b16a or b18a?
09-25-2003, 08:23 PM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: brooklyn, ny
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b16a or b18a?
im looking at getting a eg coupe, ive found 2 that are clean and that i am interested in. First is a 93 coupe with a b16a swap with a gsr tranny and new clutch, next is a 94 coupe with a b18a with ls tranny and stock clutch. both are going for around the same price.
im looking at doing some hpde this summer, but will use the car for my daily driver.
i had 2 g2 integra's with the b18a/b engine, they pulled hard but just didnt do it for me. will the b16a be any different? i know they lack torque but wull it really be that bad?
and in the future i would get a gsr block with CTR pistions for the b16 civic, and i probablly would go lsvtec with the b18b civic.
help me decide, im leaning more towards the b16 cause of the b16a head and gsr tranny.
im looking at doing some hpde this summer, but will use the car for my daily driver.
i had 2 g2 integra's with the b18a/b engine, they pulled hard but just didnt do it for me. will the b16a be any different? i know they lack torque but wull it really be that bad?
and in the future i would get a gsr block with CTR pistions for the b16 civic, and i probablly would go lsvtec with the b18b civic.
help me decide, im leaning more towards the b16 cause of the b16a head and gsr tranny.
09-25-2003, 08:40 PM
#4
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (frosteg6)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by frosteg6 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i would go b16 w/ the gsr tranny. im not really a fan of doing lsvtec, alot of people end up blowing it because they weren't built right</TD></TR></TABLE>
haha. i was just thinking get the one with a b16a, then buy a b20 block for a crvtec.
haha. i was just thinking get the one with a b16a, then buy a b20 block for a crvtec.
09-25-2003, 08:41 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (mycivicstoo(s)low)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mycivicstoo(s)low »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm sorry, but do we have to have one of these threads every day?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I think it is in the ToS because it seems like ever since I have been here, that is how it works.
One of these and a my car wont start!
I think it is in the ToS because it seems like ever since I have been here, that is how it works.
One of these and a my car wont start!
09-25-2003, 08:47 PM
#6
Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: St. Pete, FL, USA
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Pho Real)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Pho Real »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I think it is in the ToS because it seems like ever since I have been here, that is how it works.
One of these and a my car wont start!</TD></TR></TABLE>Oh, well in that case....
I think it is in the ToS because it seems like ever since I have been here, that is how it works.
One of these and a my car wont start!</TD></TR></TABLE>Oh, well in that case....
09-26-2003, 05:05 AM
#7
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: brooklyn, ny
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (mycivicstoo(s)low)
im just asking your opinion, and if i do go lsvtec it will be built proberly, ive seen what happens when they arent built properly. but as i said im leaning towards the b16a coupe
Trending Topics
VTEC!!
09-26-2003, 02:46 PM
#12
New User
Re: b16a or b18a? (Prevail)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Prevail »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">94 Coupe + B18A = slow as **** 
That would be like driving my girlfriends 90 Integra. It's very very slow.
B16A would be much faster.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That would be like driving my girlfriends 90 Integra. It's very very slow.
B16A would be much faster.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
09-26-2003, 03:33 PM
#14
be professional
Re: b16a or b18a? (Type S)
The GSR tranny on the B16A is questionable; it has longer 2nd through 5th gears than a B16A tranny.
As for this B18A, is it using a cable tranny? If so, and it is a '90-91 cable LS tranny, it will have a 4.400:1 FD and so will be geared the same as a GSR. However if it is a '90-91 engine it will only have 130hp as opposed to the 140hp of the '92-93.
If you've never driven a vehicle with a B16A, you will be disappointed. The lack of torque is more than you'd think, the engine pulls very weakly the entire way through its powerband and never really puts you back in your seat the way the torque of the non-VTEC B18 does. The only reason that the B16A can edge out a B18 is because of it's extremely long powerband and its ability to take advantage of the short gearing because of the high revs.
Since you'll end up with a 1.8L engine regardless of which route you take, I wouldn't worry about it.
