legacycentral bbs

ciper wrote: Id never drive a torqueless Honda, dont care what peak number you qoute me. It makes me sick when I hear honda fans gush over how the engine swap they had done gave them 140 foot pounds of torque

I love you ciper.



I won't gush over how my engine swap gave me 140 pounds of torque, and I didn't quote you a peak number, so there is no need to be sick. But since you bring it up, it only gave me 117.

zelifcam wrote:I will stop playing the cost game just as soon as I win the lottery. Until then, things cost actual money, so I am going to have to take that into account. Live with it.

Then why aren't you driving a fox-body 5.0? They can be had for under 3k in decent running order, and are faster stock and less expensive to mod than our cars are.

Criticizing based on price is simply not a valid argument in my eyes. What does it prove? If it was a valid argument, then everyone would be driving B16A powered Civics or Fox-Body buttstangs, and Ferrari would be out of business. You can get a Fox-body into the 8's for a lot less than the cheapest Ferrari. Does that mean Ferrari's suck because they cost so much?

You want an example of a slow, expensive car? Easy enough. ANY Dodge vehicle that costs more than 20k, and doesn't say Viper on it.

There will ALWAYS be something faster, for less money, so why bring it up?

Oh, and on the "since when does money=speed?" comment...

I got that from you hoss... "It's hard to comprehend how slow they are when taking into account how much they cost."

BAC5.2 wrote:You want an example of a slow, expensive car? Easy enough. ANY Dodge vehicle that costs more than 20k, and doesn't say Viper on it.

srt-4

THAWA wrote:

BAC5.2 wrote:You want an example of a slow, expensive car? Easy enough. ANY Dodge vehicle that costs more than 20k, and doesn't say Viper on it.

srt-4

The SRT-4 was the car that costs 20k that I was referring to.

Anything costing more than 20k (i.e. more than the SRT-4) is more expensive and much slower.

Sorry, I should have clarified.

Dodge Ram SRT-10.

Steve

has the viper engine and badging

zelifcam: Ever here that song by Carly Simon "you're so vain?" It wasnt directed at anyone in particular.

All I have to say is graph the area under the torque curve on your honda engine of choice and compare it to other similar engines.
Then Ill argue with you about it.

The only reason your specific civic was so quick was weight advantage. Image any other vehicle of the same weight except powered by an engine that produces low end power along with top end. It would walk away from your civic.

Warren Beatty actually.

Its a rumor that it was inspired or written about him, Ive never seen proof.

ciper wrote:All I have to say is graph the area under the torque curve on your honda engine of choice and compare it to other similar engines.
Then Ill argue with you about it.

I don't want to argue about it. This is not a thread about Hondas. This is a thread about Volkswagens. Why don't you relax?

But, even though this is off-topic, I will try to fufill your request anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't have a bunch of dyno charts for engines that are similar to a B16A, so peak horsepower and torque numbers will have to do for now. Here are some engines that are similar in design and displacement, and were fitted into cars in the same class as the Civic.

1994 Honda B16A
1595cc
170hp / 120tq

1994 Ford Escort GT
1800cc
127hp / 114tq

1994 Hyundai Scoupe
1500cc
92hp / 97tq

1994 Mitsubishi Mirage
1500cc
92hp / 93tq

1994 Plymouth Laser
1800cc
92hp / 105tq

Well I don't know about you, but it seems like the Honda engine makes pretty good power considering it's competition...

I am curious. . .

Besides the B16A, which of those other engines listed are DOHC?

I can tell you right now my old D17A2 was shitty engine, except that it was ULEV and got me great mileage.

170hp and 120lb-ft out of a B16A? I'd rather give up some horsepower and gain some torque, but I think I am just one of those people that likes torque more than horsepower.

BAC5.2 wrote: Then why aren't you driving a fox-body 5.0? They can be had for under 3k in decent running order, and are faster stock and less expensive to mod than our cars are.

Because they are too expensive to maintain and buy fuel for. And they are ugly and they sound and smell bad.

BAC5.2 wrote: Criticizing based on price is simply not a valid argument in my eyes. What does it prove? If it was a valid argument, then everyone would be driving B16A powered Civics or Fox-Body buttstangs, and Ferrari would be out of business.

More people do drive B16A Civics and Mustangs than Ferarris. (Due to price)

BAC5.2 wrote:You can get a Fox-body into the 8's for a lot less than the cheapest Ferrari. Does that mean Ferrari's suck because they cost so much?

