Viper's engine swapped B16A2 OHC - Now Turbo Charged!!

[sujaylahiri]

Peak torque at 6500 rpm and peak power at 7500 rpm. That's so Japanese. When will they learn to make engines with more usable lower end torque?

I am assuming that the torque figures are in lbs-ft.

[dipen]

Originally Posted by sujaylahiri

Peak torque at 6500 rpm and peak power at 7500 rpm. That's so Japanese. When will they learn to make engines with more usable lower end torque?

I am assuming that the torque figures are in lbs-ft.

Most enthusiasts prefer it that way, as its always fund revving the motor. Also to add, the B16 is a old motor, more than a decade old. I am sure the Japanese have done many enhancements to their motors during this period. Also interesting is how these motors rev compared to American counterparts. They reach those revs much faster than American engines.

[chetanhanda]

Originally Posted by viper

Keshav - All runs have been done on the high lift cams only. Also as discussed have got slightly lower compression which may or may not affect the HP figures. Do not experience any power loss whilst driving.



Shrey,

There is yet some doubt on the Vtec part which we are investigating.

@Dinar - The ECU that is presently on my car does not support Vtec and that is the ECU on which each and every run has been done. I have the other ECU supplied by Karthik which has Vtec control enabled which we will test in a day or two.

To all concerned shall be doing a run with the new ECU and then another run by physically disconnecting the Vtec solenoid to be 100 % sure that vtec is OFF and see what results we get.

I think that is the only way to solve the vtec mystery.

@ GTO - When there is nothing to hide or prove then why be secretive. Am not ashamed to divulge any info whether good or bad about the install or health of motor.

Viper

Hey Jignesh..
You could get a vtec indicator light,it will light up whenever the vtec gets engaged. I think its quite inexpensive also.

[chetanhanda]

Originally Posted by sujaylahiri

Peak torque at 6500 rpm and peak power at 7500 rpm. That's so Japanese. When will they learn to make engines with more usable lower end torque?

I am assuming that the torque figures are in lbs-ft.

They know how to make power just that they are designed for a different audience.
Unusable power for you means usable power for a different set of audience.
Also Japanese engine sizes are smaller as compared to the lethargic huge american gas guzzling engines; so in order to make power you either make the engine bigger or rev it higher.

Lots of people like high revving screamer engines as compared to tractor/truck like american engines its a matter of taste what you like to drive.

If the cc of the B16/B18 was raised to say 3litres instead of just a mere 1.6 of 1.8 litre Im sure these more efficient engines would have made twice the power of the lazy american engines.

Before going very OT on this thread - another real world example of 2 sporty cars in the same price bracket.
- Ford Mustang 6 cylinder with 4000 cc makes 210 hp
- Honda Civic Si 4 cylinder with 2000 cc makes 200 hp
And Im sure the K20Z3 engine will rev up quicker than the Ford and reach the rev range where it makes max torque/power.

Looking at these specs makes me think did the American companies not learn to make engines till now ?
Engine size and low end torque means nothing to most car enthusiasts specially for people in a thread discussing a Honda B series engine.

[sujaylahiri]

Originally Posted by chetanhanda

They know how to make power just that they are designed for a different audience.
Unusable power for you means usable power for a different set of audience.
Also Japanese engine sizes are smaller as compared to the lethargic huge american gas guzzling engines; so in order to make power you either make the engine bigger or rev it higher.

Lots of people like high revving screamer engines as compared to tractor/truck like american engines its a matter of taste what you like to drive.

If the cc of the B16/B18 was raised to say 3litres instead of just a mere 1.6 of 1.8 litre Im sure these more efficient engines would have made twice the power of the lazy American engines.

Before going very OT on this thread - another real world example of 2 sporty cars in the same price bracket.
- Ford Mustang 6 cylinder with 4000 cc makes 210 hp
- Honda Civic Si 4 cylinder with 2000 cc makes 200 hp
And Im sure the K20Z3 engine will rev up quicker than the Ford and reach the rev range where it makes max torque/power.

Looking at these specs makes me think did the American companies not learn to make engines till now ?
Engine size and low end torque means nothing to most car enthusiasts specially for people in a thread discussing a Honda B series engine.

Firstly, just because I like some American cars doesn't mean that I hate all other cars (Japanese and German). I keep my mind open to everything in the market.

Contrary to what you've said in the quoted post, Honda themselves seem to think otherwise. Most of the peak torque figures in their recent cars are around the 4000 rpm range which is a more usable range (although still a bit higher than German/American engines) for daily driving. I double checked the torque figures for the latest 4 cylinder offerings from Honda in North America and came up with these figures:

2008 Civic 1.8L - 128 lb-ft@ 4300 rpm
2.0L - 139 lb-ft@ 6200 rpm

2008 Accord
2.4L - ~161 lb-ft@ 4300 rpm

What I meant to say before is that by altering the Variable Valve timing (VTEC in case of Honda) to kick in at an earlier rpm and altering the valve overlap(s) sequence, the engines could be made to generate more lower end torque without sacrificing specific power output, which Honda seems to have done in the recent years.

The 2.0L in the Si, the 1.3L rotary in the Mazda RX-8 and the 2.2L in the Honda 2000 are all exceptions as they were designed from ground up to be "racing" engines and just concentrate plainly on achieving a higher specific output, which is what many enthusiasts prefer.

