Printable View
Okay well im still at the stage of contimplating whether to go a b16a or a b18c7 engine for my eg. My power goals to gain 140-160 kw atm. I realised that the b18c7 has more than the capabilities to do that whacked on with a nice turbo (t28 muahahahahah), but the down the side of the b18 was the high compression.. and the more Munnies being spent on it. But yer just want your guys 5 cents on which way to go =]
for only 150kWatw, a healthy B16A with low KM would work out most cost effective... yet be as reliable...
yer dats wat i thought =] thanks for ur 5 cents, u rkn if i was gonna have that b16a as a daily i would need to change the pistons, rods, bearings etc? jus for the safe side (keep in mind im only planning to running round 6-7 psi boost)
dont need to change them if you are only planning on runing low boost. just make sure you have a competent tuner who knows what they are doing and uses a tuning tool that they are most comfortable with. tuning will make or break a setup.
nah, from what i have heard a B16A internals in stock form should be good to 150kW provided the tuning is up to scratch...Quote:
Originally Posted by iwantvtec
i.e. full programable ecu and full dyno tune...
why dont u buy WEQ old d-turbo setup. all internals have been upgraded and to my memory it supports 230kwatw on 22psi. its works out much cheaper than a b series and boosting it. b-series + turbo = wank factor. (only saying that coz u dont have a b-series yet hehe)
Yeh, stock b16a2 will be cheap and will get your goals if everyone knows what they are doing. :p
yeah i know of a b16a that makes 160kw+ :)
running completely stock internals
No issues at all
Hey guys, just joined up from over the ditch where luckly for us its nice and cheap to play with these mods, i've found p72 pistons (b18c jdm) will lower the comp on a b16a2 engine with stock pr3 rods and crank, pr3 head works well with the combo too :D
Rods bearings etc are generally up to play with your power target :D, in all honesty a b18c would be the better way to go, once u get a bit of boost u'll want more, what ur budget? I could aid some assistance from here if rquired? i've got a AEBS T-Sleeve b18c block with wiseco 9:1 comp pistons and eagle rods, build cost wise was reletively cheap too :D
why is it that the only turbos that most aussies know of are t25 and t28 !?
and a boosted b16 with a decent turbo setup can easily make 150wkw .... ask deano :P
well atm the engine conversion is setting me back round 4 k for the b16a. So i wanna spend a good 3-4 for a nice turbo kit =] if any can offer a engine conversion + turbo for under 8 k dat'll b sweeeeetttt!
i think fatboyz/benson was selling their turbo b16, engine + turbo conversion.
Maybe a drive down spend a few days in SYd and drive back with a boosted b16?
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.
so you reckon a turbo B16A will be more reliable & make more power than a turbo B18C7? (ceteris paribus of course)
What is it with the legal profession's obsession with Latin?
No wonder no one likes them...
Between a B16A2 and a B18C2 it'll be a close battle I guess. The B18C7 is a different breed, it's hardly fair when it has 15%+ more power stock. So in terms of more power, the B18C will have it, but reliability the B16A with less compression and higher rpm. In the end i'm not saying one is better than the other, I just think that the whole "more capacity is better" statement is grossly over-stated. They are all the same block (*), the end result isn't going to be that much different with less capacity, the operating points of the engine will just change and you can use gearing to adjust for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
Yes we still do have that b16a motor and turbo kit....Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbo
It will go for no less than 8k... Its got a few goodies with the motor package and not your average ebay turbo kit.
Conversion will take approx 2 days...
If your interested PM me and we can go from there and sort out a package for you
Stock for stock, or even with the same mods applied to both motors just for comparison's sake...
B18C anything > B16 anything
well, what use are you???Quote:
Originally Posted by string
the OP wanted an opinion, not fence sitting...
i agree with Q_ball's position on the matter.
yep i have a b16 turbo and i have to say its fun, but at the end of the day a b18 turbo with the same setup will make more power than mine, and i've seen this.
In regards to a b16 & b18 there is not much difference between the two other than larger capacity. But it does give the b18 more torque
As for revving. Higher RPM cars are generally less reliabile. Higher RPMs kill engines. There is a reason why race cars get their engines stripped and rebuilt after each race.
end of the day its up to you, but if your talking more power b18 will make more power than the b16.
Either will be as reliabile depending on build and quality of build parts & of course tuning
b16a + turbo + rev 9k + vtec = fun.
if you really wanna rev to 9k buy a b18c7.
Rebuilding a b16 to rev to 9k will cost quite abit and if your gonna spend that type of money do the b18c7
Race engines need rebuilds because they make so much power. Spinning fast doesn't make things break, unexpected factors do; like tuning, or oil starving, or overheating - or mechanical failure from detonation due to poor fuel for example - when was the last time you heard an engine break because it was revving high? The piston speeds of a B16A are much lower than the B18C, you'd need to go well into the 9000's to start to see rod forces near the Type-R. A race car subjected to consistent high power output is hardly unreliable because they get rebuilt - they run for hours and hours, i'd say that is very reliable. Lifespan and reliability are two entirely different matters, which one are you and the original poster talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Limbo
What on earth makes you think that a B18C7 is more inclined to get to 9K than a B16A. It's got over 10% more stroke for starters and doesn't have much fancy business to make a difference except valve-train, which certainly isn't "quite abit" for a second hand set of ITR's to go into the B16A head.
Stock B16A > Stock B18C > Stock B18CR
All will net you near enough the same max power (especially if you want to spend a few dollars on new cams), needing more boost on the B16A to do it obviously. The B16A is far cheaper to buy or replace, will give you better fuel economy, is lighter, comes in many cars and is very common. For the cost difference between a cheap B16A and a healthy B18CR you'd be close to enough to fully rebuild the B16A and make far more than the stock 1.8 would ever make.
just rem that the type r has a redline of 8,500 where as the b16 redlines at 7,500.
its easier to make the type r rev higher than the b16, unless you start with a b16b, but for the cost its a waste.
