running a b18c to 8800 - 9000rpm redline, i know i should be worry about the valve train... if using stiffer valve springs, should i be worried about the stock valves too?


also are ARP head studs really need for a 8800-9000rpm rev? or is the stock ones fine?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spoonfed_DC2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">also are ARP head studs really need for a 8800-9000rpm rev? or is the stock ones fine?</TD></TR></TABLE>


for the amount of money they cost, is it REALLY worth NOT getting them?

 

OEM Honda head bolts are technically a one time use part. your supposed to replace them if you remove them. Not that I havent personally reused them before. Buying new OEM studs will be far more costly than a box of ARP head studs which ARE reusable. buy em once and enjoy them forever. As for the valve springs, Ive rarely heard of anyone having a problem running after market valve springs with stock valves. Im doing it and I haven't had any probs for 5 years. If you want a motor that can reliably rev to 9000, I would recommend the valve springs ifyou have the money and definitely the ARP head studs. A block guard isnt particularly good for the cooling efficiency but would cut down on high end vibrations which will help you rev more freely up high also. good luck to ya. Nothin sounds better than a high revving VTEC motor imo.

 

if your cams are stock then the stock R valvetrain can rev that high.......... not that it does any good bc youre not making power up there but 9200 is ok on stock internals........ did it for a while, but moved it back down to 8800 bc its pointless to be up that high

a bunch of people rev their factory heads that high

 

Why would you want to rev that high? Do you have any power mods on the car that are making power at that RPM? You definately want ARP head studs. Can't go wrong with them and as said, they are not too expensive.

 

In my 2 cents, ARP head studs is for booting motor. Stock R motor just need stock head studs. Since you are going to swap out the valve train anyway for whatever reason, might as well get the

 

As stated previously, you are fine using OEM valves and after market springs and retainers. My previous build was this way, and a 9000 RPM rev limit was effortless.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CW-ITR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">In my 2 cents, ARP head studs is for booting motor. Stock R motor just need stock head studs. Since you are going to swap out the valve train anyway for whatever reason, might as well get the </TD></TR></TABLE>

The C5 does not have stock head studs, it has head bolts. If you're pulling the head off anyways, use ARP's. Must have some big cams to make power to 9k on a stock'ish engine.

 

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

Must have some big cams to make power to 9k on a stock'ish engine.</TD></TR></TABLE>

&lt;Toda C's for sale!

 

the motor is getting rebuilt, the compression has been rasie above stock, but not much, 2 layer head gasket.

as for head bolts, i have no problem buying the stock honda ones... i know they are one time use. if cash does not matter, ARP or stock head bolts?

i do have spoon cams and they are not really crazy at all, but i am planning to run on the stock cams for a while.... but the limiter was raise to 8800-9000 rpm... and i was just wondering if the stock valve train can withstand those revs, with the stock cams or the spoon cams installed?

 

Get ARP head studs while your at it....they are better than head bolts. The stock valve train will handle 8800 rpms....plenty of people have revved to 9000 as well, though I don't recommend it.

 

You'll be faster if you shift when they peak power versus 9k.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Aquafina &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You'll be faster if you shift when they peak power versus 9k.</TD></TR></TABLE>You should clarify more on this or else the OP will get confuse. "Shifting at peak " means not at the peak of the torque but rather at the around 2K RPM drop off of the torque. This is so that when you are in the next gear and ready to get on the gas again, you will be in the peak of the power band or peak of the torque.

 

Peak = peak horsepower, not torque. You would be way slow shifting at peak torque.

 

that's not entirely correct that shifting at peak power is best

depends on the shape of your graph, sometimes you'll be faster revving passed peak power than shifting AT it


area under the graph

 

ITR's have short enough gearing that shifting after is pointless, unless it only drops a couple hp until it falls off.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Aquafina &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Peak = peak horsepower, not torque. You would be way slow shifting at peak torque.</TD></TR></TABLE>First, I'm very sure torque is the factor that move the car or help the car to accelerate not HP. Second, as short as the gear ratio of the ITR tranny is, it will have a drop of 1K-3K RPM between gear shift. Therefore, you want to shift between 1K-3K at the drop off of the torque curve. Doing this, by the time you already in the next gear, you are close or at the peak of the torque (This is if I can convince you that torque is the moving factor, not HP )

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tartje &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">that's not entirely correct that shifting at peak power is best

depends on the shape of your graph, sometimes you'll be faster revving passed peak power than shifting AT it


area under the graph </TD></TR></TABLE>Geoff, I totally agree with you on this.

 

I actually had a question about that....if a car makes like 500whp but only 180 ft lbs (exaggeration I know) would it still be a 'fast car' as compared to a 500whp 350 ft lbs car?

I know that torque is the ability to make the tires spin, but horsepower has to come in play and I never understood really....can you kind of explain that to me?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by totsie7944 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I actually had a question about that....if a car makes like 500whp but only 180 ft lbs (exaggeration I know) would it still be a 'fast car' as compared to a 500whp 350 ft lbs car?

I know that torque is the ability to make the tires spin, but horsepower has to come in play and I never understood really....can you kind of explain that to me?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think there’s another variable here. Momentum or I mean the rotating assemblies mass. Think of a dermal, set it to its highest setting and hold the end/chuck with your fingers and turn it on. It can't turn. But let that thing scream up to 10k and try to stop it with your fingers.

Horsepower is torque done over time. Or, the RPM at which torque is being done.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by totsie7944 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I actually had a question about that....if a car makes like 500whp but only 180 ft lbs (exaggeration I know) would it still be a 'fast car' as compared to a 500whp 350 ft lbs car?

I know that torque is the ability to make the tires spin, but horsepower has to come in play and I never understood really....can you kind of explain that to me?</TD></TR></TABLE>Ofcourse the "500whp 350 ft lbs car" is going to be much faster as it has almost twice the torque.
Let's look at Doosters' recent dyno curve: Dooster, if you want me to take it down, let me know. Thanks.



Notice how the torque curve is doing as compare to the HP curve. Now go back to what I and Geoff said earlier and digest on these for a little while. I'll be back later and explain it. Got to get some work done for the boss or I'll be out on the street.

 

using my graph for example, i peak around 8500.

if i shift at exactly 8500, i fall lower in the rpm and lower powerband. if i stretch it to 9300, i fall higher up in the powerband on the next gear

 

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

using my graph for example, i peak around 8500.

if i shift at exactly 8500, i fall lower in the rpm and lower powerband. if i stretch it to 9300, i fall higher up in the powerband on the next gear</TD></TR></TABLE>RNbuilt, you got the right concept. If it's me, I would shift at 8500 or 9000 so that when my RPM drop drops between 1K-2K (between gear changing), I'll be in the peak of the torque curve and ready to accelerate in the next gear. So, in a nut shell: Shift at your peak HP and accelerate at your peak torque.

 

if i had "full throttle shift" programmed into my tuning, i would probably set it around 7500 (wheelspin city? haha)

btw, how much of a drop do kseries trannies have when changing gears? im sure its less than bseries

 

Using RN's graph, shifting at peak torque, you are shifting ~1k sooner than the power peaks. Torque gets a car moving, hp keeps it moving. With a properly setup trans, shifting at peak power is the way to go. C5 trans is pretty good as stock, so shifting at peak is the way to go. If you have ungodly long gears, shift slightly above peak power.

This is all from my experience with every trans setup I've run.