<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by cstay &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you would need to increase the bore to about 105mm that should give you just over 6.0 but i think you should be worring abuot other things because some cars run better on lower displacement those cylinderheads might not run correctly with that set up</TD></TR></TABLE>I agree, well I'm not sure I want to run much bigger than 100MM bore. I might just add some more stroke on the crank. I was thinking 6.0L/2 = 3.0L compared to 2.4L... I'm actually planning on putting a K24 in one of my cars and stroking it with a 100MM bore to have displacement somewhere around 3.0L to 3.2L that is where I got the crazy idea I could make a V8 that would be like 2 of these K24 stroker motors.

Ok even if I run a flat 3,000 cc displacement per 4 cylinders that would equate to 750cc/cyl. Looking at the 2354 cc displacement of the stock TSX it equates to 588.5cc/cyl. So I need to come up with 161.5cc additional over stock per cylinder. Just rough estimates off the top of my head a 100mm bore would need something like 112mm -115mm stroke to make this extra displacement.. Anyone agree, or able to fine tune these numbers?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Simple. A K24 (TSX/Acord Euro R) have 2354 cc displacement over 4 cylinders multiply this by 2 and we are already at 4708 cc. That extra 1292cc will be able to be made up by adding a slightly larger bore and more stroke (a minimually lengthened rod could help as well.) Yeah my deck height will have to be a little bit higher than the TSX because of the extra stroke.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You're going to lose so much "revability" by increasing the stroke and rod lengths as much as you'll need to in order to gain that extra 1.3L of displacement. Honda's performance heads are designed to work best at higher RPM, so unless you're remapping the entire head and valvetrain, you're not going to be making nearly as much power as you think you will.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I will... But probably not how Archidictus is speaking of it. He's probably still bashing a little bit but oh well. Nitro rings work wonders. Probably triggered by some sort of temp switch like the fan switch, it will give a little burst of nitrous to cool the rad. I think ice cold coolant flowing at 12k rpm should cool the motor down significantly.</TD></TR></TABLE>

"Ice cold coolant" will not be adequate to keep the heat down enough to prevent rod/bearing failure at repeated, high RPM. Think about what you're saying: you want to rely on nitrous oxide every time you get to a certain RPM, not for performance, but as a safety precaution? Hahaha. I just laughed out loud as I wrote that.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Now if 13MM of additional bore will make the K24 head combustion chamber be the issue how do you suggest resolving it oh great one?</TD></TR></TABLE>

You don't. You cannot increase the bore that much per cylinder and use any Honda head I can think of. Dude: the combustion chambers are spaced a certain distance apart and the sleeves have to be of a certain thickness to function at all. You can't do what you're thinking with the heads you think you want to use. Period. It's not possible without cutting the K or B-heads apart. There's just not enough room between the chambers.

Why do you think you need so much displacement anyhow? Why not just have a 4.0L DOHC VTEC V8?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Archidictus &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
"Ice cold coolant" will not be adequate to keep the heat down enough to prevent rod/bearing failure at repeated, high RPM. Think about what you're saying: you want to rely on nitrous oxide every time you get to a certain RPM, not for performance, but as a safety precaution? Hahaha. I just laughed out loud as I wrote that.

You don't. You cannot increase the bore that much per cylinder and use any Honda head I can think of. Dude: the combustion chambers are spaced a certain distance apart and the sleeves have to be of a certain thickness to function at all. You can't do what you're thinking with the heads you think you want to use. Period. It's not possible without cutting the K or B-heads apart. There's just not enough room between the chambers.

Why do you think you need so much displacement anyhow? Why not just have a 4.0L DOHC VTEC V8?</TD></TR></TABLE> The nitro will not incur at any certain RPM, it will be temp based. Ok I see what your saying about re-mapping the entire head. I would be happy with it being a 4.8-5.0 liter V8. So what's your take on this, should I do anyting over the 83mm bore on the TSX? I do want to stroke the motor a little bit, but obviuosly adding displacement through increasing bore by too much is out of the question. I guess you just needed to slap me around to get my brain funtioning properly this morning.

