JDM_EK4_Coupe

Ive been doing my research because Ive been planning on fully building my 84mm B18c for boost and I understand that the OEM cranks are good up to 800 horsepower so spending much more money for an aftermarket crank is out of the question. Now what im debating on is either getting an LS crank or a ITR crank. Can anyone list the pros and cons of each or some suggestions? Thanks.

CivicVX94

ls crank=89mm + 84mm bore = ~2L
I don't think there is anything special about an itr crank either, but i could be wrong. Either way, it's a shorter stroke and will make less power and due to less diplacement,plus slower spool times.

JDM_EK4_Coupe

Thanks

CivicVX94

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDM_EK4_Coupe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Thanks </TD></TR></TABLE>
no problem
I'm doing basically this same build...jw what rods/piston combo do you have?

Lonnie

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CivicVX94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ls crank=89mm + 84mm bore = ~2L
I don't think there is anything special about an itr crank either, but i could be wrong. Either way, it's a shorter stroke and will make less power and due to less diplacement,plus slower spool times.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What is the basis of this assumption?


Modified by Lonnie at 8:50 PM 5/29/2007

ninesecrx

Type r crank and GSR crank have the same stroke. Only difference is the type r has more weight on it.

Lonnie

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ninesecrx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Only difference is the type r has more weight on it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Is this a good thing or bad?

GSaura

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ninesecrx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Type r crank and GSR crank have the same stroke. Only difference is the type r has more weight on it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The weight distribution is different also.

CivicVX94

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lonnie &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What is the basis of this assumption?
Modified by Lonnie at 8:50 PM 5/29/2007</TD></TR></TABLE>
where is my assumption?
b18c1/3/5/r whatever all have an 87.2mm stroke and with an 84mm bore will yield a 1.933L.
b18b1/2 and all b20's have an 89mm stroke and with an 84mm bore yield 1.973L.
Every bit of displacement helps and will add at least some power in the somewhere in the powerband and decrease spool time.
If not, then you're saying that with identical setups besides the crank, a b16 77mm crank will make the same power as an b18b1 89mm crank and give the same spool times? No. Take a walk.

JDM_EK4_Coupe

pwned

Lonnie

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDM_EK4_Coupe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">pwned</TD></TR></TABLE><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CivicVX94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
where is my assumption?
b18c1/3/5/r whatever all have an 87.2mm stroke and with an 84mm bore will yield a 1.933L.
b18b1/2 and all b20's have an 89mm stroke and with an 84mm bore yield 1.973L.
Every bit of displacement helps and will add at least some power in the somewhere in the powerband and decrease spool time.
If not, then you're saying that with identical setups besides the crank, a b16 77mm crank will make the same power as an b18b1 89mm crank and give the same spool times? No. Take a walk. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Keep "educating" yourself by reading. There is no such thing as identical setups.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CivicVX94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ls crank=89mm + 84mm bore = ~2L
I don't think there is anything special about an itr crank either, but i could be wrong. Either way, it's a shorter stroke and will make less power and due to less diplacement,plus slower spool times.</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is the assumption I am speaking about. Have you tried both setups to make those statements? If not you really should keep your theories to yourself.

Anyways to the OP, I would use an ITR/GSR crank for the reliability issue. Stroked motors normally doesn't like high rpm.


Modified by Lonnie at 5:05 PM 5/31/2007

Boner_Ben

I'd rather run the gsr crank.

