Ok.
What are the main H22 limitations?
Why is our redline so low, even after we build up the car?

I thought the Rod / Stroke was the reason we have such a low redline compared to B Series. But some one said, that our head is the weak point that gives us the low redline.

Also, I have read multiple threads in this forum about our ringlands being weak... is this a true blanket statement for boosting or just in general for us?

And, how do the motors differ (I know its been answered, but I just wanted to know in here)
I have heard that the B series engines lean backwards a bit, and the H22 leans forward.

Thoughts?

 

You got the leaning backwards....H22 go backwards, B series go forward.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4bidden &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You got the leaning backwards....H22 go backwards, B series go forward.</TD></TR></TABLE>

what about the red line limitations?

why can we only get up to 9k (maybe) and B18c's can jump to 10 with no problems after mods?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lildrgn &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Also, I have read multiple threads in this forum about our ringlands being weak... is this a true blanket statement for boosting or just in general for us?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I think this is generally an FI concern, but if one were to do a REAL NA buildup it would include higher compression, aftermarket pistons anyway.

As for the redline issue, I believe it is a rod/stroke issue, but this is only a guess. Where's Satan, he would know.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4bidden &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You got the leaning backwards....H22 go backwards, B series go forward.</TD></TR></TABLE>

what do you mean??

 

It's just plain stroke.

90.7mm is inefficient at high rpms, too high piston acceleration. It's tough to even get cams and head porting that will make the power up there.

Basically, you don't NEED to rev high. Well not 9000 rpms high. My ecu cuts at 8500 but it never sees past 8200

 

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

what do you mean??</TD></TR></TABLE>

he means how the engine sits in the car, in our cars they tend to "lean back" and in the tegs/civics the tend to "lean forward"

 

I see reason to rev past 8200 with a properly built NA motor, with the right headwork and intake and exhaust system, the engine should still be able to make power at high rpm. If you get a custom long rod made with a deck plate on the block It would be possible to acheive a 1.75 R/S ratio. Yes there would be a small amount of displacement lost but probably worth the longer powerboard and the ability to use a shorter final drive ratio not to mention boring to make up for this lost displacement. Hopefully I will be able to do this someday if finances permit, by the way whats up mike?
- Eric

 

yeah I'm just saying I have a well built H22a and I peak at 7600

 

Yea i see what you mean, most prelude engines would be like that, im just saying if you went all out the engine would have the potential to do great things

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Speedra500 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yea i see what you mean, most prelude engines would be like that, im just saying if you went all out the engine would have the potential to do great things</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree but I think there's a given limit defined by the stroke of the motor. You can only make a cam so big and port the head so much that you will not be ale to raise your powerband any.

Personally I go from 4500-7600 so I really have no complaints.

We'll see how far it moves with the ITBs

 

I have always thought ITBs would be cool, and they kind of are, but a well designed 2 or 3 stage intake manifold would be much better due to the variable piping diameters relative to your RPM which would keep the air constantly at high velocity, which would be optimal, problem is no one makes one, and if one was made it would be very expensive. I am also hoping to do that someday too

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Speedra500 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have always thought ITBs would be cool, and they kind of are, but a well designed 2 or 3 stage intake manifold would be much better due to the variable piping diameters relative to your RPM which would keep the air constantly at high velocity, which would be optimal, problem is no one makes one, and if one was made it would be very expensive. I am also hoping to do that someday too </TD></TR></TABLE>

That's a lot of work and testing. And it would have to adjust based on rpms? That's nuts, I believe the M5 had that, isn't tha VANOS stuff varible cam timing and intake length?

 

VANOS is just variable camshaft control. No intake runner control

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Cottonwoodz &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">VANOS is just variable camshaft control. No intake runner control</TD></TR></TABLE>

It must have been something else but I thought it was BMW design for some varible length runners...hmmm

 

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

It must have been something else but I thought it was BMW design for some varible length runners...hmmm</TD></TR></TABLE>

Infinitely variable intake manifold runner-length control.

 

Man, i need to take one of those apart and make one for my lude