Rear Housing question

[gReY-oNe]

ok... now we are alot more confused then wen we started

might make it easier if i said what the car will be used for
this car wont be for just straight line im sure he would wonna track it one day
it will still be a daily driver
and he is not out for massive power
just abit of fun

[barefootbonzai]

Please quote where I said it would drive like shit? I said it would be laggier and less responsive than a smaller A/R turbine - you're saying i'm wrong?

This bit is what i consider theroy. It it true? YES - But does it matter? NO

When did I bring theory into this discussion again? Oh wait I didn't I simply told you my actual driving experience. Sure it wasn't a honda but it's all the same deal.

Um NO, we are talking about a honda here. No use talking about what turbo is suited for another engine.

When I bring theory into a discussion, if you can't understand how it relates to real world performance then stay out of the topic because you are useless to all those in it.

You've done nothing but to confuse the guy asking the question.

I'm actually quite surprised that you've still got a grudge deep inside. Really sad man - get a life.

nar, your responses are just annoying.

[string]

You've done nothing for the guy asking the question but bring useless debate into his topic. If you have nothing to add, then say nothing at all. Simple. You have a go at me for bringing in theory then tell me it's true but that doesn't matter? Arguing just for the sake of arguing...

Um NO, we are talking about a honda here. No use talking about what turbo is suited for another engine.

This is a moot point. We are discussing the effects of A/R on response/lag/spool/whatever, not which specific turbo are best suited for a Honda engine - he's already decided on that part. My experience was on a cammed SR20 with torque curve similar to that of a VTEC honda motor, regarding the response. I did not mention matching to honda motors anywhere - Regardless of such striking similarities, how do you care to explain that a different motor is going to drastically differ in turbine characteristics?

nar, your responses are just annoying.

Then don't reply. You aren't helping people which ironically is what you're having a go at me for.

OP: Unfortunately turbo sizing is just like spring rates. You can't have someone else tell you what you'll like. The best you can do is find dyno graphs of other people's setups you like the shape of and go with that.
With a high revving vtec motor, they demand a fair bit of airflow (i.e. torque does not drop as compared to a single cam profile motor), so a .42 a/r turbine might choke you a bit higher; Conversely, a .86 might give you a bit too much lag, and on the track might not give you very smooth corner exit acceleration. My money is on the 0.63 housing. So long as you aren't planning on taking the compressor to the limit, you can always up the boost a bit and get a bit more power out of it while still retaining good spool characterisics.

[barefootbonzai]

Every has replied and said .86 is fine, and stated you don't notice any lag with it. You jump on talking about your buddies SR20 engine setup, and saying that smaller will give you more response... no shit.

But the whole point is, you don't notice any lag with .86, so y complicate things with your rubbish, and sacrific power for the sake of response that you would have never noticed anyway.

everyone - .86
string - .63

I guess we'll let the topic creator choose.

[string]

ROFL this is getting hilarious. Please point me to my "rubbish". The difference between myself and you is that I am attempting to help people get what they want by asking more questions and giving more detailed answers than normal. You on the other hand, don't add anything to any topics, instead just attacking the arguer instead of the argument. I see this behaviour a lot and it's common with people who don't have much substance to backup their words.

One person has said that "0.86 is fine". They have not gone into any more details other than "it's very responsive down low". What the hell does that mean? One man's responsive is one man's laggy hog. You don't even have boost "down low", so any response is just going to be response related to lesser vacuum generated in the manifold - possibly completely independant of the turbine side of things. Without specifics you have an useless mess. If you think that's enough for someone to make a decision then that's your perogative, but I actually like to help people get what they want, not what other people think they want.

It's been mentioned by more than myself that a 0.86 will lack boost response compared to a smaller turbine, and will have a big more lag. There's no two ways around it. The only reason you make more power with a larger one is because you can still efficiently push full boost through it at high rpm, thus generating full torque up high. Now, is the OP going to push the compressor to the max? If not, he could get the same peak power, but at a lower rpm by adding more boost. He'll now have similar peak power, but less lag and more boost response, a great combination for a street/track car. Drag cars are a completely different story, of course you'd want maximum area under the curve, with little regards to response or boost thresholds.

