R18 swap instead of K20?
03-30-2008, 03:52 PM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: melbourne, Fl
Posts: 2,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R18 swap instead of K20?
Has anyone considered the r18 as a budget swap intead of the slightly pricey k20? I've never seen where the mounts are in the civic...how hard would this one be? It would be nice to have 140/128 intead of 109/105....just a thought.
03-30-2008, 04:41 PM
#2
Re: R18 swap instead of K20? (1990hondaHF)
It's a thought, but my Fit is too new to mess with engine swaps.
If you really want a little more power, why not just try to get that new Rotrex supercharger system from Jackson racing, all bolt on power, no fuss in trying to get motor mounts, wiring harness, ECU and the such to work all together? Plus you get more power!
It's an idea, but the R18 really doesn't seem too good of an investment right now. Just my opinion ok?
If you really want a little more power, why not just try to get that new Rotrex supercharger system from Jackson racing, all bolt on power, no fuss in trying to get motor mounts, wiring harness, ECU and the such to work all together? Plus you get more power!
It's an idea, but the R18 really doesn't seem too good of an investment right now. Just my opinion ok?
03-31-2008, 08:52 AM
#3
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: melbourne, Fl
Posts: 2,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: R18 swap instead of K20? (matt [solbrothers])
I have o idea on the cost....It might be that the axles and whatnot line up just like the d16a6 and the DOHC OBD-0 ZC's did....I think I need to take a look at where the mounts are so I can see whats up.
03-31-2008, 09:05 PM
#5
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arleta, CA, USA
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: R18 swap instead of K20? (1990hondaHF)
Cost will be about the same. The R18 is relatively new, and only available on the Civic, were as the K is in a lot more lineup and been around for a bit. So if you where going to pay $XXXX and both R18 and K are the same price, you might as well go with the K. And then you would also get the support of companies like Hasport and Hondata.
04-01-2008, 08:08 AM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: melbourne, Fl
Posts: 2,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: R18 swap instead of K20? (wytt)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wytt »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Cost will be about the same. The R18 is relatively new, and only available on the Civic, were as the K is in a lot more lineup and been around for a bit. So if you where going to pay $XXXX and both R18 and K are the same price, you might as well go with the K. And then you would also get the support of companies like Hasport and Hondata.</TD></TR></TABLE>
good point, TY.
good point, TY.
Trending Topics
04-02-2008, 05:09 PM
#9
Re: (hon da top)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hon da top »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">instead of swapping in a R18, i think the jackson racing supercharger sounds like a good idea 
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I love my JRSC on my Civic and I am thinking about the new Rotex unit for my Fit in the far future.
You never know though, some intrepid soul might make this R18 a viable alternative in the future besides the K20 and the JRSC...
</TD></TR></TABLE>I love my JRSC on my Civic and I am thinking about the new Rotex unit for my Fit in the far future.
You never know though, some intrepid soul might make this R18 a viable alternative in the future besides the K20 and the JRSC...
04-02-2008, 10:23 PM
#11
Re: (eL)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eL »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Is the JR kit on sale?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Should be on sale at the end of this month according to Oscar Jr on Fit Freak.
Should be on sale at the end of this month according to Oscar Jr on Fit Freak.
06-20-2008, 03:41 AM
#13
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North VA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to disagree with all of the nay sayers on the R18 swap. Here's why:
1. This idea that you are going to spend tons of money on either is flawed. The R18 is much smaller than a K series and would be a much more straight forward install; no flipping the fans on the radiator, no trimming of the unibody ect. That's a marginal amount of work but consider the difference in the price of the motors. $1000-$1500 for an R18, $3,000-$5,000 for a K20. Assuming the install costs are the same for both, you're looking at the difference between spending $7k-$8k and $4k-$5k. That's just over half price.
2. The R18 is lighter than a D17. Everyone knows that the fit is a nose heavy platform and that a major problem with K motors in the GD is extra weight upsetting the car's balance. R18 doesn't have this problem and would probably still weigh less than a K with a turbocharger.
3. A boosted R18 in a fit would likely come out to the same price as a K swap. It would perform just slightly better, with 180lbft of trq. way down at 3k RPM.
4. You would get better gas mileage.
Now what needs to be considered is that you have no mounts supplier, and no wiring help.
Can you keep these costs low enough to justify the budget swap?
1. This idea that you are going to spend tons of money on either is flawed. The R18 is much smaller than a K series and would be a much more straight forward install; no flipping the fans on the radiator, no trimming of the unibody ect. That's a marginal amount of work but consider the difference in the price of the motors. $1000-$1500 for an R18, $3,000-$5,000 for a K20. Assuming the install costs are the same for both, you're looking at the difference between spending $7k-$8k and $4k-$5k. That's just over half price.
