First off i hope this is in the correct thread...

But my story is about a 1.7L build that can rev like a bike in theory.
Ok some of you may have heard of this before but i am debating to start on a project like this. Making a 1.7L out of a B20 or B18C block. Your thinking WTF! Your dropping displacement, are you stupid!? Well not exactly, see my idea here is to sacrifice displacement for an engine that revs like a motorcycle in theory and how i plan to achieve this is not a common build but has been done before. For the people who know the technical specs of b-sreies engine here is a lil info in a nut shell of what its going to consist of: B20 block- B16 crank - LS rods - 84.50mm pistons high compression. Now you might be thinking what the hell kind of setup is that, sounds all *** backwards. well yah sorta that is because with this setup you essentially made a very badass Civic Type R engine that is now 1.7 Liters or 1736cc of displacement. Now my preference is to use a resleeved b18c1 block thats bored out to 84.5mm because this block utilizes oil squirters to keep the rods and pistons cooled down. Others just bore out a b20 block .20 over. but to me for a engine setup like this a 10K redline is easy to achieve cause of its Rod stroke ratio which is 1.77 so there for making it a really really rev happy engine. A gsr rod stroke ratio is 1.58:1 which not bad either and a b16 rod stroke ratio is 1.74:1 which is really awesome already for revs. Now to make power all the way to 10K or higher your going to need parts that can not only make power up there but handle the high rpm speeds. So large cams and strong internals need apply here along with thurough tuning so u dont lean out and detonate then blow the motor or etc. But to have a 1.7L engine reving up to 10K- 12K would be amazing. They say this engine is supposed to rev like a motorcyle so a lightened flywheel would be of nice use in this case i assume.

Most costly yah it can be depending the parts you use but i wouldnt half *** it for a engine like this one. The whole point is if you like a all motor engine with high revs this is the way to go. My guess for a project like this you spend close to 4-5K on. thats from bottom up the engine is fully done, port polish, cams rods, pistons, valve springs etc.


So what you think, would you do something like this?
Have u heard or seen a engine like this before?
Im just looking for some feed back. the ups and downs of this kind of motor.




Modified by straywalker at 8:41 AM 6/2/2005

 

it sound nice,if you want to hear it like bike,an easy way to do that is with b16b i believe balance and blue print crack rods and put oversize pistons head work etc,it would be nice to see a results of a such project.

 

ummmmmm maybe its late i dunno but ummmmm b16 crank with ls rods in a b20 block..ummm u forgot some "technical info" buddy..think about it..someone will no doubt post after me and explain why that setup wont work..but im too tired..just reflect on it..the answer might hit yah

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GOLDBERG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ummmmmm maybe its late i dunno but ummmmm b16 crank with ls rods in a b20 block..ummm u forgot some "technical info" buddy..think about it..someone will no doubt post after me and explain why that setup wont work..but im too tired..just reflect on it..the answer might hit yah</TD></TR></TABLE>

LS rods would be too short for a B16A crank. Remember, LS rods bring the pistons to the top with the 89mm LS crank in a block of that deck height. The correct rods would be B16B rods.

Also, you can't hone a GSR block to 84.5mm. Honing actually takes very little material away. And even if you bore, there is not enough material. Resleeving would be necessary.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by straywalker &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">see my idea here is to sacrifice displacement for an engine that revs like a motorcycle</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why would you want that?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by straywalker &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">but to me for a engine setup like this a 10K redline is easy to achieve</TD></TR></TABLE>

Again, why is a 10,000 redline such an importance?

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

I think its a fairly pointless Idea, expecially when your average 1.8-2.0's will be handing you your *** on a regular basis.

 

Well here is the techincall info on this build from what ive researched.

I knowy you need to make sure the rods fit the piston and the crank then check that everything will fit in the deck height of the block you choose, and calculate the resultant displacement and rod ratio. The example i am using from people who have tried a B16A crank (77.4 mm stroke and the mains can be align honed for better bearing crush) with LS rods (137 mm rod length) in a CRV block (84.5 mm bore when bore-honed) with a GSR block girdle added to give a strong 1736 cc, an oversquare layout, and a 1.77 rod ratio. So like i said you essentially build a 1.7 L Civic Type R that is even better then the real type R since it has a better Rod Stroke Ratio.

Now my question is i thought the b16 crank utilized a 77mm stoke not 77.4mm. I dont know where the extra .4mm came from. and remember i got this information from doing research online.