Saying you don't notice any lag with a 0.86 housing is blatently false and ignorant, you'll always have lag in there (to a point) - it's a 2.2L motor, not a 6L V8. Stop contradicting yourself. You're now telling me that a smaller housing will give less response but a 0.86 gives no lag, so a lesser gives what, negative lag?

Let's hear some more information from the B16A user with the 0.86 housing. Very interested in seeing dyno graphs with boost plots, or some datalogs showing boost response from varying rpm's.

And something important here... I'm 'complicating' things because TURBOS ARE COMPLICATED. The OP won't be laughing when he realises he's spent $1000 on a turbo which he doesn't like, would you? It's foolish not to do research before spending that kind of money, please don't encourage this behaviour.

Mate, the only person bringing rubbish into this thread is you. Get over yourself.

[destrukshn]

0.86
on a 1.6 motor is too much.
but this is going on a 2.2 motor.
it's gonna be different obviously.
a much more torquier motor, which can spool up the 0.86 housed turbo faster than a 1.6.
obvisously the 0.63 is gonna be more responsive, but in the end, it's kinda up to the OP to figure out that they want, 0.86, is gonna lag, probably another 500rpm more than the 0.63, it's not a big sacrifice. in my eyes.

[string]

It's all relative, if you increase engine capacity, you don't just increase the size of the turbine, you need a bigger compressor. A compressor driving a 2.2L motor as efficiently as a 1.6L motor with the same relative masses of air will be considerably larger.

What you've said is definately true if you simply attach the same turbo onto both engines. Clearly you don't see LS1 turbo's with 2.5 a/r turbines

For a street/track car, 500rpm in my eyes definately is something to consider. For example in second gear, in my car, that's around 7-8kph more. If that little bit of speed is the difference between having power right when I need it in corners I plan to drive on, or having to wait even one second for power, then I know what i'd choose.

Now take this as you like, barefootbonzai this is where you go play with some crayons - On the setups I drove, the most fun was the 0.63. The .42/.48 had too little top end, it just died way too early to give that big surge of fun after the apex. The 0.86, while an absolute monster in a straight line just seems too laggy. The 0.63 was a balance of high power with good repsonse and lag. Your mileage may vary, so best to find some new friends with turbos and be a passenger.

[barefootbonzai]

yeah yeah, keep editing your responses.

You are complicating things. You're the one contridicing yourself, now bring in 6L V8's into the equation when you said it doesn't matter what engine we are talking about...

there already been a few with 1.6L HONDA turbo'd engines owners saying that an .86 would be much better suited, yet you're arguing with your mates SR20 and 6L V8's and telling the guy to get an .63

[destrukshn]

obviously.
well, that was my explatnation, since you decided to pick at my first reply to this thread.
lol

[barefootbonzai]

lmao string's car takes 1sec to move up 500rpm, all the studying and research has paid off.

[supersamEK]

yeah yeah, keep editing your responses.

uhhh....??? lame.

You are complicating things. You're the one contridicing yourself, now bring in 6L V8's into the equation when you said it doesn't matter what engine we are talking about...

there already been a few with 1.6L HONDA turbo'd engines owners saying that an .86 would be much better suited, yet you're arguing with your mates SR20 and 6L V8's and telling the guy to get an .63

you guys both have valid information, yet are digging urselves holes. from the outside, i dont understand wat you are arguing about? doesnt make any sense?
someone give in, leave the egos at rest.

[JasonGilholme]

From what i've read (which is probably only a small percentage of what others have read) the 1.6ltr honda engine needs to be treated like any other 2 litre engine (SR20 for example) when choosing a turbo setup.

So AFAIK if a .86 rear housing works well on something like an sr20 it should work well with a b16.

Hopefully he doesn't base his choice on this thread alone cause theres much better information out there then what there is in here.