Yes.

BAC5.2 wrote:There will ALWAYS be something faster, for less money, so why bring it up?

Because it's good to have a quick car that you don't have to get a bank loan for.

BAC5.2 wrote:I got that from you hoss... "It's hard to comprehend how slow they are when taking into account how much they cost."

I noted that because the VW Golf GTI VR6 is supposed to be a sports car. You were complaining that in comparison to how much they cost, cars like Bentley were slow. My point was that it is not always the automakers goal to make the car fast. It was Volkswagen's goal to make the GTI fast. That's what you pay for when you get a GTI instead of a TDI Golf. It's the power that is paid for, not luxury or style. I am just saying that when a person pays that much for speed (which is apparently what you're supposed to get when you buy a GTI), they would have been better off putting together something else with all that money. (like a Honda?)

BAC5.2 wrote:170hp and 120lb-ft out of a B16A? I'd rather give up some horsepower and gain some torque, but I think I am just one of those people that likes torque more than horsepower.

Me too. But there aren't very many ways around low torque numbers when you're working under 1600 cc's...

My point is that for it's size, it is a potent engine. 106HP per liter in a production engine is impressive to me. If Honda built a 7.4L V8 to those standards, it would make nearly 800 naturally-aspirated horsepower all day from the factory.

It's the efficency that is my point. I hate it when people put the four-cylinder Honda engines up against turbo 2L DSM's or V6 engines. That is apples and oranges. It's just cool when the apples whoop up on the oranges once in a while

zelifcam: Still not convinced. Peak numbers mean little, that was my point from the beginning.

Its would be possible to build a 1.8 liter engine with 250 NA HP, problem is it would be shitty to drive.

You have to look at the main application for a honda engine. The overwhelming majority are not sold for racing or accelleration. They are day to day beaters that cruise through town.

Majority of the owners(actually the majority of the population) believe using more than 60% throttle somehow hurts the car and over 4000 RPM is really dangerous.
Honda engines dont produce LESS POWER overall in comparison to the other 1.8 liters, they just shift the power curve to high RPM where few users ever reach.

Id be willing to put money down that your 117TQ engine swap would be slower in a straight line than the 2.0 NA subaru engine in equally weighted vehicles upto 40MPH
You may look at the test circumstances and say its bunk. I counter that my test shows real world driving conditions that the car will see for the majority of its life.

You know that HP is just a calculation based on torque. Meaning the important graph is the overall torque curve. This was my point for calculating the total "area of torque" for the random honda engine and realizing its not so special after all.

Ah, if you would like to compare 2.0L 4-cylinder engines, you should use the 2.0L B20B DOHC non-vtec honda engine. It has substantially more low to midrange torque.

133lb torque @ 4500RPM
I don't know if you have picked up on this trend or not, but higher displacement engines have more torque.

Apples and oranges...

But no, my car would still be faster. It revs to 9000rpm so I don't have to shift as much, and it has aggressive gearing to keep it in it's high-rpm powerband. It dosen't matter where the power is or how broad your torque band is as long as you have the proper transmission gearing to keep you in the optimal torque field in every gear.

Since when do you need a bank loan to buy a 5.0 Mustang? Like I said, you can get them for 3k. Less expensive than a 94 Civic. The money you spend in gas pales in comparison to the money it would cost to get a stock civic to be just as fast.

I don't quite thing I understand what you are trying to get at.

The GTI VR6 isn't about raw performance. It appeals to a crowd that wants sport and luxury. Same idea behind the Passat W8, or the Audi S4. Same idea behind the Legacy Sports Sedan. Same idea behind almost ANY "quick" sedan or coupe. The G35? Same deal. You can be faster than ALL of these cars, for a LOT less money. Do all of these cars suck? Hell, your B16A Civic probably cost less than an NSX. Does that mean that NSX's suck because the dollar:second isn'tas low of a number as the Civic is?

But whatever, we all have different tastes. If you are a honda nutswinger, that's cool.

I don't hate VW, so I guess there's no VW hate coming from me...

wtf audi had a 1.8l that made like 1000 hp back in the day. I'd take that shit, talk about hp/liter ratio.

What's a good 2.0l 4 banger? the liberty rs. that > b20b

192 lb/ft @ 3600rpms that's 96 lb/ft per liter, whereas the b20b is 66.5 per liter. You can also look at the USDM wrx. that's like 115/liter

Honda's have hella low amounts of torque, but hella higher hp figures. Nothing wrong with that if you expect to spend all your time up in the revs. but if you don't you need more torque. It doesn't always take a big engine to make big torque.