2. The R18 is lighter than a D17. Everyone knows that the fit is a nose heavy platform and that a major problem with K motors in the GD is extra weight upsetting the car's balance. R18 doesn't have this problem and would probably still weigh less than a K with a turbocharger.
3. A boosted R18 in a fit would likely come out to the same price as a K swap. It would perform just slightly better, with 180lbft of trq. way down at 3k RPM.
4. You would get better gas mileage.
Now what needs to be considered is that you have no mounts supplier, and no wiring help.
Can you keep these costs low enough to justify the budget swap?
06-20-2008, 09:34 AM
#14
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 2,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (michaelmikewho)
There is also a R20 block out there.
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/R20A/index.html
I agree with the FI route though. That kraftwerks kit should be pretty reliable and at the same time still retain good* gas mileage.
*Depending on how you drive of course.
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/R20A/index.html
I agree with the FI route though. That kraftwerks kit should be pretty reliable and at the same time still retain good* gas mileage.
*Depending on how you drive of course.
06-20-2008, 09:49 AM
#15
Re: (michaelmikewho)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by michaelmikewho »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have to disagree with all of the nay sayers on the R18 swap. Here's why:
1. This idea that you are going to spend tons of money on either is flawed. The R18 is much smaller than a K series and would be a much more straight forward install; no flipping the fans on the radiator, no trimming of the unibody ect. That's a marginal amount of work but consider the difference in the price of the motors. $1000-$1500 for an R18, $3,000-$5,000 for a K20. Assuming the install costs are the same for both, you're looking at the difference between spending $7k-$8k and $4k-$5k. That's just over half price.
2. The R18 is lighter than a D17. Everyone knows that the fit is a nose heavy platform and that a major problem with K motors in the GD is extra weight upsetting the car's balance. R18 doesn't have this problem and would probably still weigh less than a K with a turbocharger.
3. A boosted R18 in a fit would likely come out to the same price as a K swap. It would perform just slightly better, with 180lbft of trq. way down at 3k RPM.
4. You would get better gas mileage.
Now what needs to be considered is that you have no mounts supplier, and no wiring help.
Can you keep these costs low enough to justify the budget swap?</TD></TR></TABLE>
As far as I see it:
k20>FI>R18.
K20 gives more power/potential, FI gives more power while retaining stock engine, R18 swapped and still slow
1. This idea that you are going to spend tons of money on either is flawed. The R18 is much smaller than a K series and would be a much more straight forward install; no flipping the fans on the radiator, no trimming of the unibody ect. That's a marginal amount of work but consider the difference in the price of the motors. $1000-$1500 for an R18, $3,000-$5,000 for a K20. Assuming the install costs are the same for both, you're looking at the difference between spending $7k-$8k and $4k-$5k. That's just over half price.
2. The R18 is lighter than a D17. Everyone knows that the fit is a nose heavy platform and that a major problem with K motors in the GD is extra weight upsetting the car's balance. R18 doesn't have this problem and would probably still weigh less than a K with a turbocharger.
3. A boosted R18 in a fit would likely come out to the same price as a K swap. It would perform just slightly better, with 180lbft of trq. way down at 3k RPM.
4. You would get better gas mileage.
Now what needs to be considered is that you have no mounts supplier, and no wiring help.
Can you keep these costs low enough to justify the budget swap?</TD></TR></TABLE>
As far as I see it:
k20>FI>R18.
K20 gives more power/potential, FI gives more power while retaining stock engine, R18 swapped and still slow
06-20-2008, 11:46 AM
#16
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA, USA
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (eL)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eL »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">R18 swapped and still slow </TD></TR></TABLE>
That sums it up IMO.
Why waste the money on an R18? I would understand if it was a CHEAP alternative, like swapping an f22 into a hatch and boosting it.
At this time, the R18 would cost too much and putting it in would require too much time, labor, and money.
Anyone who bought a Fit should have already came to terms with the fact that it is slow. For the price of the car, it does not make sense to dump 50% or more of the total cost of the car into an engine swap.
</TD></TR></TABLE>That sums it up IMO.
Why waste the money on an R18? I would understand if it was a CHEAP alternative, like swapping an f22 into a hatch and boosting it.
At this time, the R18 would cost too much and putting it in would require too much time, labor, and money.
Anyone who bought a Fit should have already came to terms with the fact that it is slow. For the price of the car, it does not make sense to dump 50% or more of the total cost of the car into an engine swap.
