b16 vs b18b on a crx?

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by 2camvtec

No I was not arguing about torque. I was arguing power to weight. Stop trying to put words in other people mouths. We can have civil debate, but please do not try to use my words the way you seem fit. I simply was using the Mustang vs RSX because of the power/weight difference to show that a car with less power (i.e. hp and torque) but weighs less and has better gearing can be just as fast or faster.

this is a civil debate and i never put words in your mouth. you said in your own post and i'm quoting you. that "torque isn't important at all" and my reply was that gearing will only take you so far. everybody here knows power to weight ratio is everything. but to say you don't need torque is stupid. you missed the whole point of the argument. my original argument was comparing the b16 to another motor in two cars in the same weight class. you pulled a mustang and rsx out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the argument. nobody is debating power to weight ratio. people are debating the potency of a motor for a specific application. so unless you have a car under 2300 lbs the b16 isn't anything special at all and gets it's ass handed to it by less powerful motor in similar weighted cars. why is that because of "TORQUE" plain and simple. so your argument that you don't need torque is still stupid.

[2camvtec]

Originally Posted by WVU97GS-R

this is a civil debate and i never put words in your mouth. you said in your own post and i'm quoting you. that "torque isn't important at all" and my reply was that gearing will only take you so far. everybody here knows power to weight ratio is everything. but to say you don't need torque is stupid. you missed the whole point of the argument. my original argument was comparing the b16 to another motor in two cars in the same weight class. you pulled a mustang and rsx out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the argument. nobody is debating power to weight ratio. people are debating the potency of a motor for a specific application. so unless you have a car under 2300 lbs the b16 isn't anything special at all and gets it's ass handed to it by less powerful motor in similar weighted cars. why is that because of "TORQUE" plain and simple. so your argument that you don't need torque is still stupid.

I never said torque isn't important, heck you wouldn't have horsepower without tourque. Horsepower is a measurment of torque. ksniperfox I believe said torque doesn't mean anything. And yes you are correct, put a b16 up against another car with the same weight and gearing and reverse the hp/tq #'s and the other car would more than likely win in the 1/4 mile.

Here's what I said. I should have said was high hp an torque. Sorry.

Originally Posted by 2camvtec

And no you don't need tq and hp. Gearing and power to weight is where it is at.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by ksniperfox

torque doeesnt do shit if you cant rev and apply it. see any diesel trucks making more hp than tq? no. they dont rev high enough to make the power. hence they are only good for hauling shit. no hp/lots of low end tq=towing.

any motor(or b16/b18/k20,etc) making less torque, but more HP than any v8 will smoke it, regardless of weight.
if you upgrade the valvetrain of a b16 and rev it to 9500, you gain 0 torque, but your HP goes up and the car goes faster. hp does matter.

you guys are making unfair comparisons that don't prove anyhting. first off regular diesel trucks aren't geared for topend. it's the gearing that gets them no being able to rev. infact dielsel motors have far more potential to make more power at much lower rpms than any gasoline motor than you could ever dream of. but if you compare your car to lets say a turbo diesel you'll be surprised. but go race a turbo deisel that makes 5x's the torque as your b16 and see if you can keep up with him from a dig? reving has nothing to do with it. it's power band. just because you don't have a high redline doesn't mean you are slow. most muscle cars don't rev past 6500 rpms yet a b16 has a stratospheric power band. but go put both motors into the same car and see which one runs the 1/4 faster. so your argument is out the window. if your agurment held up then the rsx should be running a full second faster than a mustang with 500-600 lbs extra weight and making making less whp. but the truth is the rsx only run's 14.7 with 175+whp vs 1995 mustang 5.0 making less whp but butloads more torque and weighing considerably more. HP has more to do with top speed than accerlation. torque moves the mass of the vehicle. why do you think you guys need to depend so much on weight reduction. because you don't make torque. so if you have more torque you will be faster. you can't argue that. go look at an ecotec cavy 1/4 mile time stock vs. a em1 civic si. they weight the same amount but for some reason the cavy pulls .5 seconds better in the 1/4 while also gettign almost 40 mpg highway. em1 si's don't do either of those

[MQTGSR]

Yes true, there are many factors, gearing weight ect.

I should have pointed this out aswell, but I got too cought up in the HP/torque thing. A balenced car is the best. You can have a car with 600hp and 400ft.lbs and shitty gearing and bad tires and get smoked by a car with less than half of that power.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by 2camvtec

I never said torque isn't important, heck you wouldn't have horsepower without tourque. Horsepower is a measurment of torque. ksniperfox I believe said torque doesn't mean anything. And yes you are correct, put a b16 up against another car with the same weight and gearing and reverse the hp/tq #'s and the other car would more than likely win in the 1/4 mile.