 

You really think that a little bit of nitrous from a sprayer is going to cool your coolant significantly? Wow. I have one of those on my intercooler, and it doesn't even work all that great with air. Water/coolant has a much higher specific heat than air does. You'd be spraying nitrous continually to even make any sort of minimal difference. A little shot of nitrous is not going to result in ice cold coolant. And even if it did work, isn't it kind of just a bandaid to bad engine design? Seems like a silly solution. If your engine is going to run that hot, then it's not designed very well. Go to all the trouble of actually making a block and then not design a proper cooling system? Kind of half assing it. It's stuff like this that makes people question your idea.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The nitro will not incur at any certain RPM, it will be temp based. Ok I see what your saying about re-mapping the entire head. I would be happy with it being a 4.8-5.0 liter V8. So what's your take on this, should I do anyting over the 83mm bore on the TSX? I do want to stroke the motor a little bit, but obviuosly adding displacement through increasing bore by too much is out of the question. I guess you just needed to slap me around to get my brain funtioning properly this morning. </TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The outlet will be machined aircraft alluminum</TD></TR></TABLE>
Is it just me, or is aluminum both spelled wrong and a terrible metal for an exhaust manifold?

You must be from the northside or the burbs.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The nitro will not incur at any certain RPM, it will be temp based.</TD></TR></TABLE>

All I have to say is propane. Well, technically that's not all I have to say at all, but if you want to use some gaseous catylist to keep things cool, propane is much, much cheaper. CO2 is also an option. I still think this is a fundamentally bad idea, though, and suggest you simply rethink your rod/stroke ratio so the piston speed isn't 12,000 ft/sec .

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok I see what your saying about re-mapping the entire head. I would be happy with it being a 4.8-5.0 liter V8. So what's your take on this, should I do anyting over the 83mm bore on the TSX?</TD></TR></TABLE>

My take is see how far the bowls can be blended and enlarged without completely destroying the fluidynamic properties of the combustion chamber. From there, you'll have a good measure of the limiting diameter of the sleeves which, in turn, will dictate your maximum bore within a milimeter or so.

As far as maximum bore goes, talk to Golden Eagle. Talk to Darton. Talk to AEBS. They will be able to tell you better than I.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I do want to stroke the motor a little bit, but obviuosly adding displacement through increasing bore by too much is out of the question. I guess you just needed to slap me around to get my brain funtioning properly this morning. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Here's another mind bending issue for ya: Since you're set on a V-block, you can't move the crank away from the sleeves in order to increase stroke or, that is to say, you have to have the geometry of your rotating assembly completely figured out before you can even begin to worry about rod length. This is an issue in your case for many reasons, one of which is that you seem to want a 45-degree angle bank separation which is going to be rediculously hard to work with.

See, the sleeves have to be a certain height in order to allow the rod to move from side to side without hitting as the crank turns. This is not new information as it's a basic issue with any stroker kit, however, since your bore is going to be limited to a rather small size, your rods are going to have the final say in your displacement, as the stroke of the crankshaft is going to have to be rather small to clear the extreme angle created by your bank-separation plan..

Now, that wouldn't be too much of an issue except for the fact that you want to rev a lot. If your rods are too long...well...yeah.

Just some more stuff to think about.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> No I=all who actually use their brains. That's all I have to say about this.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yea, because you really know me


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Keep posting, I don't care, it's your time your wasting.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Now that is funny, I love how you give out advice that you yourself should be considering. Looks like you also self taught yourself in English too

Talk is just that, and all that you are.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Vanilla Sky &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ok, let's say you get this done... a civic isn't exactly the optimal chassis for this kind of motor... why not put 2 f20c's together in an s2000? at least that car is already RWD...

the motor is a good idea, especially if you can get it to work... i just don't think a civic would be the best platform to put the motor in...</TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly.. Can you imagine the chassis reinforcement you'd need to do??? Might as well build a new chassis from the ground up to put the custom B-series V8 in. The torque would twist the civic chassis into all sorts of pretzel type shapes.

 

It seems like you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of R&D and testing and all that... It isn't cheap to build a completely one off motor, drivetrain, chassis, suspension, cooling, and anything else that goes into a car and get it to work perfectly.

Anyway GL

 

A lot of good information, the bank idea of 45 has been eliminated after I did some drawing, like you said it just wont work. 60 or 90 is the only way to go. CO2 or propane are better alternatives.

Yeah big ****** deal, as I mentioned earlier I don't car to run a spell check of re-read my post to make sure **** it spelled correctly. Like you've never been typing fast and hit too many letters, big deal get over it. Oh BTW where did I say it was going to be used as the MANIFOLD? No where. Sort of like an exhaust tip to conform with the curves of the rear fascia better. Oh and BTW southsider her so quit talking ****.