 

LS rods would be too short for a B16A crank. Remember, LS rods bring the pistons to the top with the 89mm LS crank in a block of that deck height. The correct rods would be B16B rods.

Also, you can't hone a GSR block to 84.5mm. Honing actually takes very little material away. And even if you bore, there is not enough material. Resleeving would be necessary.

LS rods are the longest rods in b-series i know of being 5.394inch and a b16 rod at 5.290inch. So isnt that the whole point of a b16 rod to be short to allow the high reving. Take a look and see the few examples/differences of the b-series specs:
B16A/B
Head: 42.7cc
Bore 81mm (3.189)
Rod Length: 134.3 mm (5.287)
Stroke: 77mm (3.031)
R/S: 1.74:1
Displacement: 1595 cc

B18A-B:
Head: 45.0cc
Bore 81mm (3.189)
Rod length: 137mm (5.394)
Stroke: 89mm (3.504)
R/S: 1.54:1
Displacement: 1834.47 cc

B16 Hybrid
Head: 42.7cc
Bore: 84.50mm
Rod Length: 137mm
Stoke: 77.40mm
R/S: 1.77:1
Displacement: 1736cc

look the stroke is the same as rod/stroke ratio so this is why it should rev so nicely.

 

as per performance; what your trying to do is pointless. displacement will win.
durability will suck.
But if you just want to do it for the hell of it.

You should listen to what other people are telling you. The LONGER the rod the better the RS is.
the b16/17 blocks are shorter than the rest of b-series.

In your setup; in order to get the same compression height as the rest, you would have to use a rod thats 143mm wich would give you a 1.86 RS..Unless you want to use custom lowered pin pistons.

A B17 crank would give you 1.83 liters and 1.83RS assuming you use the correct lenght rods

 

Being that the B16B uses a P72 block, the correct rods for doing what you're thinking of doing would indeed be the ones from the B16B.

If I were doing something like this, I'dtry it with a B17 crank, Tech43 pistons (84mm) and custom rods. You'll have a 1.8 and a very similar rod/stroke ratio to what your trying to get at right now.

 

If you want to spend all the time and money just for a high r/s ratio that is really not necessary then be my guest. The 1.54-1.58 r/s ratio found in the stock LS/B20 and B18C's is great for a street motor and if needed, can and will do quite well at 9500+. I just dont really see a point to a project like this

In the end, thats a lot of money to spend to get beat on by LS/VTEC's and 2.0's


Modified by Innovation at 10:15 AM 6/2/2005

 

i was thinking about doing a b16 with a b17 crank with my eagle rods and 84.5mm pistions. killer rod stroke ratio with a 1.9 heh

 

You're ridding the "perfect rod to stroke ratio" bandwagon. Get off it. You don't fully understand the main concept behind rod to stroke ratio. Making an engine like you have proposed will get you something that NEEDS to be wound to hell and back in order to produce enough power to keep up with traffic. While it might sound cool, its not going to win you any street races.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hybrid93Eg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You're ridding the "perfect rod to stroke ratio" bandwagon. Get off it. You don't fully understand the main concept behind rod to stroke ratio. Making an engine like you have proposed will get you something that NEEDS to be wound to hell and back in order to produce enough power to keep up with traffic. While it might sound cool, its not going to win you any street races.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hybrid93Eg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> sound cool</TD></TR></TABLE>

Maybe he just wants to sound cool.

 

dont get me wrong i love to rev but theres a point where its anoying .

unless your purpose building this motor for some type of motor sports (road racing ect)where the high revs can be taken advantage of i would say youll be disapointed witht he power output ..

ive gone from a h22 to a f20b with a dam good r/s ratio and there is a difference on the bottom end but its an ok comprimise ..however if had the option of b series stuff id keep it simple and stick with the proven stuff if you want to make power ..

im not trynig to down your idea as every one i talked to siad how much f20b sucked compaired to the h22 ,i disagreed and between the 2 motors the f20b is a faster but only due to the mods i have support the power band of the f20b better .

if your gonna do it good luck but if its power youd like i would say keep it simple

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by machine4321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">im not trynig to down your idea as every one i talked to siad how much f20b sucked compaired to the h22 ,i disagreed and between the 2 motors the f20b is a faster but only due to the mods i have support the power band of the f20b better .

if your gonna do it good luck but if its power youd like i would say keep it simple</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sorry to hear you're not entirely happy with the F20B. It's much more fun to drive in a light Civic than it is an Accord.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by straywalker &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">LS rods would be too short for a B16A crank. Remember, LS rods bring the pistons to the top with the 89mm LS crank in a block of that deck height. The correct rods would be B16B rods.

