So I've been searching quite a bit and researching the positives and negatives of Fi and na (still got a good amount to learn). A big thing, probably the biggest thing I keep seeing is people saying Fi wears down your engine faster and that Fi is also more unreliable than na. The reason's given for this is the increase in pressure in the cylinders and the added heat that it causes.

My question is how is the increase in pressure from Fi different than let's say a high compression engine? Now I understand there are a lot of factors involved and 1 answer probably won't work in every scenario. So as an example let's say someone builds a b16 to 230hp at 11.5-1 ratio and someone else uses a t3/4 turbo at 8lbs of boost with an intercooler on a b16 to get 230hp and the engine is at 9.5-1 ratio.

Assuming both drove conservatively and the one with turbo didn't get into boost much, which would actually be worse for the engine? Which is more unreliable? Why? Any and all discussion on this is welcome and this was only a rough example.

 

FI is only unreliable if you do not properly maintain the setup. FI setups require more maintenance and the tuning really needs to be done well.

If someone is telling you that FI is less reliable then you should tell them they need to learn more about turbo'd engines.

 

as long as the setup uses quality parts, is assembled, tuned, and maintained properly they are just as reliable as any other motor

it's the use of low quality parts, poor assembly, tuning, maintenance, driving like a jackass, and running the setup near the ragged edge that causes failures (read: highschool kids)

if you don't do any of this then every motor becomes unreliable

 

A bolt on build is the most reliable because it is stock.

NA and FI both take a toll on your motor. You think 300 HP B-series all motor builds are reliable? That's a lot of strain.

Turbo'd motors do require a bit of maintaining though. You have the addition of a turbo obviously. There are a couple more components to worry about also.

 

allow me to put this in simple terms..




do you want one night of fun with say miley cyrus? or do you want to marry her?

 

300 hp on a well built motor would last a very long time. My motor on the gate sping made 597, so if I put a tiny gate spring to run 5psi I would still probably be above 300 hp and my motor would probably last as long as a stock motor..

So like others said it depends on the parts used, the engine builder and tuner.

 

A high compression engine will be under stress all the time. Extreme heat and pressure where on turbo charged engine you will only be stressing the engine when you're under boost which can vary with your turbo setup...and you won't always be in boost depending on what you plan on doing with the car.

For a circuit car setup you will get a lot of heat soak with a turbo setup but hey. Boost is addicting when you have it. It's like having your mother in law hanging off a cliff and she's telling you to please throw them off.

 

It is less reliable you have more components that can fail . 100,000 miles of boost on a b16 is just not happening

 

Boost is the way to go..


Also can I get a link to this 300 hp b series engine?

 

The one I was speaking of was fictional.

Mild 'all motor' builds are usually what people think about. And then they think of extreme boosted builds. It's apples and shovels at that point.

 

My car has been making 437whp for 9 years.

 

1. Quality parts
2. Proper tuning and EMS
3. Engine built to handle additional stress (300whp is fine on stock, but more than that is pushing it)
4. Maintenance

If you have reasonable expectations for your setup given the engine build (or lack thereof), and maintain the setup properly, there's no reason that it can't last just as long as an NA engine. Cutting corners and half-assing the setup/tune is what gets people into trouble. For these reasons, my next setup will be built/sleeved regardless of power goal...it may be overkill but I view it as insurance

 

I'm not really sure what your trying to say boostjunkie but I wouldn't want Miley at all, I prefer women not Justin Bieber look a likes. Just for the record I currently run a z6 in a 94 si and I've just been looking at all my options. It seems like an na build would be harder on the engine than a turbo done right. It also seems like na builds get worse mpg ( whatever I do I want it as a dd).

 

Let's put it this way since I didn't see anybody touching on this:

RPM kills engines. To have a Honda N/A engine worth a damn, you will need to go above the stock redline at least 1,000 - 2,000 RPM. PROPERLY setup boosted engines can easily make good power under the stock redline.