You obviously didn't read very much. The cooling system is more than planned out. No conventional mechanical water pump here. Electric WP all the way. The nitro is just for a little more cooling capacity. Your right, it's stuff like THIS that makes people question my idea. They really haven't looked at the nearly 8 pages of posts to see what has been discussed and what hasn't. I appreciate your input and I would expect nothing but people questioning it if I hadn't already discussed the cooling issue. Oh yeah we also already discussed that a civic alone would twist to any shape imaginable. Plenty of support will be worked in to the platform. The Civic is just a basic shape to work from for the body of the car. It will be modified to be basically a civic with a Legend front and rear fascia.

 

this is a totally ad hominem personal attack, so be prepared. you are stupid. your b16 swapped hatchcrap never beat an m3 that was firing on all cylinders. try building a car that traps in the triple digits before talking out your *** about things you know nothing about.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by maskednegator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">this is a totally ad hominem personal attack, so be prepared. you are stupid. your b16 swapped hatchcrap never beat an m3 that was firing on all cylinders. try building a car that traps in the triple digits before talking out your *** about things you know nothing about.</TD></TR></TABLE> The only thing I know nothing about is the strange version of English your using. WTF. At least if you are going to TRY and attack someone make sense. And it isn't a hatch and it has beaten M3s, several as a matter of fact. I'm not saying I blew em away in any sense. **** THEY had me till about 105MPH... And do you really have a point, or just thought you would try and talk some ****? I think you need to take your head out of your loose *** because your words are muffled. Make a point, tell me why I know nothing and BACK IT UP. WTF have you proven you know, obviously not how to type... **** off but have a great night. Here I am thinking someone actually had something technical we could talk about and all it was was this *** practicing what he tried to learn on Mavis Beacon teaches typing. **** get a job, quit living off your parents, learn to type and more importantly to make a POINT!!

 

At least you are semi entertaining

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by I4sillypwr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">At least you are semi entertaining </TD></TR></TABLE>c'mon semi? WTF man you know this thread has been ground for MUCH entertainment for you, just admit it... LMAO! And I at least try to have a point in all of my posts. Except for the ones where I have to get lame *** flamers off my back.

 

You are a lame *** flamer buddy Thats what makes it funny.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by I4sillypwr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You are a lame *** flamer buddy Thats what makes it funny. </TD></TR></TABLE>LOL I don't see how I am the flamer but WTF if it makes you happy then **** yeah I'm the flamer. Anyway the forum is Welding/Fabrication not Who's a Flamer... But if it was I'm sure YOU would be the moderator.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaFanatic708 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The only thing I know nothing about is the strange version of English your using. WTF. At least if you are going to TRY and attack someone make sense. And it isn't a hatch and it has beaten M3s, several as a matter of fact. I'm not saying I blew em away in any sense. **** THEY had me till about 105MPH... And do you really have a point, or just thought you would try and talk some ****? I think you need to take your head out of your loose *** because your words are muffled. Make a point, tell me why I know nothing and BACK IT UP. WTF have you proven you know, obviously not how to type... **** off but have a great night. Here I am thinking someone actually had something technical we could talk about and all it was was this *** practicing what he tried to learn on Mavis Beacon teaches typing. **** get a job, quit living off your parents, learn to type and more importantly to make a POINT!!</TD></TR></TABLE>

ad hominem = off topic personal attack.
traps in the triple digits = has a trap speed in the standing quarter mile greater than 99 mph. you made yourself look really stupid not knowing what this phrase means.

 

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

ad hominem = off topic personal attack.
traps in the triple digits = has a trap speed in the standing quarter mile greater than 99 mph. you made yourself look really stupid not knowing what this phrase means.</TD></TR></TABLE>A chimp can drive a QM, but can a chimp apex a turn. Oh man I dont know anything because I REALLY DONT ****** CARE about the slang for a car capable of running a QM @ over 100MPH. Yeah that means I have absolutely no car knowledge, sorry guys I really don't know **** and I'm now less of a person because I was unaware of some slang term used by homosexuals, you sure you don't live in San Fran spanky? I still don't see how either of your posts even remotely relate to the topic. Please explain what technical know-how you have added about the topic?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by maskednegator &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">traps in the triple digits = has a trap speed in the standing quarter mile greater than 99 mph. you made yourself look really stupid not knowing what this phrase means.</TD></TR></TABLE> So where you learn this, by watching the fast and furious. Some peoples children. Geez. Hitler had a good idea just a little skewed. Please GOD advance the pace of natural selection before this world is destroyed by the mindless and useless of my generation.. I bet this whole ****** page will be wasted by lame flamers that need to temporarily boost their self esteem by dissing someone. Get a ****** life and a girlfriend.

