Turbo-charged

thought this was kind of interesting. same car, same injectors, map sensor, turbo kit, downpipe, exhaust, etc etc. only thing that changed was going from the 1.6 vtec to the 1.8 non vtec.

it obviously took a little more boost to make the same 300whp on the ls, which again brought up the torque--- but either way it made it feel like a totally different car. ive always loved straight LS's for anything in the 300 horsepower range, i think they are more fun to drive.

this is why i always suggest our customers send out a 1.8 block instead of sleeving a b16. its a night and day difference IMO.

Silva Bullit DC4

Wow, look at the LS's torque curve!

What turbo, and what was the ending psi for each car?

GEN2 LS

iTrader: (3)

overall which car is faster?

Wopsicle69

whats the boost levels of both setups?

nonvtecallmotor

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GEN2 LS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">overall which car is faster?</TD></TR></TABLE>I've had a few 300whp cars run mid 11's @ ~ 120.

Stock LS motors work well.

LastGenEK

can post atleast some car info..... I have no idea what im looking at or what to base this info of of

spoolin turbo s

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by LastGenEK &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">can post atleast some car info..... I have no idea what im looking at or what to base this info of of</TD></TR></TABLE>

blue is the ls and red is the b16

TheShodan

iTrader: (14)

That's why as important as "boring" the motor is to 84mm, the stroke is equally if not MORE important. Not a suprise, but pleasant to see nontheless.


Modified by TheShodan at 9:16 PM 9/18/2008

Silva Bullit DC4

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TheShodan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That's why as important as "boring" the motor is to 84mm, the stroke is equally if not MORE important.

Modified by TheShodan at 9:16 PM 9/18/2008</TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly.

97_coupe

What turbo was used, it seems pretty laggy for the B16?

blaze the chemi

This is quite interesting. Thanks for the comparison on the graphs. It would help to know what the turbo system is though. Turbo, DP size, exhaust, and psi.

I'd give the B18 the edge on a bit faster than the B16 because of the area under the torque curve. Taking into consideration of the grear ratios of the tranny and rpm limitations, the B18 I would imagine has a slight edge on the B16.

Turbo-charged

i THINK the turbo is a 60-1 not sure
its a tubular manifold i made 4-5 years ago
3 inch exhaust system

rorik

now I'm curious to see a graph of a gsr at the ls' boost level..

Boosted_Coupe

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo-charged &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i THINK the turbo is a 60-1 not sure
its a tubular manifold i made 4-5 years ago
3 inch exhaust system

</TD></TR></TABLE>

This gives me some hope as i'm swaping in my piston/rod b18c5 engine tonight and taking out my b16a piston/rod block. Also I'll be using a 60-1 turbo. Hopefully i will see full boost around 4-4500 rpm.

HiProfile

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo-charged &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">this is why i always suggest our customers send out a 1.8 block instead of sleeving a b16. its a night and day difference IMO.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Amen.

Increasing bore results in less rotating mass per CC gained (extra response), but increasing stroke helps with power everywhere to a greater degree. You actually enhance the mechanical advantage the piston has on the crank, as well get more displacement. A wider bore means more time to completely burn everything, and doesn't help create a mechanical advantage - outside of increasing displacement. This is why D16's don't all-out suck when boosted. Bigger stroke than a GSR, but smaller bore to keep 1.6L.

People who claim slow spool is great for traction should consider taking an even further step back in time and go with carbs. The new EMS's with EBC's can give you faster or slower spool up (soften the onset), as well as give controlled creep.


BTW Future naysayers of that dyno graph should also consider increasing the B16's boost to the LS level will only help topend, since spool RPM is also increased. Even with Hondas, there's no replacement for displacement.

97_coupe

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HiProfile &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

The new EMS's with EBC's can give you faster or slower spool up (soften the onset), as well as give controlled creep.


BTW Future naysayers of that dyno graph should also consider increasing the B16's boost to the LS level will only help topend, since spool RPM is also increased. Even with Hondas, there's no replacement for displacement. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I am not saying that I would want one over the other, I think that the B series in general are great but for the B16 shouldn't you take a turbo that is better suited (maybe smaller) for it and and run the same boost as the LS and make the close to the same HP as the LS but yet have a better low range in power due to the fact that it would spool quicker. Or also as you stated make it spool quicker with a EMS and EBC to give it more of a lower or broader powerband? Nonetheless, you will never get the TQ that the LS produces. I am not saying that all this is factual, but just thinking

Veris

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo-charged &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">thought this was kind of interesting. same car, same injectors, map sensor, turbo kit, downpipe, exhaust, etc etc. only thing that changed was going from the 1.6 vtec to the 1.8 non vtec.

<U>it obviously took a little more boost to make the same 300whp on the ls</U>, which again brought up the torque--- but either way it made it feel like a totally different car. ive always loved straight LS's for anything in the 300 horsepower range, i think they are more fun to drive.

this is why i always suggest our customers send out a 1.8 block instead of sleeving a b16. its a night and day difference IMO.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

The stroke on the LS is great, but your graph isn't a direct comparison. How about a graph of the two motors and setups at the same boost level? That would be more telling.

TheShodan

iTrader: (14)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 97_coupe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I am not saying that I would want one over the other, I think that the B series in general are great but for the B16 shouldn't you take a turbo that is better suited (maybe smaller) for it and and run the same boost as the LS and make the close to the same HP as the LS but yet have a better low range in power due to the fact that it would spool quicker. Or also as you stated make it spool quicker with a EMS and EBC to give it more of a lower or broader powerband? Nonetheless, you will never get the TQ that the LS produces. I am not saying that all this is factual, but just thinking </TD></TR></TABLE>

The EMS/EBC acts as an "assistant" to help with the moment of inertia changes (or "spool") rather than a replacment for a smaller turbocharger. But either way, I actually use smaller turbochargers on larger stroke LSs than B16s because of the head flow design. I want to take as much advantage of that stroke as much as possible, since I can't rev higher to take advantage of the CFM of the turbocharger like I could with a B16. But this is all relative to what the USER wants; I try to give the engine as much as an advantage w/ a turbocharger as possible.

h2b_sedan

i know the ls sure feels faster!

DaveF

rev that b16 up another 1000- 1500 rpm and i bet it goes faster down the track.

Coreymdean

The next step in this comparison would be to throw that b16 head on that ls and really see whats up... eliminate cams and head flow characteristics...

legomytego

how much more boost did the ls take to make the same numbers ?

Coreymdean

not trying to discredit your thread, its def interesting to see these results. I was just wondering how much of the powerband difference was from the cylinder head, and not just the stroke difference.

pgpbubble

x2.

what was the boost levels at?

Im assuming around 17-18 for the ls. 14-15 for the b16.

Unsivil_audio

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Veris &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The stroke on the LS is great, but your graph isn't a direct comparison. How about a graph of the two motors and setups at the same boost level? That would be more telling.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Actually no it wouldn't be. His comparison is perfect. 300whp 1.8l non-vtec vs 300whp 1.6l vtec with the same turbo setup. Nobody needs to know how much more power a 1.6l will make on the same boost, we already know which one will make more power.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by blaze the chemi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd give the B18 the edge on a bit faster than the B16 because of the area under the torque curve. Taking into consideration of the grear ratios of the tranny and rpm limitations, the B18 I would imagine has a slight edge on the B16.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'd have to disagree, that is irrelevant when racing considering you stay in the upper ~2500rpms of your powerband. The LS will definitely feel like the faster car with another 40wtrq, but when it comes to it I think they would be very close matched races.