, and fast. A B18C might have more torque around town but as long as it's not dangerously underpowered, who gives a shit? In what circumstances would a B18C be better yet worth the extra few thousand $$ premium?
And I disagree that lifespan and reliability go hand in hand. Reliability is how much you trust you car to make it to work in the morning. Lifespan is how long your engine will last until rebuilt due to wear and tear because it is powerful, assembled, managed and operated correctly, and works as expected. If you don't consider your turbo engine to be "reliable" then you've done something wrong.
bolded above...Quote:
Originally Posted by string
and the bottom-end :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by string
not so good with the quoting as you tinkerbell. But i agree.
If i didn't think my engine was reliable i wouldn't have turboed it. Especially as its a daily driver & getting it ready for track (when i get some more money for LSD & semis). But i think my car days may soon be over, got a new hobby building the house now.
Also if its not reliable its not gonna last long isit?
Nice discussion.
Limbo, rent and keep the car. Put money in to shares. :p
"when desired power output is high?" is when you start upgrading engine internals. A B16A plus rebuild is maybe a little more than the cost of a B18CR. When desired power output is high, you don't use stock motors - but in the case you do, what makes you think that a B18CR's ringlands will give out at any higher power level than a B16A's? The fact that you need a bit more manifold pressure to make the same power doesn't mean it can't be done.
no shit, as i said in post #2. You also agree'd with a statement saying that B18C anything > B16A anything when it comes to boost. Make up your mind. If item (A) satisfies all requirements for cheaper than item (B) which satisfies the same requirements, then (A) is the better choice obviously.
Reliability is how long until a bad part fails. Lifespan is how long until the weak link wears out. Well done forming a one way link between the two. How often do you see an F1 engine blow up mid-race? Not all that often. I'd say they are very reliable, but have a pretty short life-span. Doesn't work both ways.
very nice read..... OEM b16a rods can handle 9200rpm fine.
string - what can I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by string
yes, you got me, I did say a B16A was a good choice for the OP, but then I said I that I liked the B18C is better...
but the subtle distinction between these two comments seems to have evaded you... oh well, such is life. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
I'm not trying to "get you".Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
You didn't say you "liked" the B18C better. You're confusing yourself, imagine how everyone else feels.
yes, i have confused myself.
i feel ashamed.