JDM 2nd gen b16 & T3/To4e 57 Trim ?'s & intake manifold & revs ?'s
07-01-2004, 09:11 AM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T Dot
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the pros & cons of a b16 & T3/To4e 57 Trim turbo
i keep hearing that a 57 Trim turbo is not good for the b16. people keep saying either choose the 50 Trim or 60 for the b16, is this true. here are the specs of the turbo
T3/To4e
57T Garrett comp. wheel
.50 a/r comp
.63 a/r turbine
my motor is a jdm 2nd gen, eagles, c.p.'s, ported head, 2nd gen intake, 64.5mm t/b, rev hard manifold, Tial 38mm w/g, 550's, 3" d.p., 2.5" exhaust, gsr cams, Hondata s200b. i'm looking to boost 12-15psi daily. is this 57 Trim turbo not good for my application? if not, then why? i don't want to here any SC61 talk, unless one of you guys are going to buy me one. lastly, i'm looking to rev to 9200 rpm. is my 2nd gen intake going to limit my ability to rev that high? and if so, is the edelbrock intake manifold the obvious choice, or can i get away with using the AEBS? any useful info is appreciated. thanks.
Modified by B16C1 at 6:47 AM 7/3/2004
T3/To4e
57T Garrett comp. wheel
.50 a/r comp
.63 a/r turbine
my motor is a jdm 2nd gen, eagles, c.p.'s, ported head, 2nd gen intake, 64.5mm t/b, rev hard manifold, Tial 38mm w/g, 550's, 3" d.p., 2.5" exhaust, gsr cams, Hondata s200b. i'm looking to boost 12-15psi daily. is this 57 Trim turbo not good for my application? if not, then why? i don't want to here any SC61 talk, unless one of you guys are going to buy me one. lastly, i'm looking to rev to 9200 rpm. is my 2nd gen intake going to limit my ability to rev that high? and if so, is the edelbrock intake manifold the obvious choice, or can i get away with using the AEBS? any useful info is appreciated. thanks.
Modified by B16C1 at 6:47 AM 7/3/2004
07-01-2004, 09:48 AM
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T Dot
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how come i keep hearing people say this ****, yet when i make a post about it, nobody has anything to say? i guess nuff people are full of ****. i don't even know why i get fooled by the HT shittalkers, because they have no proof that the 57 Trim is not suitable for the b16.
07-04-2004, 08:23 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (Chillinit)
why the hell do you want to rev to 9500k? also throw that 12-15psi bs out the window...pick a power goal and make it, its that simple.
I run a 60 trim on a stock b16a @ 14-15psi. Its alittle laggy but not bad. Im sure a 57 trim would be fine too...
I run a 60 trim on a stock b16a @ 14-15psi. Its alittle laggy but not bad. Im sure a 57 trim would be fine too...
07-05-2004, 05:45 AM
#7
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T Dot
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Mpir3)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mpir3 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">why the hell do you want to rev to 9500k?</TD></TR></TABLE>
because i want to, what the ****? thanks for your input, though. i'm using ITR gearing, so, i'm making up for my limited gear spacing. either way, i'm going that high. i've seen a good amount of people rev above 9K and still make power. keep it coming, people.
Modified by B16C1 at 9:02 AM 7/5/2004
because i want to, what the ****? thanks for your input, though. i'm using ITR gearing, so, i'm making up for my limited gear spacing. either way, i'm going that high. i've seen a good amount of people rev above 9K and still make power. keep it coming, people.
Modified by B16C1 at 9:02 AM 7/5/2004
Trending Topics
07-05-2004, 05:57 AM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (B16C1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by B16C1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how come i keep hearing people say this ****, yet when i make a post about it, nobody has anything to say? i guess nuff people are full of ****. i don't even know why i get fooled by the HT shittalkers, because they have no proof that the 57 Trim is not suitable for the b16.</TD></TR></TABLE>
maybe if you want people to answer your question you shouldn't be an *** about it
maybe if you want people to answer your question you shouldn't be an *** about it
07-05-2004, 06:10 AM
#9
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T Dot
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (SOHC_MShue)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SOHC_MShue »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
maybe if you want people to answer your question you shouldn't be an *** about it</TD></TR></TABLE>
nobody asked you, and, once again, no help. i'm only being an *** because, nuff people talk ****. one day its good the next day its ****. on this board, the only good turbo is the sc61, b16's are too small, full-race tubular manifolds are the only way to go, jg manifolds, 880cc's etc. its all b.s., so, the reason i carry on so is because i'm sick of the ******' nonsense. i need some true, honest guidance. that's all.
maybe if you want people to answer your question you shouldn't be an *** about it
</TD></TR></TABLE>nobody asked you, and, once again, no help. i'm only being an *** because, nuff people talk ****. one day its good the next day its ****. on this board, the only good turbo is the sc61, b16's are too small, full-race tubular manifolds are the only way to go, jg manifolds, 880cc's etc. its all b.s., so, the reason i carry on so is because i'm sick of the ******' nonsense. i need some true, honest guidance. that's all.
07-05-2004, 08:01 AM
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T Dot
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (MIKES)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MIKES »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ahhhhhhhhhhh Good</TD></TR></TABLE>
wtf?
Modified by B16C1 at 2:19 PM 7/5/2004
wtf?
Modified by B16C1 at 2:19 PM 7/5/2004
07-05-2004, 08:46 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: (B16C1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by B16C1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
nobody asked you, and, once again, no help. i'm only being an *** because, nuff people talk ****. one day its good the next day its ****. on this board, the only good turbo is the sc61, b16's are too small, full-race tubular manifolds are the only way to go, jg manifolds, 880cc's etc. its all b.s., so, the reason i carry on so is because i'm sick of the ******' nonsense. i need some true, honest guidance. that's all.</TD></TR></TABLE>
http://www.clubsi.com
nobody asked you, and, once again, no help. i'm only being an *** because, nuff people talk ****. one day its good the next day its ****. on this board, the only good turbo is the sc61, b16's are too small, full-race tubular manifolds are the only way to go, jg manifolds, 880cc's etc. its all b.s., so, the reason i carry on so is because i'm sick of the ******' nonsense. i need some true, honest guidance. that's all.</TD></TR></TABLE>
http://www.clubsi.com
07-05-2004, 09:59 PM
#13
On the real.... Please calm down. The 57 trim is fine for the setup that you need, but based upon the b16 setup, at 16psi you'd be at over 47 lbs/min at 9200 rpms, you'd be maxxing out the efficiency of the turbo, and just be blowing hot air at that speed. If you must go that high of an RPM, you may want to change specs.
Now if it were about 12psi, you'd be at 14 lbs/min at 3300 rpms and 41 lbs/min at 9200 rpms (which is about 330whp at 9200 rpms) which is pretty inefficient....
YOu don't have to go SC61. Most people aren't saying that, its just that you need to do a bit more research and calculation to be able to get a realistic goal on what you need. No one can tell you what you're looking for. But please don't bash others simply because we can't read your mind on what you need...It's YOUR Car....If you need help on other alternatives, please, just ask..... we'll assist.
Now if it were about 12psi, you'd be at 14 lbs/min at 3300 rpms and 41 lbs/min at 9200 rpms (which is about 330whp at 9200 rpms) which is pretty inefficient....
YOu don't have to go SC61. Most people aren't saying that, its just that you need to do a bit more research and calculation to be able to get a realistic goal on what you need. No one can tell you what you're looking for. But please don't bash others simply because we can't read your mind on what you need...It's YOUR Car....If you need help on other alternatives, please, just ask..... we'll assist.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