06-20-2008, 03:26 PM
#17
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North VA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A NA R18 would outperform an FI L15.
A FI R18 would outperform an NA K
Maybe in a few more years the R18 will be more viable, but for now I will just argue that it would be ideal compared to the issues with the K and FI/L15.
The weight issue is the clincher folks, slice it how you will.
A FI R18 would outperform an NA K
Maybe in a few more years the R18 will be more viable, but for now I will just argue that it would be ideal compared to the issues with the K and FI/L15.
The weight issue is the clincher folks, slice it how you will.
06-21-2008, 06:40 AM
#18
Re: (BudgetFitting)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BudgetFitting »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
That sums it up IMO.
Why waste the money on an R18? I would understand if it was a CHEAP alternative, like swapping an f22 into a hatch and boosting it.
At this time, the R18 would cost too much and putting it in would require too much time, labor, and money.
Anyone who bought a Fit should have already came to terms with the fact that it is slow. For the price of the car, it does not make sense to dump 50% or more of the total cost of the car into an engine swap. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree with you...
And Mike Who, do you have any hard data on an R18 outperforming a boosted L15? Do you have 2 test bed mules? Anything at all? Any sort of data besides talking out your a$$?
That sums it up IMO.
Why waste the money on an R18? I would understand if it was a CHEAP alternative, like swapping an f22 into a hatch and boosting it.
At this time, the R18 would cost too much and putting it in would require too much time, labor, and money.
Anyone who bought a Fit should have already came to terms with the fact that it is slow. For the price of the car, it does not make sense to dump 50% or more of the total cost of the car into an engine swap. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree with you...
And Mike Who, do you have any hard data on an R18 outperforming a boosted L15? Do you have 2 test bed mules? Anything at all? Any sort of data besides talking out your a$$?
06-21-2008, 07:13 AM
#19
Re: (michaelmikewho)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by michaelmikewho »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A NA R18 would outperform an FI L15.
A FI R18 would outperform an NA K
Maybe in a few more years the R18 will be more viable, but for now I will just argue that it would be ideal compared to the issues with the K and FI/L15.
The weight issue is the clincher folks, slice it how you will.</TD></TR></TABLE>
An NA R18 > FI L15?
I think not.
A FI R18 would outperform an NA K
Maybe in a few more years the R18 will be more viable, but for now I will just argue that it would be ideal compared to the issues with the K and FI/L15.
The weight issue is the clincher folks, slice it how you will.</TD></TR></TABLE>
An NA R18 > FI L15?
I think not.
06-21-2008, 09:37 AM
#20
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arleta, CA, USA
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (eL)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by eL »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
An NA R18 > FI L15?
I think not.</TD></TR></TABLE>
x2 I found on 8thcivic.com a dyno on a Dynojet that had a Injen CAI got 121 whp... when I dyno my KWSC Fit with stock exhaust and header, I got 122 whp. so at least to the wheel they give the same hosepower, but I also assume that a KWSC L15 is lighter than a NA R18, so I say, FI L15 > NA R18.
An NA R18 > FI L15?
I think not.</TD></TR></TABLE>
x2 I found on 8thcivic.com a dyno on a Dynojet that had a Injen CAI got 121 whp... when I dyno my KWSC Fit with stock exhaust and header, I got 122 whp. so at least to the wheel they give the same hosepower, but I also assume that a KWSC L15 is lighter than a NA R18, so I say, FI L15 > NA R18.
06-21-2008, 07:23 PM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North VA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue-Hybrid-Civic, what an intelligent set of questions you've asked there. Your 1st question is answered below. Your second question is stupid, I obviously don't have two test beds; I'm not sure you've noticed, but nobody has an R18 fit as of yet so that would be.... not probable.
You should look at dynographs and not just peak numbers. (wytt)
The R18 makes 115 foot lbs at 2k and 130 at 4k, with a peak of 140hp.
A FI L15 (KWSC) doesn't break 100foot lbs until 3500rpm and it still barely outperforms the NATURALLY ASPIRATED R18 at peak.
If the slightly lower gearing of the L15's tranny gives it an advantage in terms of acceleration, it's going to be minuscule and dissolve once you hit 70mph.
-The R18 has lift adjusting VTEC, not the 12-16 crap that comes on our cars. (Read: more likely to have an aftermarket cam developed for it)
-The L15 might be 15-20lbs lighter than the R, tops. (I in fact wouldn't be surprised if the R is lighter than the L, considering all of the plastic on that engine)
-An R18 Civic running 6.5psi will outrun a K20Z Civic with CAI. (again, 180lbft @ 3krpm - argue with that please-)
Obviously the appeal would be in under-weighing a K20 and making more power with boost.