Also, you can't hone a GSR block to 84.5mm. Honing actually takes very little material away. And even if you bore, there is not enough material. Resleeving would be necessary.

LS rods are the longest rods in b-series i know of being 5.394inch and a b16 rod at 5.290inch. So isnt that the whole point of a b16 rod to be short to allow the high reving. Take a look and see the few examples/differences of the b-series specs:
B16A/B
Head: 42.7cc
Bore 81mm (3.189)
Rod Length: 134.3 mm (5.287)
Stroke: 77mm (3.031)
R/S: 1.74:1
Displacement: 1595 cc

B18A-B:
Head: 45.0cc
Bore 81mm (3.189)
Rod length: 137mm (5.394)
Stroke: 89mm (3.504)
R/S: 1.54:1
Displacement: 1834.47 cc

B16 Hybrid
Head: 42.7cc
Bore: 84.50mm
Rod Length: 137mm
Stoke: 77.40mm
R/S: 1.77:1
Displacement: 1736cc

look the stroke is the same as rod/stroke ratio so this is why it should rev so nicely.</TD></TR></TABLE>


ls rods are not the longest rods in the b series family, the gsr rods are longer

 

Well thanks all for the input even though some have dogged me and badgered the idea but i didnt say i was going to do it for those who think or said i was. I came across this setup a long time ago and just now i am taking it to mind how this setup has a name for its self or not.

Ok well i do see that the gsr rod is longer by .9mm for a total length of 137.9mm versus the LS rod at 137mm. My mistake, i got caught up in seeing the stroke of a ls being longer then the gsr therefore thinking the gsr rods being shorter cause of its smaller stroke, i should of caught that. But being the ls and gsr cranks are different from each other i assume that is how the changes of the stroke from 87.2mm for a gsr and 89mm for ls are made cause if the crank and partially the rod length im assuming.

As for the bang wagon of perfect rod/stroke ratio im not jumping on sorta speak but getting the facts to decide how and why i should build a squared engine. I enjoy high revs yes! but seeing how to do this, and as i mentioned before displacement wasnt an issue to me so for those who said ls/vtec or what ever will be walking all over me well thats fine making power with a better r/s ratio then a 1.58 is whats appealing to me. but since one of you mention "doing a b16 with a b17 crank with eagle rods and 84.5mm pistions. killer rod stroke ratio with a 1.9 r/s ratio" that is something i would more consider. And thanks Kendall for ur comment: "If I were doing something like this, I'd try it with a B17 crank, Tech43 pistons (84mm) and custom rods. You'll have a 1.8 and a very similar rod/stroke ratio to what your trying to get at right now." ill consider this as well. but thanks all for the compliments and not making me feel too small to my lack of knowledge that you have now made me aware about.

If i ever decided to build this engine it wound not be used for street racing, but road racing like nasa. I will take all ur advice in and peice it together for what is good and bad to do. I am still learning like everyone else. make mistakes and learn from them right.

anyways thanks again everyone i appreciate it.

 

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

Sorry to hear you're not entirely happy with the F20B. It's much more fun to drive in a light Civic than it is an Accord.</TD></TR></TABLE>

oh **** no dude im totally in love with this motor ....never though i could take a h22 hatch with my 3000lb accord on a stock motor with itbs and stock header
it was the best decision ive made ..i didnt let the haters get me down

im being totally honest when i say i really cant tell much difference in the bottom end....i purposly went a bit smaller diameter wheels to help gearing abit ..the thing with the f20 is you can drive around a 4 grand it it doesnt feel weird ..the h22 felt and sounded mad when i tried to do that so im not at as much of a disadvantage ..**** its only a 10ftp difference between the two.....hands down the f20 is the better motor out of the 2.

that is with the itbs ..on a stock manifold i think the h22 would feel stronger .
with the itbs on the h22 it was still dead at 6800 and wasnt any fun . the f20 on the other hand gets its second wind at about 6500 and pulls way stronger up right to the 8000 mark...with no power fall off in the lower gears

the reason i went with the f20 was my h22 was getting tired and would requier a rebuild ...i didnt have the money to sleeve,pistons and what not to make it faster so i opted for the f20b with its iron sleevs and bullet proof bottom end ..ill never have to upgrade the bottom end in the f20 to get the performance i want out of it

it ends up being way smarter in the end as the results were in my favour plus i got my tranny and motor cheaper then any h22 ive seen listed

cant wait to get a nice rmf header i think i can see a tad over 200whp on stock motor