Here's what I said. I should have said was high hp an torque. Sorry.

it's all good i'm not mad or anythign i just to debate. but you are right you can make up for not having torque with insanely high hp. but that means more revolutions more wear and tear shorter gears which means more highway drone etc. but on motors like the b16 you need unbelieveable amounts of hp to make up for it's rather pathetic torque curve. that's why i said the motor you choose is application specific. people assume the b16 is awesome because they an run 13's in a civic hatch. but you can run 13's with almost any motor in a civic hatch.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by MQTGSR

Yes true, there are many factors, gearing weight ect.

I should have pointed this out aswell, but I got too cought up in the HP/torque thing. A balenced car is the best. You can have a car with 600hp and 400ft.lbs and shitty gearing and bad tires and get smoked by a car with less than half of that power.

well that's the kind of power a b16 makes on boost, and look where it makes it's power. boosted b16's will make 600 hp in excess of 9500 rpms with there peak torque being over 7K rpms. it's sucn an unusable powerband on the street. but you are right you need a well balanced car and frankly the b18b has more balanced attribules when it comes ot making flat power.

[MQTGSR]

Exactly what I am getting at. A car with more mid/lower torque, makes a better street/decent race car. Only the most extreme applications can you utilize the 9000+ pwr band.

[placid888]

Originally Posted by placid888

the sound of vtec is "priceless" ...............b16 all the way

hear it, feel it, and enjoy it........... finding something you love is "priceless"........VTEC forever

[ksniperfox]

Originally Posted by ksniperfox

this is going to get interesting.

lol @ this thread

[MQTGSR]

Haha, at least it's civil.

[Darkness]

intellectual debate FTMFW!!! repfest.

[ihatericers]

Originally Posted by ksniperfox

torque is irrelevant. while i can put 170 lb ft of torque on a breaker bar with my arm, that doesnt mean that my arm turning a wheel is going to be faster than a b16. the b16 is faster because it applies its torque at 8k+rpm while the LS makes its torque, though slightly higher, at the speed of my arm turning a breaker bar(but slower rotation.) the b16 makes more power and is faster. given you will have to rev high to get that power, you will only be in the high revs when racing anyways. everybody says a b18/si tranny will own a b16 but it makes 0 sense. if it makes so much tq and has such a wide powerband, why does it need shorter gearing? wouldnt you want to spend more time in your powerband and less time shifting? any LS/trans combo will lose to a b16. b18b has a severe power loss after 5800/6kish.

are you on drugs?

so you're telling me that the 375+ ft lbs I put to the ground has no effect on my runs eh?

You ever seen one of them things... ummm what the fuck are they called? oh yeah, wheelies.... torque in action dipshit

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by ihatericers

are you on drugs?

so you're telling me that the 375+ ft lbs I put to the ground has no effect on my runs eh?

You ever seen one of them things... ummm what the fuck are they called? oh yeah, wheelies.... torque in action dipshit

hehe i get you point but keep it civil. but you are right more torquq is very important. hence why hondas have to spin twice as fast to generate 3x's the hp of other motors just to run similar times. with torque and hp you need both not one or the other which is where honda v8 boys start to argue. but the fact is either side is jumping on the bandwagon for what their motors are known for. go look at the rotary boys, they'll swear that rotars are where it's at. but they leave out the fact that yeah they have 1.3 liters are really 2.6 liters if you follow their combustion cycles when comparing them to piston motors and that they have to spin at unbelieveable speeds to make any power at all and are totally thermally inefficient. why else does a 1.3 liter get 20 mpg on the highway while only making 200 hp

[ihatericers]

Originally Posted by WVU97GS-R

hehe i get you point but keep it civil. but you are right more torquq is very important. hence why hondas have to spin twice as fast to generate 3x's the hp of other motors just to run similar times. with torque and hp you need both not one or the other which is where honda v8 boys start to argue. but the fact is either side is jumping on the bandwagon for what their motors are known for. go look at the rotary boys, they'll swear that rotars are where it's at. but they leave out the fact that yeah they have 1.3 liters are really 2.6 liters if you follow their combustion cycles when comparing them to piston motors and that they have to spin at unbelieveable speeds to make any power at all and are totally thermally inefficient. why else does a 1.3 liter get 20 mpg on the highway while only making 200 hp

I'm completely civil

torque is what gets you moving off the line, motors that don't make peak torque till 4k rpm and peak hp at 7200 are worthless... I like having peak torque under 3k rpm and peak hp around 5500

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by ihatericers

I'm completely civil

torque is what gets you moving off the line, motors that don't make peak torque till 4k rpm and peak hp at 7200 are worthless... I like having peak torque under 3k rpm and peak hp around 5500

in regards to the peak hp arguement. it depends on how much hp you are making. if you only make 200 hp at 7500 rpms then i agree with you but if you make lets say 300 whp at 6500 rpms then that' s a nice power band. motors that peak to early are just as bad as motors that peak to late. balance is your friend