did this at work. the runs were on different days, but both after dark. decent comparison no matter.. this is my car, and my buddies car. the zc got three pulls, and the b16 had 4, two with the silencer off and 2 with it on. the highest horsepower run was chosen for each.

 

Very interesting!!!!

 

interesting that they make practically the same amount of torque...
couldn't the ZC have shifted later with the PG7, would it have made any more power or just fall off...?
neat

 

It's kinda funny just how dramatic the power difference is at high RPM! ;0

 

ive alwalys wanted to know how much of a difference mattered-corked vs. uncorked..

 

hehe, that's why i did the comparison. these are two dyno graphs that myself and others have wanted to see, i'm lucky i have the resources now. from the looks of the graph, i don't think the ZC would have made too much more power. the timing needs to be set on the zc, if i have time i'm gonna do another run next week and see if there's much difference.

 

The torque curve of the b16 is quite lovely! It peaks at 52k and just keeps on going for over 3000 more rpms.. I wonder how good that torque curve would look on a b16 with CTR valve train and a chipped ecu.

Great post!

 

Very good info. I originaly had the ZC and was excited to swap it over, but it just didnt have the aftermarket for parts like the B16a does. Both engines are Great.

 

Man, that B16 rips on top. The ZC has a nice torque advantage until about 5500 though.

Sonny

 

hey! i was gonna getta B16A with a Apex' N1 exhaust, but i was gonna keep the silencer on while drivin around....but i always wondered if the silencer would hinder performance....thanks for the info man! thats some good stuff!

 

Nice work. It is also nice to see that people can make positive comments about both the ZC and the B16!!!


[Modified by wronghand, 1:38 AM 5/5/2002]


[Modified by wronghand, 1:38 AM 5/5/2002]

 

EXACTLY the difference I felt going from ZC to B16a. I felt the torque difference that made the ZC 'FEEL' faster than the B16 in the lower RPMS. 3" DIY CAI fixed that right up though! Later, Overkll

 

yep, i hate to say but, with the apples to oranges comparison, you can't really compare the 2 equally. of course the b16 has the power advantage. the zc has good torque. the b16 has good torque as well. i really don't give a rat @$$ about vtec myself. I think its way too hyped. this comes from my cheap bastard view of form vs. function. vtec turned into a big fad, and all the people who wanted to be in the "IN" crowd want vtec. they also contribute to the shortages of vtec engines coming into the states. price wise, you all know, vtec costs more, lemme see, average price of b16=3000+give or take, price of zc=A little arounda $1000. hmm. power is good but for the money and less heartache. for the price, you get the b16=$18 for each hp. the zc=$0.13per hp. Hmm.

 

I think that saying that VTEC is "way too hyped" is a little extreme. It is definitely hyped, but it works. Look at this all-motor B16A2 chart:



That is one of the fattest and flattest torque curves I have ever seen and that curve is simply not possible without VTEC. You cannot create a cam that produces the same torque at 3500 as it does at 8500.

Here's my B16A2 from my old 2000 Civic Si with a JRSC + Hondata:



Another super flat and fat torque curve, courtesy of VTEC. The JRSC tends to do that anyway, but a non-VTEC equipped engine will always start to lose torque towards the upper end of the RPM band.

I will agree with you that the supply/demand thing has made it prohibitively expensive when compared to engines like the ZC or B18A/B. I think a properly setup ZC or B18A/B can still whoop some serious *** though with a starting price that is only a fraction of the cost of a VTEC engine...hence my decision to with a ZC in my CRX.

Sonny





[Modified by Sonnyballs, 7:10 AM 5/6/2002]

 

hmm. well said.