CivicVX94

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lonnie &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Keep "educating" yourself by reading. There is no such thing as identical setups.
This is the assumption I am speaking about.
Have you tried both setups to make those statements? If not you really should keep your theories to yourself.
Anyways to the OP, I would use an ITR/GSR crank for the reliability issue. Stroked motors normally doesn't like high rpm.
Modified by Lonnie at 5:05 PM 5/31/2007</TD></TR></TABLE>
ok two damn near identical setups. same turbo, mani, exhaust, piping, fmic,head, valvetrain, intake mani, etc..the ONLY difference in the setups being the crank and connecting rods. The engine with the longer stroke (more displacement) will at the very least have a beefier powerband b/c it will spool the turbo faster.
I don't see how you can say "theories," that's such an asinine statement when the facts are blatant.
And as far as "reliability," I can't remember who it was, but some reputable engine builder on here once said that he's "never seen an engine that couldn't benefit from a little extra displacement." The difference of 1.8mm in the stroke won't do **** to how high you can rev and you'll have a fatter powerband b/c you'll make your peak boost faster.
The whole "longer stroke" doesn't apply here when comparing a difference a gsr vs. ls crank anyways. It's more for engine's such as d16's with small bore (75mm) and longer stroke (90mm). For b-series it'd be more along the lines of a 95mm crower or eagle crank. At that point rpm would most likely need to be sacrificed for safety purposes. Think about it, a b18c5 has a higher redline than a b16a1/2/3/whatever anyways and it has a longer stroke.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Boner_Ben &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd rather run the gsr crank. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Do tell why.
The ONLY benefit I could see would be for traction purposes by having a more peaky powerband engine.

SwappedTURBOegg

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Boner_Ben &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd rather run the gsr crank. </TD></TR></TABLE>

doood

iTrader: (1)

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

Is this a good thing or bad?</TD></TR></TABLE>

it's better for the higher revs the type r see's from the factory

Lonnie

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDM_EK4_Coupe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ive been doing my research because Ive been planning on fully building my 84mm B18c for boost and I understand that the OEM cranks are good up to 800 horsepower so spending much more money for an aftermarket crank is out of the question. Now what im debating on is either getting an LS crank or a ITR crank. Can anyone list the pros and cons of each or some suggestions? Thanks.

</TD></TR></TABLE>
There you have your displacement

CivicVX94

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lonnie &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
There you have your displacement </TD></TR></TABLE>yupp b/c the only way to get additional displacement is from a larger bore
every little bit helps, especially with small torqueless engines
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by doood &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
it's better for the higher revs the HYPE r see's from the factory</TD></TR></TABLE>
and the 1.8mm longer stroke of an ls crank wouldn't perform just as well?
just b/c it's a type r doesn't make everything about the engine better.
the ls was designed to make more power down low-hence no vtec, shitty flowing head, and lower redline-so they give it a slightly longer stroke for some additional torque on the low end. And if what you say that the heavier weight is "better for the higher revs" then this would only prove what I'm saying about an ls crank true (i assume it weighs more than an itr anyways). Either way, the slightly extra stroke will in no way hurt performance. With a properly built engine you can rev till power drops off anyways and I'd rather have a fatter power band and have my power peak at say 9k vs 9.2k

needmypass

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CivicVX94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Think about it, a b18c5 has a higher redline than a b16a1/2/3/whatever anyways and it has a longer stroke.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Really I thought they were the same....oh and piston acceleration is why smaller strokes are better for high reving. look it up there buddy

Lonnie

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CivicVX94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yupp b/c the only way to get additional displacement is from a larger bore
every little bit helps, especially with small torqueless engines</TD></TR></TABLE>

Just out of curiosity whats your setup? Dyno sheets? Just curious to see real world results.