THAWA wrote:wtf audi had a 1.8l that made like 1000 hp back in the day. I'd take that shit, talk about hp/liter ratio.

What's a good 2.0l 4 banger? the liberty rs. that > b20b

192 lb/ft @ 3600rpms that's 96 lb/ft per liter, whereas the b20b is 66.5 per liter. You can also look at the USDM wrx. that's like 115/liter

Honda's have hella low amounts of torque, but hella higher hp figures. Nothing wrong with that if you expect to spend all your time up in the revs. but if you don't you need more torque. It doesn't always take a big engine to make big torque.

We aren't talking about forced induction engines... There are 1000hp 1.8L Honda engines also but that's not the point.

sorry, thought you said "106HP per liter in a production engine is impressive to me." but meh.

Here, Ill put it another way.

How about a 152HP yamaha R1 1000cc motorcycle engine? Or similar 160 or so Hp Busa? Since you dont care about torque and high RPM this would be a better engine alternative because of the weight savings! The car would have even a higher HP to weight ratio.

Thats just it, it wouldnt be fun to drive normally. A motorcycle engine isnt suited for a car. I see the average honda engine as something between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle. It does neither well.

zelifcam wrote: Unfortunately, I don't have a bunch of dyno charts for engines that are similar to a B16A, so peak horsepower and torque numbers will have to do for now. Here are some engines that are similar in design and displacement, and were fitted into cars in the same class as the Civic.

It looks like to me that you're comparing a bunch of base model crap engines from 1994, to an engine, which IIRC, came in a top of the line model (Civic Si), a good 5-6 years later than the rest of those engines you listed. Also, I believe the numbers for the B16A are more like 160HP/111TQ, right?

Well, I was finally convinced today. I never want to own a Volkswagen product in my whole life...

A co-worker has a 99 Jetta. 2.sl0w, auto. His battery died, and then the car wouldn't run for more than a couple minutes. So they replaced the alternator to no avail. All this happened at my Toyota dealership.

What he was told by the Volkswagen dealer, was that a certified VW technician has to replace any and all electrical components, including the battery. The ECU has to be officially informed of the part replacement, otherwise it will not accept it.

VW's are crap, plain and simple. No thanks.

91White-T wrote:It looks like to me that you're comparing a bunch of base model crap engines from 1994, to an engine, which IIRC, came in a top of the line model (Civic Si), a good 5-6 years later than the rest of those engines you listed. Also, I believe the numbers for the B16A are more like 160HP/111TQ, right?

No, the B16A from my car came in a little hatchback in Japan in 1994 (my engine was built in march 1994), and also with slightly lower compression in select USDM DelSols in 1994 then later in the 99-00 Civic Si.

The specs you are talking about is for the US market B16A2 that has lower compression. The Japanese version I have is slightly higher.

zelifcam: Dont misunderstand, Im not against Hondas outright.
Hell, I own a honda myself (knighthawk).

Its the engine philosophy they have that gets me. That and there is no US model engine that is really exciting. The only recent hondas would be the outdated NSX and the inpractical s2000. The NSX is nearly impossibly to own (almost as bad as an integra type-r) because its a theif magnet. Get the overall feeling from previous/current owners and you'll see that its more of a pain the ass to own than its worth. The S2000 is severely inpractical and very few would know to drive it properly. Any Ive seen driven in the city are being lugged around at low RPM.

Speaking of the S2000, its the perfect example of what I spoke of above. Its tuned to be a high displacement sport bike engine in a heavy package.

Honda cant even do the alternative energy powertrains correctly. Im surprised the old electric versions where ever produced. The new hybrid gets its butt kicked in every area compared to the new Prius.

The engine from the SIR II is rated for 170hp at 7600rpm and 116tq at 7000rpm. The only one with higher compression is from the Civic Type R at 10.8:1, yours has the same 10.4:1 as all the other B16a. You said your engine revs to 9000RPM, well you need it with the power being produced so high. Sounds like your car isnt fun to drive around normally, I doubt you keep above 5000 rpm from every stop sign when cruising around town.

For everyone else: Even a low compression turbo subaru 2 liter will produce 100hp at 3k rpm, compared to 100hp at 5500 for the honda we are talking about. I bet you think a stock WRX feels really slow at low RPM so imagine his engine.