H22 or H22 type-s
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H22 or H22 type-s
I'm saving up to an H22 or H22 type-s for my hatchback si. and it will be turbo'd. Can someone tell me the ups and downs of both motors if I were to go turbo and what you think I should do?
#2
Member
Re: H22 or H22 type-s (Hatchorama)
type s is a waste of money if you want to go turbo. with fi, you want lower compression, not higher (usdm h22 = 10:1, jdm h22=10.6:1, type s=11:1).
#3
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Batavia, IL, United States
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: H22 or H22 type-s (Hatchorama)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hatchorama »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">and it will be turbo'd. if I were to go turbo</TD></TR></TABLE>
So which is it?
So which is it?
#4
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon, US
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you did run just NA, the higher comp. but since you are going to turbo that **** you wanto lower the comp some but not to much like down to 10:1 witch would be fine then run about ~8+ lbs and it would be nice....
#6
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (5)
Re: (Hatchorama)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hatchorama »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">couldn't I go with the type-s and just use a thicker head gasket?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Of course, you are spending more money on something you don't need. You don't need the higher compression pistons or the better cams. Save your money, get a USDM H22 and spend it towards your turbo parts.
Of course, you are spending more money on something you don't need. You don't need the higher compression pistons or the better cams. Save your money, get a USDM H22 and spend it towards your turbo parts.
Trending Topics
#8
I'm with everyone else, an H22 isn't usually the first choice if your going to boost. Personally, if it were me, I'd pick up a newer, clean, B18B. I'd then build-up the internals for boost.
Your choice though...
Your choice though...
#9
most hood white kid
Re: (Shin-tegra)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Shin-tegra »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm with everyone else, an H22 isn't usually the first choice if your going to boost. Personally, if it were me, I'd pick up a newer, clean, B18B. I'd then build-up the internals for boost.
Your choice though...</TD></TR></TABLE>
eveyone does this....build the single slam and then boost!
Your choice though...</TD></TR></TABLE>
eveyone does this....build the single slam and then boost!
#10
Re: (egcoupe94)
have fun wiring that bitch up and spendin money sleevin that ho b4 boostin it.(shitty cylinder walls)(well atleast all my friends had shitty cylinder walls)
#11
Personally i would go with the h22 because of the lower compression than the type s motor. The cylinder walls are really not the problem if you want to run around 5-7 psi. The ringlands ussually go bad on the h series motors. My friends has been running his h22 and 8 psi for 7months now and has had no problems. But then again it was very well tuned. If I were to boost any more than that on my motor i would go all out on the motor first. I would have the block blueprinted and sleeved go forged pistons and rods and all new valve train. But thats just me i like to know my setup is going to be reliable1
#12
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (egcoupe94)
Yeah, I think I will just get a USDM H22 unless I find a JDM H22 for a good price, I found all the info I need, type-s's are good for all motor but I'm not interested in doing something like that, thanks for the help though.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vietkidracing
Honda Civic / Del Sol (1992 - 2000)
1
06-13-2006 01:37 AM
D1andOnly
Forced Induction
3
12-02-2005 03:42 AM