Detonation/Pre-Ignition kills engines. Both N/A and boosted setups can suffer from this if the tuning isn't done right and engines serviced properly.

Improper maintenance/upkeep/treatment kills engines. If you don't maintain ignition systems, oil changes, ect there is a higher chance of failure in boosted setups due to the delicacy of turbos and much greater cylinder pressures. Too many extremely hot shut downs and the oil cokes. Too much impurities in the oil can clog the oil restrictor (assuming you are running one) and will wreak havoc on a CHRA. BUT, most will build an N/A engine on the tighter side to keep from having power "escaping" the combustion chamber. That and the combustion temperatures are typically lower with N/A.

A properly setup turbo system (when being compared to a comparable N/A engine mind you) will be just as good on gas, if not better, than a similar N/A counterpart. Think efficiency - you are going above what is possible in a N/A setting.

Another factor for Honda people is usually COST. To build a N/A worth a damn it would easily cost double what similar turbo build would. It could cost even less,.but it really depends on what platform you are starting with though too.

Bolt-on parts aren't even a consideration in my eyes for Hondas unless you are K-series. Even still, you would be better suited to leave it stock and save up for a turbocharger kit.

 

NA single slams don't put down a ton of HP. I've seen 160 whp from a Z6 and that seemed like a lot. It was 'built' by most people's expectations. I'd say a simple turbo set up is where it's at.

 

that sums up pretty much the whole thing..



i just get tired of typing that long of a message..

 

I wouldn't be looking at doing anything crazy, like I said I'm looking to keep it a dd. The z6 is an ok engine but realistically it's not very powerful. Price isn't a huge concern because I'm not looking to do anything tomorrow and whatever I do it won't b crazy but I want it done right. I'm thinking I'd like to stay under 5k, as always though the cheaper the better.

As far as an na d series I honestly wouldn't waste my time or money. Those engines have very low potential for na. To drop 2k or more to get it to the same specs as a b16 is just dumb unless u have money and time to waste. If I did anything to the z6 it would be to build it up a little to handle a turbo.

I'm thinking I would like somewhere around 230-275hp and around 200lb torque. I had another hatch before with a swapped gsr and I'm not so sure I would want to go that route again. I know a lot of people might not like this but the idea of a turboed z6 kind of sounds nice to me right now

 

I got you...

Go autoworks kit
Turbo from shodan
Cams from ddtech ( that might be a bit tricky now)
Full blown fuel system
Tune by d-rob
Oh and turbo ls ignitor bypass.

 

vitara/custom rods all the way right there.

ive had 2 boosted d's. one was a stock motor back in 2003 (stolen rip)
the other was a vitara/eagle build in my hatch. it was a ton of fun. made 191/166 on 9 psi and like 230whp on 14 psi on with a saab viggen tdo5. ran consistent mid to high 13s and was cheap fun.

the d series ex tranny is kinda long though similar to ls b series trans. maybe go d2b or something. in an ef u can use the d16a1 tranny with the da teg halfshaft and axles

 

Yep, you sure did. Got me laughing again. Makes me want to put that in my signature as my parts list.

 

Damn, I guess my car, and the dozen other cars I've boosted over the past decade didn't get that memo...

It's already been said, many times. There is absolutely nothing "unreliable" about a properly done turbo car.

 

So aside from adding some extra parts that have to be maintained it seems like a turbo is better in every way for me and could be very doable on my current engine. I think I have my direction now back to searching and learning. I'm sure I'll be asking more questions as I search, I'll try not to ask anything to simple or dumb. Thanks for everyone's input

 

I'd marry her if she stops twerking lol

 

Imo a proper turbo setup is a much more reliable street car than a high hp na engine. The big thing on bith is maintaining the car, but turbos have the advantage of not being in boost all the time. At highway speeds a turbo engine might as well be cruising as a stock engine. With a high comp na engine, its always under elevated cylinder pressures.

 

Uh...no. A turbo is always spinning.