Your B16A dyno results?

[ZeForce]

E85 has a much higher octane rating than regular pump fuel

[ZeForce]

Just to add my previous B16a2 dynoed 97kw with only intake and ProECU

[IZY-10]

still pretty impresive

[eg92b16a]

My car dynoed pretty close to 110kW atw a couple of weeks ago
Not bad for an engine with 214K on the clock.
type R cams and springs (head hasn't been off the engine)
Skunk2 intake manifold with std TB
Mugen 4-1 headers with Buddy club spec III pro exhaust
Short ram intake with dodgy cold air setup.
S100
VTEC crossover @ 4800rpm NICE.

Big thanks to Dyno Dave for the tune and 101 motor cafe for the use of the dyno.

[bennjamin]

I think I'm close to that D.
My car dynoed pretty close to 110kW atw, which equates to 147.6 HP atw, therefore the engine will have 147.6kW. Pretty close to 150kW at the engine when you use the rough conversion of wheel HP to engine kW.

Not bad for an engine with 214K on the clock.
type R cams and springs
Skunk2 intake manifold with std TB
Mugen 4-1 headers with Buddy club spec III pro exhaust
Short ram intake with dodgy cold air setup.
S100
VTEC crossover @ 4800rpm NICE.

Big thanks to Dyno Dave for the tune and 101 motor cafe for the use of the dyno.

I think he refers to ATW?

[czy_sol87]

just had mine on the dyno over the weekend
put out 92.6kw@fw, using BP ultimate
mods are
-CAI
-xforce headers
-JDM eg6 cat
-custom 2.5" catback
not a bad result imo for a car that has 210k on the clock and is reltatively stock

[IZY-10]

just had mine on the dyno over the weekend
put out 92.6kw@fw, using BP ultimate
mods are
-CAI
-xforce headers
-JDM eg6 cat
-custom 2.5" catback
not a bad result imo for a car that has 210k on the clock and is reltatively stock

Just wondering why did you opt for the 2.5" catback over the 2.25"? i would of thought that you would be loosing back pressure ultimately reducing peak power output

[eg92b16a]

I think he refers to ATW?

I know.

I think 150 ATW out of an NA B16A is stretching it. Might as well get a K20 if you want that sort of power, and probably cheaper in the long run.

[dsp26]

Just wondering why did you opt for the 2.5" catback over the 2.25"? i would of thought that you would be loosing back pressure ultimately reducing peak power output

back pressure gives torque, trying to salvage torque out of a b16 is pointless imo... therefore allow the higher cam to breathe better in the rpm by just free-ing the flow instead.

if u want to gain some drivability in low rev get a light flywheel

i too have 2.5mandrel, but for me its coz i know i'll have sk2s2 cams later + higher CR.

[czy_sol87]

back pressure gives torque, trying to salvage torque out of a b16 is pointless imo... therefore allow the higher cam to breathe better in the rpm by just free-ing the flow instead.

if u want to gain some drivability in low rev get a light flywheel

i too have 2.5mandrel, but for me its coz i know i'll have sk2s2 cams later + higher CR.

thats the same as mine 2.5" mandrel bent cat back
i've also got a spoon lightweight fly and excedy sport ceramic clutch

[dsp26]

thats the same as mine 2.5" mandrel bent cat back
i've also got a spoon lightweight fly and excedy sport ceramic clutch

sweet! i've been meaning to ask a fellow sol owner... Adrian/Toda advised that the delsol had the heaviest fly of all B series powered cars.... how big a difference was the lower rpm for you? or even 1st/2nd/3rd revability to redline? got any video clips?

[barefootbonzai]

I think I'm close to that D.
My car dynoed pretty close to 110kW atw, which equates to 147.6 HP atw, therefore the engine will have 147.6kW. Pretty close to 150kW at the engine when you use the rough conversion of wheel HP to engine kW.

yeah i'm not sure what you're trying to get at here jason. i'm the one who put your engine together...

and we've all been talking about 150kw's ATW not engine...