There is no disputing that the b16 is much cheaper but the question here was which is more reliable. For making more power stock for stock the b18 all the way in terms of reliability.
b16 is certainly a cheaper option. Or do a b18 and if you blow it put a b16 head on it and get yourself the poor mans type r. It even has a lower compression to start with.
when was the last time you heard an engine break because it was revving high
i've seen plenty of car engine blow up from being overrevved.
Lifespan and reliability
The higher you rev the engine the less reliable it generally is, unless it was built for that purpose, and even then the higher RPM machines need more maintenance than a lower revving engine.
If your engine is not reliable how long is it gonna last before it throws a bearing or piston? lifespan and reliability go hand in hand
"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.
Tinkerbell let it go, its not worth it, he can learn the hard way
Deano - Nah have you seen the share market lately? anyway i put too much money into the house to stop now HAHAHAHA ;(
poor car needs LSD and better tread
Yes? Did you overhear something directed at someone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
I answered your first self-quote a few posts after it was said.
I didn't assert anything about the capabilities of the B18CR nor what affects it's redline. I said that "B16A 8200 vs B18CR 8900 is in the head" - sure it's a confusing statement, but if you were keen on discussing rather than trying to prove people wrong, you'd have said more than "and the bottom-end". The difference between getting one to the performance of the other is in the head. A B18CR may have fancypants whatever you wants, but it doesn't change the fact that the B16A is only a valve-train upgrade away from it (almost making it an ITR head). A B16A bottom end won't cry at 8900rpm. The B18CR can have fancy parts galore, but it has a 13% longer stroke, it needs better parts to keep it together at the same revs.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
i guess that must be the bit where you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by string
if you believe that a B16A will make more power and be more relaible than a B18C7 then i really would like to know exactly why.Quote:
Originally Posted by string
it seems rather impossible (due to laws of physics), however, can you elaborate in regards to lets say 7psi how/why the B16A will make more power and be more reliable?
*E240 Edit - No need *
stock for stock or mod for mod or psi for psi the B18C7 will make more power than B16A full stop. Reliability of the 2 would be very similar, cause the chance of shit going wrong on the 2 would be the same, probably comes down to luck of the draw.
Well I think its obvious. But meh. ;)
I don't remember where I said that a B18C7 would make more power mod for mod, or psi for psi? Thanks for telling everyone things they already knew, how useful are you! Bye bye, you've never been a use in any discussion nothing is new here!Quote:
Originally Posted by barefootbonzai
Since when does "Stock B16A > Stock B18C > Stock B18CR" mean that I think the B16A will make more power and be more reliable? Last time I checked > means greater than. 'Greater than' is similiar to 'Better' and is entirely subjective and was simply me giving my opinion. And no, the bit I was refering to was the part where I quoted the question, then replied underneath. What kind of hypocrit goes off at me for not reading yet doesn't read, himself?
If the question was, which engine will be more reliable and make more power but I only want to rev to 8500rpm and no more than exactally 10psi, then this case would be a closed book. Unfortunately, the question was far more open.
lol, this is the dumbest thing i have heard of in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by string
Then under what circumstances would the b16 be better than? NONE, give up you stooge.Quote:
Originally Posted by string
There's something wrong with you; you can't go a post without an insult it seems, really says something about your intelligence...
Any circumstance involving a budget (i.e. any circumstance short of a race car) the B16 is a better choice. The price difference between the two motors is far greater than the relative "betterness". More power psi for psi is a pointless argument and if you can't see why then you are beyond my help.
feel like im at a high school debate competition...
guys calm down
Just a dumb obvious point - Grab a "turbo kit" to suit a B series engine ( IE manifold) Put it on a B16a2 , and then onto a B18c7 OR B18c (japanese type R). The best result will be the engines peak power amplified correct ?
So a B18c7/c would be better base. No other factors in this opinion
lol, you're such a simpleton and it shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennjamin
Have you ever considered the effect of the cam and its ability to bleed compression... ?
There will be a point where one engines ability to bleed compression more effectively will outweigh further increases in power per psi...
ever think about that?
Your such a troll and it shows Evan :D
Expand upon which engine of the two (or three) is more or less likely to bleed compression compared to the others ~
I could "tell" you but why not research cam profiles yourself and deduce an answer on your own... shit, you might even learn something.
I'll give you a hint ... consider relative piston speeds.
Fcuk me. This is a great read.
Keep going guys. This is better than a high school debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProECU
ceteris paribus comes from economics, not law.
is this for sale? any links?Quote:
Originally Posted by teaseR
bringing up and old thread i know, but it was on teh first page. lol
now, my car will be a pseudo track/touge car. an eg civic.
so it will be pretty much full interiored, but race inspired exterior,(but being able to quickly remove excess parts) and performance/handling. lets not get into semantics but.
Now, im trying to decide on a suitable motor.
so far the argument is between b16, and b18, and the different versions of each.
taking into account that i will be doing a decent rebuild on the bottom end(new rods, pistons) and headwork as well. Only looking for 200-250kw.
b16 or b18?
Id go B18 because of your power levels. If you want track performance, the low speed corners maybe too slow and the torque curve too sharp with a big blower on a b16. You will need atleast a GT30.
If you want 150-200kw, u can use a T28 sized turbo which will spool quick and give u lots of low down on the b16a.
well done on bothering to read the last two pages. :thumbdwn:Quote:
Originally Posted by trism