LS-VTEC engine needs to be built properly to last, which means you have to tear the engine down completely and strengthen the bottom end components, otherwise the bottom end will not be able to handle a lot of high revving. If you are going to run HPDE, I would suggest the B16A for now because it is more suited to the sustained high revs of a road course, and has 160hp up there as opposed to the 130-140 of the B18.
As for this B18A, is it using a cable tranny? If so, and it is a '90-91 cable LS tranny, it will have a 4.400:1 FD and so will be geared the same as a GSR. However if it is a '90-91 engine it will only have 130hp as opposed to the 140hp of the '92-93.
If you've never driven a vehicle with a B16A, you will be disappointed. The lack of torque is more than you'd think, the engine pulls very weakly the entire way through its powerband and never really puts you back in your seat the way the torque of the non-VTEC B18 does. The only reason that the B16A can edge out a B18 is because of it's extremely long powerband and its ability to take advantage of the short gearing because of the high revs.
Since you'll end up with a 1.8L engine regardless of which route you take, I wouldn't worry about it.
LS-VTEC engine needs to be built properly to last, which means you have to tear the engine down completely and strengthen the bottom end components, otherwise the bottom end will not be able to handle a lot of high revving. If you are going to run HPDE, I would suggest the B16A for now because it is more suited to the sustained high revs of a road course, and has 160hp up there as opposed to the 130-140 of the B18.
09-26-2003, 07:19 PM
#15
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: b16a or b18a? (Targa250R)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
If you've never driven a vehicle with a B16A, you will be disappointed. The lack of torque is more than you'd think, the engine pulls very weakly the entire way through its powerband and never really puts you back in your seat the way the torque of the non-VTEC B18 does.</TD></TR></TABLE>
At ~7000-8200 my B16A powered hatch pulls really hard, enough to "put you back in your seat".
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The only reason that the B16A can edge out a B18 is because of it's extremely long powerband and its ability to take advantage of the short gearing because of the high revs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh, that, and maybe those 40 EXTRA HP come into play somewhere...
B16A>B18B>B18A
If you've never driven a vehicle with a B16A, you will be disappointed. The lack of torque is more than you'd think, the engine pulls very weakly the entire way through its powerband and never really puts you back in your seat the way the torque of the non-VTEC B18 does.</TD></TR></TABLE>
At ~7000-8200 my B16A powered hatch pulls really hard, enough to "put you back in your seat".
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The only reason that the B16A can edge out a B18 is because of it's extremely long powerband and its ability to take advantage of the short gearing because of the high revs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh, that, and maybe those 40 EXTRA HP come into play somewhere...
B16A>B18B>B18A
09-26-2003, 10:26 PM
#19
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Grapevine, TX, U.S.A.
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well it just depends on what your plans are. personally i would buy the b18 and sell the stock tranny for a gs-r tranny and turbo it. but if you arent spending money hten the b16 is quicker. basically the b18 has a lot more potential in my eyes.
09-27-2003, 09:08 AM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: brooklyn, ny
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: b16a or b18a? (mathusala)
ive driven my 2 previous tegs ( both 91's) one coupe and one sedan, also a couple of mildly modded civics, and a b20 vtec (christian on this board) integra, so i know what a torquey homda motor feels like. im leaning towards the b16 because of its potential.
i should be test driving the b16a civic next weekend, ill let u guys know what i decide
i should be test driving the b16a civic next weekend, ill let u guys know what i decide
09-27-2003, 09:12 AM
#22
be professional
Re: b16a or b18a? (Prevail)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Prevail »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
At ~7000-8200 my B16A powered hatch pulls really hard, enough to "put you back in your seat".</TD></TR></TABLE>
That's odd, because the B16A torque curve peaks at 7000 RPM and after that it just drops off for the remainder of the rev range, with a significant drop off after about 7600.
