Tech / Misc Tech topics that don't seem to go elsewhere.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Increasing B16 displacement through bore..?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 14, 2001 | 09:50 PM
  #1  
JustVTEC's Avatar
Thread Starter
New User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Miami, Fl, USA
Default Increasing B16 displacement through bore..?

Hey there,
I might be picking up an EG hatchback, and if I did, i'd probably want a high revving NA motor to tag along. So, if i bought a B16 and put in 84mm pistons, could I still rev high safely since i haven't changed the R/S ratio? I would be sleeving the block as well, of course. If i did this, what types of gains would I see, and where in the rev range?

thanks in advance
whoareyoucalling AT yahoo DOT com
Reply
Old Aug 15, 2001 | 12:14 AM
  #2  
sgT's Avatar
sgT
Honda-Tech Member
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 8,757
Likes: 0
From: WI
Default Re: Increasing B16 displacement through bore..? (JustVTEC)

better to just get a b18c. probably cheaper too
Reply
Old Aug 15, 2001 | 10:28 AM
  #3  
3rdShift.org's Avatar
New User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 56
Likes: 1
From: Tampa, FL, 33616
Default Re: Increasing B16 displacement through bore..? (JustVTEC)

There are plenty of high revving 1.8-2.0 liter blocks that make a ton of power. I guess it depends on how fast you want to go... If it were me I'd sleeve an LS block to 84 or 84.5 to acheive ~2.0 liters and good stroke. Just my opinion, don't let anyone tell you how to build the 'perfect' motor.
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2001 | 06:24 AM
  #4  
JustVTEC's Avatar
Thread Starter
New User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Miami, Fl, USA
Default Re: Increasing B16 displacement through bore..? (sgT)

While yes, it may be cheaper to just buy a GSR block, the reason I want to bore the B16a is because of the project goals. A B16a with a 10,000 rpm redline will have about the same piston speed as that of a b18c motor at 9,000 rpm. I feel a bored out b16 could provide extra midrange punch, while not having the excessive piston speed of a stroked motor.

The engine will probably find it's way into an EG hatchback, daily driven in college, and then autox'd when I buy a grown up car afterwards ;P

Goals:

High revving NA power!!
Long-lasting motor
Daily driver reliability

Now, if i decided on a 10,000 rpm redline, what camshafts would be recommended? Also, toda valve springs or crower/eibach?

And even though the piston speed is relatively low, should I look into an aftermarket block girdle for longterm reliability?

And I know it's kind of a silly question, but what kind of gas mileage would I get with a setup like this, esp. if i used a standalone system like a hondata?

thanks!

..........
BTW: was going over my post after i submitted it, wanted to make something clear. While the words "daily driven" and "10,000 rpm redline" don't usually enter the same sentence, the motor will rarely see 6,000 rpm.. just because i <u>can</u> doesn't mean i <u>will</u>.


[Modified by JustVTEC, 7:27 AM 8/16/2001]
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2001 | 06:54 AM
  #5  
3rdShift.org's Avatar
New User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 56
Likes: 1
From: Tampa, FL, 33616
Default Re: Increasing B16 displacement through bore..? (JustVTEC)

Why rev higher when you can make the same power w/ more displacement at a lesser RPM range? I'm not arguing, just explain to me why it is better to run your motor at 10,000 RPM than 8500 RPM if you can make the same power. The only reason I see anyone modifying the B16 is for circuit racing events that require the use of the factory block.
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2001 | 08:24 AM
  #6  
JustVTEC's Avatar
Thread Starter
New User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Miami, Fl, USA
Default Re: Increasing B16 displacement through bore..? (3rdShift.org)

Ok, here's my thought process.

B16a has close to perfect motor geometry, whereas a b18 does not. If i'm still making peak power at 9800 rpm, then that, combined with shorter gearing, will make a light car (EG hatch!) go faaaaast.

And once i'm out of college/can afford a car that has more than four cylinders, this car will be completely stripped and become an autocross type car.

A b16 engine with an 84.5 mm bore has a displacement of about 1660 cc, aka a 1.7 litre, with a near perfect 1.75 RS ratio.

Do you still think it's a bad idea? give me some more feedback please.
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2001 | 09:26 AM
  #7  
eg6ajk's Avatar
Honda-Tech Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,490
Likes: 2
From: GTA, ON, Canada
Default Re: Increasing B16 displacement through bore..? (JustVTEC)

then do this get a b20b/z block, get some good/high c/r pistons...slap on a vtec head...and you're done....no need to go custom sleeves or spend some crazy cash
Reply
Old Aug 16, 2001 | 03:42 PM
  #8  
HXMan's Avatar
Honda-Tech Member
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 5,698
Likes: 0
From: Midwest
Default Re: Increasing B16 displacement through bore..? (eg6ajk)

Or you could get the b20z block, get some oil piston squirters installed...and use your b16 crank...or go with something like the b17 crank, and spin to 10 grand. I myself would like to do this with a b18c crank, and spin to about 8500...that should be plenty of power.

But the R/S ratio of the b16 is what many people consider perfect. From what I have heard R/S ratio is helps determine where an engine makes power, helps determine port sizes needed, etc....so if he sticks with the b16 crank he wont have to do any crazy modifications to the head. The motor should still have good all around power, with not too many sacrifices. Plus like he said before, the piston speed will not be excessive, and sidewall loading will not be too extreme.

to your idea...but it may be cheaper to use a b20b/z block.



[Modified by HXMan, 6:45 PM 8/16/2001]
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
99BlackHatchSiR
Forced Induction
12
Apr 21, 2007 03:31 AM
beef-cake
Forced Induction
8
Sep 14, 2006 06:26 AM
rtiadnoh
Tech / Misc
1
Feb 14, 2004 05:09 PM
see2k
Forced Induction
6
May 4, 2003 07:26 PM
VTEC-DA
Hybrid / Engine Swaps
4
Oct 30, 2002 11:23 AM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:04 AM.