If you chums want to hash the semantics of the benefits of an FI over an NA, or vice versa, be my guest. What it comes down to is that at parallel levels of tune the R is going to best the whole lot because a K is simply too nose heavy. Period.
Modified by michaelmikewho at 9:58 PM 6/21/2008
You should look at dynographs and not just peak numbers. (wytt)
The R18 makes 115 foot lbs at 2k and 130 at 4k, with a peak of 140hp.
A FI L15 (KWSC) doesn't break 100foot lbs until 3500rpm and it still barely outperforms the NATURALLY ASPIRATED R18 at peak.
If the slightly lower gearing of the L15's tranny gives it an advantage in terms of acceleration, it's going to be minuscule and dissolve once you hit 70mph.
-The R18 has lift adjusting VTEC, not the 12-16 crap that comes on our cars. (Read: more likely to have an aftermarket cam developed for it)
-The L15 might be 15-20lbs lighter than the R, tops. (I in fact wouldn't be surprised if the R is lighter than the L, considering all of the plastic on that engine)
-An R18 Civic running 6.5psi will outrun a K20Z Civic with CAI. (again, 180lbft @ 3krpm - argue with that please-)
Obviously the appeal would be in under-weighing a K20 and making more power with boost.
If you chums want to hash the semantics of the benefits of an FI over an NA, or vice versa, be my guest. What it comes down to is that at parallel levels of tune the R is going to best the whole lot because a K is simply too nose heavy. Period.
Modified by michaelmikewho at 9:58 PM 6/21/2008
06-22-2008, 08:14 AM
#22
be professional
Re: (michaelmikewho)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by michaelmikewho »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">-The R18 has lift adjusting VTEC, not the 12-16 crap that comes on our cars.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about, so here's some information for you:
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/index.html
The R18 and R20 are Atkinson-cycle engines (rather than the traditional Otto-cycle), and the VTEC mechanism facilitates that.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">a K is simply too nose heavy. Period.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Just stop posting right now.
Sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about, so here's some information for you:
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/index.html
The R18 and R20 are Atkinson-cycle engines (rather than the traditional Otto-cycle), and the VTEC mechanism facilitates that.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">a K is simply too nose heavy. Period.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Just stop posting right now.
06-22-2008, 02:14 PM
#23
Re: (Targa250R)
Thank you Targa..
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about, so here's some information for you:
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/index.html
The R18 and R20 are Atkinson-cycle engines (rather than the traditional Otto-cycle), and the VTEC mechanism facilitates that.
Just stop posting right now.</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about, so here's some information for you:
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/index.html
The R18 and R20 are Atkinson-cycle engines (rather than the traditional Otto-cycle), and the VTEC mechanism facilitates that.
Just stop posting right now.</TD></TR></TABLE>
06-22-2008, 03:07 PM
#24
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North VA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like it eh Targa? The VTEC mechanism doesn't alter the main terms of the argument. (And I should point out that the VTEC mechanism doesn't facilitate the Atk.Cycle, it's the method for changing to an Otto-Cycle when the power is needed)
An argument that you people only seem to be able to divert rather than take up.
Pointing out one sentence with a discrepancy out of ten is a rather weak form of argument. I think the burden of proof rests on you chaps at the moment.
Modified by michaelmikewho at 4:32 PM 6/22/2008
An argument that you people only seem to be able to divert rather than take up.
Pointing out one sentence with a discrepancy out of ten is a rather weak form of argument. I think the burden of proof rests on you chaps at the moment.
Modified by michaelmikewho at 4:32 PM 6/22/2008
06-27-2008, 10:59 AM
#25
Re: (michaelmikewho)
Well, why don't you prove it to us MikeWho, be the first guy on the planet to swap out an R18 into his Fit while meticuously keeping a dollar for dollar price list going.
This way you can prove to us all, using real world expenses, on how much "cheaper" this will be than a K20 or a forced induction method.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by michaelmikewho »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I think the burden of proof rests on you chaps at the moment.
Modified by michaelmikewho at 4:32 PM 6/22/2008</TD></TR></TABLE>
This way you can prove to us all, using real world expenses, on how much "cheaper" this will be than a K20 or a forced induction method.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by michaelmikewho »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I think the burden of proof rests on you chaps at the moment.
Modified by michaelmikewho at 4:32 PM 6/22/2008</TD></TR></TABLE>