If you think a B16A pulls "really hard," then you must have never driven a car with any significant power. Torque is the force that the engine produces and therefore the torque curve is what you feel, since an engine will accelerate a car exactly following its torque curve. 111 lb-ft just doesn't pull hard at all to me, it feels weak the entire way through the rev range. Sure, you accelerate pretty good because of the high revs creating a lot of horsepower, but there just isn't much pulling force at all.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Oh, that, and maybe those 40 EXTRA HP come into play somewhere...</TD></TR></TABLE>
That's a given, I did not include it because it is obvious. It would also be a given under "long powerband" and "high revs," if you are familiar with the relationship between horsepower, torque, and RPM.
The horsepower difference could be as great as 38hp, or as little as 20hp depending on the years and sources of the engines, which he has not confirmed yet. In fact, he has not posted at all since his first post, and I'm wondering if he was deliberately trying to start a flame war . . . this topic comes up every other day and it always ends up in a flame war.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">B16A>B18B>B18A
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Nah, I'd say it's more like 1.8L > 1.6L.
Nyah, nyah
At ~7000-8200 my B16A powered hatch pulls really hard, enough to "put you back in your seat".</TD></TR></TABLE>
That's odd, because the B16A torque curve peaks at 7000 RPM and after that it just drops off for the remainder of the rev range, with a significant drop off after about 7600.
If you think a B16A pulls "really hard," then you must have never driven a car with any significant power. Torque is the force that the engine produces and therefore the torque curve is what you feel, since an engine will accelerate a car exactly following its torque curve. 111 lb-ft just doesn't pull hard at all to me, it feels weak the entire way through the rev range. Sure, you accelerate pretty good because of the high revs creating a lot of horsepower, but there just isn't much pulling force at all.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Oh, that, and maybe those 40 EXTRA HP come into play somewhere...
</TD></TR></TABLE>That's a given, I did not include it because it is obvious. It would also be a given under "long powerband" and "high revs," if you are familiar with the relationship between horsepower, torque, and RPM.
The horsepower difference could be as great as 38hp, or as little as 20hp depending on the years and sources of the engines, which he has not confirmed yet. In fact, he has not posted at all since his first post, and I'm wondering if he was deliberately trying to start a flame war . . . this topic comes up every other day and it always ends up in a flame war.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">B16A>B18B>B18A
</TD></TR></TABLE>Nah, I'd say it's more like 1.8L > 1.6L.
Nyah, nyah
09-27-2003, 10:42 AM
#23
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: nor, cal, usa
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: b16a or b18a? (Targa250R)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Targa250R »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
That's odd, because the B16A torque curve peaks at 7000 RPM and after that it just drops off for the remainder of the rev range, with a significant drop off after about 7600.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I always thought a torque curve was dictated by the cam. I've seen that puny 100+ lb-ft curve look flat from 5500 to over 9000 - now that's a long time.
That's odd, because the B16A torque curve peaks at 7000 RPM and after that it just drops off for the remainder of the rev range, with a significant drop off after about 7600.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I always thought a torque curve was dictated by the cam. I've seen that puny 100+ lb-ft curve look flat from 5500 to over 9000 - now that's a long time.
09-27-2003, 10:51 AM
#24
be professional
Re: b16a or b18a? (mathusala)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mathusala »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I always thought a torque curve was dictated by the cam. I've seen that puny 100+ lb-ft curve look flat from 5500 to over 9000 - now that's a long time.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That is somewhat correct, a more accurate way to describe it is that the camshaft determines the position of the torque band in the rev range.
The displacement (for NA engines, or the amount of air that can be stuffed into the engine for FI engines) determines the amount of torque that will be created.
I always thought a torque curve was dictated by the cam. I've seen that puny 100+ lb-ft curve look flat from 5500 to over 9000 - now that's a long time.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That is somewhat correct, a more accurate way to describe it is that the camshaft determines the position of the torque band in the rev range.
The displacement (for NA engines, or the amount of air that can be stuffed into the engine for FI engines) determines the amount of torque that will be created.