Modified by machine4321 at 9:13 PM 6/2/2005


Modified by machine4321 at 9:17 PM 6/2/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Innovation &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you want to spend all the time and money just for a high r/s ratio that is really not necessary then be my guest. The 1.54-1.58 r/s ratio found in the stock LS/B20 and B18C's is great for a street motor and if needed, can and will do quite well at 9500+. I just dont really see a point to a project like this</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hybrid93Eg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You're ridding the "perfect rod to stroke ratio" bandwagon. Get off it. You don't fully understand the main concept behind rod to stroke ratio. Making an engine like you have proposed will get you something that NEEDS to be wound to hell and back in order to produce enough power to keep up with traffic. While it might sound cool, its not going to win you any street races.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, theoretically with enough flow and big enough cams, he could make power clean to 12k rpms or more. Or he could take a more modest route and build a reliable motor that revs out a 9 or 10k and still makes great power. Cams, compression, flow, fuel, these all have more effect on a motors output than does the r/s ratio. Plus a higher rod/stroke ratio usually means less pressure on the cylinder walls, so with correct tuning it could very well be more reliable. Note that he's talking about a 1.7ish r/s ratio when some cars (like the S2000) come stock with a higher r/s ratio than that and none of them need to be revved to oblivion to get around town with no problems.

It's not a bad idea, it just needs some polishing before you actually start spending money on it. The two biggest concerns regarding it making power are going to be cams and flow. I suggest you call Brad at RLZ.

 

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

Well, theoretically with enough flow and big enough cams, he could make power clean to 12k rpms or more. Or he could take a more modest route and build a reliable motor that revs out a 9 or 10k and still makes great power. Cams, compression, flow, fuel, these all have more effect on a motors output than does the r/s ratio. Plus a higher rod/stroke ratio usually means less pressure on the cylinder walls, so with correct tuning it could very well be more reliable. Note that he's talking about a 1.7ish r/s ratio when some cars (like the S2000) come stock with a higher r/s ratio than that and none of them need to be revved to oblivion to get around town with no problems.

It's not a bad idea, it just needs some polishing before you actually start spending money on it. The two biggest concerns regarding it making power are going to be cams and flow. I suggest you call Brad at RLZ.</TD></TR></TABLE>

My main point wasn't really that it wouldn't make "any" power down low.. It was that on the street it would be easier to be cought out of your powerband. The S2000 needs to be revved clear to almost 9k before it peaks. Its simple, the "higher" the r/s ratio is the more "peaky" an engines power band will be. R/s ratio DOES dictate powerband, and that is something that should be considered when building a motor. Sure, we can argue the whole sidewall loading deal.. but honestly... If I built two motors, one B16 and one B18C1 and I drove them both everyday exactly the same, I am willing to bet that (if maintained) I would still get 100k+ miles out of both of them. The difference between the two in r/s ratio isn't enough to say "The GSR will for sure die 50k miles sooner then the B16", agreed? Look at some of the r/s ratios of the old muscle car engines.. You won't find many with the "magic" numbers everyone raves about. Is it important? Yes... But the question is is it as important as everyone who loves Honda/Acuras/B16's really play it out to be? I don't think so.

 

And thank you Kendall for pointing that out i was curious with a 1.77 r/s ratio could power be made up to 12K or more. Of course large cams, well flowing head and plenty of fuel this could be achieved. I beleive Spoon has a Civic Type R 98 spec i beleive that revs out to 16K rpms or so. I am not sure what the specs are but if i find out i will def. post it. And so some of you got me thinking to go about making or choosing the appropriate r/s ratio to make a nice smooth power band to 9K or more. Now i was just thinking since usually large cams and plenty of flow and fuel need to be provided can the r/s ratio be so good that large cams are not so necessary using like a mild port & polish along with right amount of fuel?
So instead of using lets say Toda D cams or Skunk2 stage 3 cams you can manipulate the r/s ratio to where you are able to use say skunk2 stage 2 cams or Toda spec B or C and still make the same power?

like i said im learning as i go so dont laugh to hard at my lack of knowledge/idea's. haha just bare with me lol.

 

if you really wanted to make a destroked 85 mm block why not just buy a b16b and re-sleeve it. I dont like the idea but that would be the easiest way to rev to the moon. I will get you the lowest piston speeds.