putting a 90 ls motor into my crx
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Vallejo, CA., United States
Re: putting a 90 ls motor into my crx (RexB16)
you will need a b series mount kit from hasport or place racing. and stock hp will be just what it is/was in an integra... 140.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,404
Likes: 0
From: USAF
Re: putting a 90 ls motor into my crx (RexB16)
you will need a b series mount kit from hasport or place racing. and stock hp will be just what it is/was in an integra... 140.
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 1
Re: putting a 90 ls motor into my crx (jdmB18hatch)
90-93 LS motor is 130hp as stated above. There is more torqe than the ZC, but you are limited in the revs.
I ran against a LS hatchback that was identical to mine at the drags. I ran 15.3s with the ZC and he ran 15.1s ZC. Yes I'm sure people will post better times, but as a comparison for two identical cars, decent drivers, similar setups, but LS vs ZC, that's about the difference. I think I can beat him on the top end since I don't have to shift as soon.
LS is good, but if you have a decent running ZC, you could proabably spend the same money on the ZC and get good power.
I ran against a LS hatchback that was identical to mine at the drags. I ran 15.3s with the ZC and he ran 15.1s ZC. Yes I'm sure people will post better times, but as a comparison for two identical cars, decent drivers, similar setups, but LS vs ZC, that's about the difference. I think I can beat him on the top end since I don't have to shift as soon.
LS is good, but if you have a decent running ZC, you could proabably spend the same money on the ZC and get good power.
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 1
Re: putting a 90 ls motor into my crx (RexB16)
lets just establish something here. zc = 20 y/o design with waning aftermarket support. ls= limitless possibilities.
ZC = much cheaper (no mounts required, no axels, no trans, etc.)
ZC = somewhat similar power from less displacement.
ZC = D series so parts aren't a problem with the exception of cams which are a little tougher to find.
ZC = nice high revs
I don't totally disagree with you. I personally could have either, and I'm in the middle of decinding which to go with. I have a ZC now, and I'm thinking of switching because once you're done with the swap, LS motors are a dime a dozen to replace, and my ZC is turbo'd and I'd like to boost more. I will say that I fear the LS transmission. I rag on my car hard, and I'm only on trans #2 (input bearing was wearing out on the old one). My old roommate drives relatively normal most of the time, and he's on trans #4 in his LS with about 1/3 the total miles I've put on my car. For now I plan on going with another ZC because I think overall, it's more fun to drive. I like motors that you have to keep in the revs because I like to drive that way. I don't like shifting at 6,500 rpm.
It's a matter of preference. I wouldn't argue that the LS is leaps and bounds above the ZC as you did though. Both are fun motors.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
From: san diego, ca
Re: putting a 90 ls motor into my crx (therealciviczc)
lets just establish something here. zc = 20 y/o design with waning aftermarket support. ls= limitless possibilities.
I don't want to turn this in to one of 'those' posts, but let's make establish something else here....
ZC = much cheaper (no mounts required, no axels, no trans, etc.)
ZC = somewhat similar power from less displacement.
ZC = D series so parts aren't a problem with the exception of cams which are a little tougher to find.
ZC = nice high revs
I don't totally disagree with you. I personally could have either, and I'm in the middle of decinding which to go with. I have a ZC now, and I'm thinking of switching because once you're done with the swap, LS motors are a dime a dozen to replace, and my ZC is turbo'd and I'd like to boost more. I will say that I fear the LS transmission. I rag on my car hard, and I'm only on trans #2 (input bearing was wearing out on the old one). My old roommate drives relatively normal most of the time, and he's on trans #4 in his LS with about 1/3 the total miles I've put on my car. For now I plan on going with another ZC because I think overall, it's more fun to drive. I like motors that you have to keep in the revs because I like to drive that way. I don't like shifting at 6,500 rpm.
It's a matter of preference. I wouldn't argue that the LS is leaps and bounds above the ZC as you did though. Both are fun motors.
I don't want to turn this in to one of 'those' posts, but let's make establish something else here....
ZC = much cheaper (no mounts required, no axels, no trans, etc.)
ZC = somewhat similar power from less displacement.
ZC = D series so parts aren't a problem with the exception of cams which are a little tougher to find.
ZC = nice high revs
I don't totally disagree with you. I personally could have either, and I'm in the middle of decinding which to go with. I have a ZC now, and I'm thinking of switching because once you're done with the swap, LS motors are a dime a dozen to replace, and my ZC is turbo'd and I'd like to boost more. I will say that I fear the LS transmission. I rag on my car hard, and I'm only on trans #2 (input bearing was wearing out on the old one). My old roommate drives relatively normal most of the time, and he's on trans #4 in his LS with about 1/3 the total miles I've put on my car. For now I plan on going with another ZC because I think overall, it's more fun to drive. I like motors that you have to keep in the revs because I like to drive that way. I don't like shifting at 6,500 rpm.
It's a matter of preference. I wouldn't argue that the LS is leaps and bounds above the ZC as you did though. Both are fun motors.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
h22_crx
Honda CRX / EF Civic (1988 - 1991)
4
Aug 12, 2005 02:42 AM