CivicVX94

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lonnie &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Just out of curiosity whats your setup? Dyno sheets? Just curious to see real world results.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I can scan my old ls turbo dyno, but that's not the current setup.
current setup consist of an 84mm ERL sleeved b18c1 block, B18B1 crank, Pauter Billet rods, Endyne Rollerwave coated thick side wall pistons
My numbers should be right at what your's are. I'll post a graph when it's done but it sure as hell won't be done this week lol
I really just don't get why you people are arguing against an ls crank. My setup, like most built setups, will easily be able to safely rev till power drops off. It's obvious you have a nice setup too based on your sig, if that is infact you, so i'd like to see your reasoning? I think you're overexaggerating the difference in strokes here man.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by needmypass &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Really I thought they were the same....oh and piston acceleration is why smaller strokes are better for high reving. look it up there buddy </TD></TR></TABLE>
and who said ANYTHING about piston acceleration? Like most people i'm looking for more power, expletive revving high for ***** and giggles. And I do know that also, looks at every single sport bike engine, the bores are quite a bit larger than the strokes and a MUCH larger difference than we're talking about here.
I considered using a b16 crank instead of an ls crank at one point b/c of this. I was thinking with a large bore and the short stroke it could high as hell and fast as hell. But then I realized 1)84mm bore and 77mm stroke aren't near as exaggerated difference as a typical bike engine and 2)my stock boosted ls w/ a lightened flywheel revved too fast to keep traction as it was and 3)who cares if your care can rev to 12k if it's not making any more power?
/rant

ok i'm done now. you guys can keep your closed minded opinions and i'll keep my closed minded opinion. it doesn't effect me. I would just rather this turn into a technical debate than some one sided "you're wrong" argument

Lonnie

yes whats in my sig is infact my setup
Brief run down
Sleeved GSR block 84.5
Balanced and polished ITR Crank
CP and Pauter
27 psi on a 4067

Why spend the extra money on custom pistons and rods?

needmypass

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CivicVX94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">and who said ANYTHING about piston acceleration? Like most people i'm looking for more power, expletive revving high for ***** and giggles. And I do know that also, looks at every single sport bike engine, the bores are quite a bit larger than the strokes and a MUCH larger difference than we're talking about here.


ok i'm done now. you guys can keep your closed minded opinions and i'll keep my closed minded opinion. it doesn't effect me. I would just rather this turn into a technical debate than some one sided "you're wrong" argument </TD></TR></TABLE>

Reducing piston acceleration is why smaller strokes are used...could make motors safer but i might just be crazy. just letting you know looks like you didn't know that from you post anyways.hey instead of dragging the whole larger bore then stroke just say Oversquare... but im sure you already knew that LMAO. And who was talking about sports bikes..... just trying to educate ya buddy

quik sol

just micropolish the GSR crank and boost her to high heaven, it will hold find.

narfdanarf

I'd use the LS crank...it will make more power. Although pretty much unnoticeable in a boosted application. Go hang out in the all-motor forums for awhile. When you're trying to exact every last ounce of power from a setup, every bit of extra displacement helps.(unless it comes at the expense of CR)...I know of tons of LS bottom ends revving 10k+, so that is a horrible excuse not to use it.

CivicVX94

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lonnie &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yes whats in my sig is infact my setup
Brief run down
Sleeved GSR block 84.5
Balanced and polished ITR Crank
CP and Pauter
27 psi on a 4067
Why spend the extra money on custom pistons and rods?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
custom? not quite.
rollerwaves are the only pistons designed with combustion characteristics in mind and alot of people consider them the best off-the-shelf piston.
LS crank, LS rods, LS bearings. nothing custom here.
And you bold ITR like I said that an itr crank couldn't make power
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by needmypass &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Reducing piston acceleration is why smaller strokes are used...could make motors safer but i might just be crazy. just letting you know looks like you didn't know that from you post anyways.hey instead of dragging the whole larger bore then stroke just say Oversquare... but im sure you already knew that LMAO. And who was talking about sports bikes..... just trying to educate ya buddy </TD></TR></TABLE>
ya ya ya whatever
And YES I do know what Overquare means. Longer stroke than bore. the engine that comes to mind when I think of square engines is the sr20 86mmx86mm.
And ya noone brought up sport bikes, but small stroke and high revving just bring them to mind.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by narfdanarf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd use the LS crank...it will make more power. Although pretty much unnoticeable in a boosted application. Go hang out in the all-motor forums for awhile. When you're trying to exact every last ounce of power from a setup, every bit of extra displacement helps.(unless it comes at the expense of CR)...I know of tons of LS bottom ends revving 10k+, so that is a horrible excuse not to use it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
THANK YOU

My point is, why not?