However, engines for everyday use should not have that handicap which would make them terrible in "real life conditions" (overtaking on the freeway at 60 mph, 3rd to 4th gear acceleration, highway cruising rpm, even off the line starts etc.).

[Shan2nu]

What I meant to say before is that by altering the Variable Valve timing (VTEC in case of Honda) to kick in at an earlier rpm and altering the valve overlap(s) sequence, the engines could be made to generate more lower end torque without sacrificing specific power output, which Honda seems to have done in the recent years.

Instead of all that, just use a short/close ratio gearbox to achieve the desired torque at the wheels, without sacrificing bhp/ltr or torque/ltr.

What torque you produce at the crank is just half the story, the transmission is what really dictates how much torque is transfered to the wheels. And as far as torque/ltr goes, i think the high revving Jap engines are doing really good.

Shan2nu

[doomsday]

Originally Posted by sujaylahiri

Contrary to what you've said in the quoted post, Honda themselves seem to think otherwise. Most of the peak torque figures in their recent cars are around the 4000 rpm range which is a more usable range (although still a bit higher than German/American engines) for daily driving. I double checked the torque figures for the latest 4 cylinder offerings from Honda in North America and came up with these figures:

2008 Civic 1.8L - 128 lb-ft@ 4300 rpm
2.0L - 139 lb-ft@ 6200 rpm

2008 Accord
2.4L - ~161 lb-ft@ 4300 rpm

The key word in your post is "American offerings". Unfortunately Honda reserves its best work for the JDM, which is clearly reflected in the engine specs.

So while the K20 in the Civic Si produces 189Nm@6200rpm, the same engine in the JDM (Type R spec) produces 215Nm@7000rpm with a 8600rpm redline as opposed to the 8200rpm in the USDM Si.

A Honda engine that produces torque has low rpms (like the K24 in the Accord) does so because its housed in a executive car and not a sports saloon where the owner would like to rev the nuts off the engine. Same goes for the 1.8 litre R18 SOHC engine thats in the Civic which is an economy oriented motor. It makes much more sense to produce power and torque low-down.

Each performance Honda engine will produce power and torque high in the rev range, which is exactly what every NA enthusiast wants.

[binz]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

So, you're not 100% sure if vtec was running this time as well eh? Hmm.

Im a little confused here,isn't there a huge audible difference when vtec engages?Ive never been in a vtec in my short life but while driving a mivec which i believe works similarly the intake/exhaust note completly changes ..

My question is,is it is that difficult to know whether vtec was engaging or not?

[viper]

Originally Posted by binz

Im a little confused here,isn't there a huge audible difference when vtec engages? My question is,is it is that difficult to know whether vtec was engaging or not?

Binz - There is a huge audible difference in a NA B16A when Vtec kicks in. Problem is car is Turbo Charged now and there is almost no audible note change across the power band. Also the problem is the Turbo is also boosting at approx the same RPM as where the Vtec would activate.

Viper

[Shan2nu]

Im a little confused here,isn't there a huge audible difference when vtec engages?

Not always.

Here's a vid of an NSX acc, you don't hear the vtec activating in 1st, but the car is still accelerating hard.

YouTube - NSX 0-280km/h

My question is,is it is that difficult to know whether vtec was engaging or not?

Atleast goin by the chart, i think vtec was always working.

[binz]

Ok got it!,thanks guys.

[viper]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Atleast goin by the chart, i think vtec was always working.

Shan2nu - This Vtec problem is actually becoming a nightmare for me to figure out. I know for a fact it was not working when the Turbo was installed in Feb 08 and during the Speed Run.

As per Karthik the Vtec cannot function on the ECU in the car(white ECU)as the wire is not connected and the software does not support Vtec. The original ECU stops functioning once the RD is switched on which will also make it impossible to read/check on a Hi-Scan machine as well.

On the new ECU(black) to be installed and checked am supposed to connect the Vtec wire thru a relay and only then does the Vtec switch on which it did when Karthik was in Mumbai and did the wiring.

I am as confused as before and have absolutely no clue as to what is happening. Should get sorted out once KS finds the time to install and check.

Viper

[Ford Rocam]

Set your vtec at 7000 rpm & do a pull, then set your vtec at 3500 rpm & do a pull, you will get the answer.
plus you will get your best vtec shift point, where torque from low speed cam starts falling & high speed cam increasing both the graph(torque curve) will come to an interception point, thats where you set your Vtec.

[Jaggu]

I think Jitu has a point, very logical and practical way to check instead of assumptions, also to tune the Vtec.

[viper]

Originally Posted by Ford Rocam

Set your vtec at 7000 rpm & do a pull, then set your vtec at 3500 rpm & do a pull, you will get the answer.
plus you will get your best vtec shift point, where torque from low speed cam starts falling & high speed cam increasing both the graph(torque curve) will come to an interception point, thats where you set your Vtec.

Jitu,

Thanks for the suggestion. Problem is it can only be implemented on the new(black)ECU as only that has the Vtec control on it. Whenever KS finds the time to install that ECU shall try out your suggestion and post both graphs as suggested also..

Viper