 

They didn't call the "Prelude" it the Prelude for nothing. I bet it uses the same system as the Prelude did in 97-01

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kal &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">They didn't call the "Prelude" it the Prelude for nothing. I bet it uses the same system as the Prelude did in 97-01 </TD></TR></TABLE>You know I'm not sure, you know anywhere online that posts Honda part numbers, we could see if anything related to the system crosses. Your right though it was the pre-emptive model for the S2K. Prelude went away and out comes S2K. But the idea does deserve some more investigation. I'll see if I can find anything else out. Maybe an old Prelude brochure would shine some light on wether or not it adjusted torque from side to side.

 

I was unable to find anything that would even remotely relate the two. Now they called the system in the Prelude the ATTS (Automatic or All Time Traction System???) What the RL system does that is so special about it is during turing it will distribute more torque to the outside rear wheel to guide the car in to a tighter turn. I'm not sure how this could relate to the Prelude system since the lude was only FWD. Hmmm. Yeah nothing crosses except for a shim or 2 but those are rather standard across the board. I'm not sure what your opinion is but the rear diff. on this RL looks pretty intensive... I know it's expensive.


**** so there are NO honda parts that cross as far as inner/outer joints that would work on this thing, nothing but the RL shafts will mate. Looks like I'm buying some drive axels as well, or at least the inboard side, **** they are only like $270 list, which is still about $180 my cost. That's more than a cheap PAIR of axels would cost me for a teg. Well glad I budgeted so much on the project. Hopefully by the time I get to the building of it a few people have totaled out their RL without damaging that pumpkin or related parts.

 

i learned what i know from attending class, doing homework and taking the criticism of those more experienced than myself to heart. i did not learn from watching movies or from wild speculation brought about by old prelude brochures.

you need to read more. how are you going to make a car that a non-chimp could apex a corner in, if said car has a ginormous v8 chilling in front of the shock towers? you need to understand how large point masses at the pole of a system can affect the system's moment of inertia.

why go to all the trouble of custom machining, custom chassis, custom cylinder heads, when a vette with bolt ons will beat this vehicle in any concievable arena?
so far all you have brought up is sleeper factor, the bling of having 2 vtec valve covers under your hood and the flat torque curve this engine would supposedly produce.

as to the first, i know 9-10 street driven dsms in san diego that all run 12s and look completely stock. there is a mustang locally that runs 6.90s in the eighth and doesn't even lope. a fast, nondescript car need not cost $350k.

as for the second, $350k spent on a car so that it has 2 valve covers from japanese economy cars is not the work of a rational mind.

as for the third, a viper v-10 produces 90% of peak torque from idle to 6500rpm with 2 valves/cylinder and one cam for 2 banks. PERIOD. complicated systems like vtec are not necesary for flat torque curves as long as the relationship between rod, stroke, port volume, runner length, plenum volume, etc is understood. this is not to say that they are not helpful or even useful, just that this is not a reason in and of itself to spend the money you are talking about.

 

Well you surprise me. I take back a few of the things I've said. Thanks man, I appreciate actual input on the subject matter. My belief is, we wont know how well it will work until it works. Maybe 4 cams are better than 1. Maybe it's a pointless idea. I created this post out of boredom and curiosity. I was tired of helping the newbs jump their service check connector so I wanted to start a discussion. I had no idea I would get flamed so bad for it or that it would take off as much as it has. My origional post didn't say anything like "**** you all who think I can't do it." No I want to consult with people so if it really is a pointless venture, I wont go for it. I would much rather waste $350K on something that had some glimmer of hope than something that was doomed from the start. A ton of people have doomed this from the start but very few have come back with anything as to why it is doomed. Point of inertia is certianly something that is valid. It will be very front heavy and powered in the rear. Maybe it will drive itself in to its own grave the first dump of the clutch. Or maybe everything will snap in the drivetrain before it moves an inch by it's own power. Maybe this car is intended to just stay at rest. Who really know A.If it will work and B.What it is capable of, unless it's done. I would much rather think it through than go to work tomorrow and tell them to order me an RL pumpkin only to have wasted $3,100.

 

ATTS on the Prelude did the exact same thing for the front wheel... It would transfer ~15% to the outer wheel. The RL seems to implement the same exact system but for the rear wheel.

Prelude had the exact same thing with their ATTS unit. Their halfshafts were shorter than the regular ones on non-SH preludes.