ORIGINAL: Kapitald

"congrats... the b16 is a stout little motor! even with .4l less than our motors, it is hands down a far more superior motor. My suggestion would be to dump the nitrous.
The b16 on stock sleeves and 10psi will normally net you about 300-340whp. Have fun, its a great platform!" - graphite

How can these motors, smaller than ours, net so much more power at 10 psi?????? HOW!?!? WHY!?!?! that makes me not even want to turbo my car anymore?!!?

ORIGINAL: 03neonRT

Different engines, different engineering, different designs...fact is, the B16, B18, H22, etc...are far superior engines compaed to ours. Not saying everything built by Honda is amazing, because thats far from the truth, but damn, when they make a solid motor, they make a solid motor. BUT. If there is one thing that these motors are missing and ours are more then happy to produce...its TORQUE! And if anyone knows anything about anything, they know that TORQUE is far more important then HORSEPOWER.

ORIGINAL: neon 05

is it possible to convert a neon to a b18?

ORIGINAL: 03neonRT

Different engines, different engineering, different designs...fact is, the B16, B18, H22, etc...are far superior engines compaed to ours. Not saying everything built by Honda is amazing, because thats far from the truth, but damn, when they make a solid motor, they make a solid motor. BUT. If there is one thing that these motors are missing and ours are more then happy to produce...its TORQUE! And if anyone knows anything about anything, they know that TORQUE is far more important then HORSEPOWER.

What makes a high-horsepower low-torque car lose traction?

I want you to look at a video, but before you look at it I want to explain what you'll be seeing and hearing. The video is an in-car clip of a launch I made during a recent autocross. The car has a shift beeper that sounds really nasty in the video (it sounds totally different when you're riding in the car), but in spite of the nasty sound, if you understand what the beeps mean it is almost like watching the tachometer, and you can tell how fast the engine is turning as you watch the video. The beeper beeps at the following intervals: 8,300, 8,600, and 8,900 RPM. Then at 9,100 RPM the beeper starts to sound continuously as the cars rev limiter comes into play. The launch you will see is NOT the proper way to launch the car, but it was fun.
Here's what you'll see. The car is stopped at the starting gate. Engine revs to 5,500 RPM, then clutch is dropped as throttle opens fully. Note how quickly the engine rips from 8,300 RPM (first beep) right up to the rev limiter at 9,100 RPM. You'll see that the tires break traction instantly and continue to spin until I get off the throttle. Look at the video (link below) and then we'll talk about what is making the tires spin.

http://www.redmx5.net/HardLaunch.mpg

Why do my tires spin so easily? Everybody knows S2000's don't make any torque, and even with the supercharger and water-to-air aftercooler I don't have any boost at low revs. I've got horsepower though, and the tires spin, so it must be the horsepower making the tires spin, right? ???

Is that what you are trying to get at with your question?

If you understand the answer then you have all this stuff well in hand. Your question whould actually make an excellent question for an essay final.

It's not horsepower that makes the tires spin. The tires spin when the trust exceeds the stiction of the tires, and horsepower isn't even a measure of thrust. Let's start with a look at the amount of thrust it will take to make the tires spin. There is a factor called "stiction" that makes it harder to start something from sliding than it is to keep it sliding. My tires reach almost a G when I dump the clutch the way I did in the video, and the car weighs about 3,000 lbs. with me in it and a full tank of gas. Since F=MA, we can plug in 1G and 3,000 lbs. and we have F=3,000*1, so the thrust requred to break the stiction will be 3,000 lbs. Notice that NO car makes this much torque, so how do any of them manage to break the tires loose?

If you know the answer, raise your hand.

Once the stiction is overcome and the tires are spinning excessively, grip goes way down, and acceleration drops. If the grip drops to the point where acceleration is limited to 0.7G what does it take to keep the tires spinning once they're started?

Again, F=MA, so with 0.7G instad of 1G we have F=3,000*0.7, which equals 2,100 lbs. of thrust.

In other words, according to the math we have been looking at all this time, the car is producing around 3,000 lbs. of thrust to break the tires lose, and around 2,100 lbs. of thrust to keep them spinning.

How many cars can you name that produce 2,100 lb.ft. of torque?

If you are thinking that the math must be wrong you are forgetting one thing. Thrust is torque times overall gearing. The total gearing in my car is a little over 15.6:1, so the torque at the axles is 15.6 times as high as the torque at the flywheel. 200 lb.ft. of torque at the flywheel becomes over 3,000 lbs. of torque being delivered to the wheels, and from there it goes to the contact patches and is converted to thrust. Once the tires start spinning they are running a little over 40 MPH as the engine bounces off the rev limiter, but the car is barely moving, so the tires and asphault start to melt and traction is extremely limited, so it takes very little to keep the tires spinning once they're overheated.

The fact that my car makes around 300 WHP tells you that it will most likely be able to spin the stew out of the rear tires, but it is not what actually makes the tires spin. Thrust, which is the product of torque, is what makes the tires spin. You cannot feel horsepower, and you can't even measure it directly. Dyno's measure torque and use that to calculate power. We go through the bother of calculating power from torque because it tells is a lot about how the car will perform when we put a gearbox and differential behind it and start putting the torque to the ground.

The reason revs matter so much, and the reason we factor them into our horsepower number, is because higher revs allow lower gearing, which means greater torque multiplication, without sacrificing speed. Obviously you can put 30:1 gears in a truck and produce 30 times the engines output at the contact patches, and this will most certainly spin the tires, but if you instantly run out of revs (because the motor doesn't spin fast enough to make high HP numbers) very quickly all that thrust will just get you nowhere fast.


and just one other one to explain a little more



An engine's crank torque is directly related to how much fuel/air is combusted per engine cycle. For normally aspirated engines, this means that increasing the displacement size will usually result in increased crank torque. For forced induction engines, the effective displacement is larger than the numerical displacement since the air is pre-compressed before it is forced into the engine. Unlike increased displacement or forced induction, the VTEC system optimizes engine breathing at high RPMs to increase power. Therefore, a VTEC engine's displacement is the smallest of the three methods of increasing power output. And since crank torque is limited by displacement, a VTEC engine's crank torque output is smaller compared to non-VTEC engines of similar power output level.

But this doesn't mean that a VTEC engine's HP is somehow worth less. In fact, Honda automobiles equipped with VTEC engines have performance numbers that agrees with the tried and true power-to-weight-ratio method of estimating acceleration performance. People hold this misconception because they have a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between crank torque, horse power, and acceleration. Crank torque by itself is meaningless in determining the engine's ability to accelerate the car. This is because the crank torque is multiplied by the gearing and final drive ratio before it is converted to forward thrust. And physics dictates that an engine putting out 160HP absolutely will provide more forward thrust than a 150HP engine, regardless of what crank torque the two engines have, assuming similar transmission efficiency and optimal gearing for both cars. This is plain high school physics. Unless someone can prove that the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian physics are false, there is no way around this fact.

There is some significance to the shape of the crank torque curve, however. When drag racing a car, it is desired to have a bit of initial wheel spin, and then have the tire hook up with the ground. A torque curve with a peak early in the RPM range and then tapers off as RPMs rise is well suited to this purpose. This is why big displacement American muscle cars are so good at drag racing. VTEC engines, on the other hand, have very smooth gradually rising torque curves. The initial wheel spin, therefore, is harder to achive. And after the initial wheel spin gets going, the level torque curve means that very precise clutch and gas pedal control is needed to allow the drive wheels to regain traction while maintaining maximum acceleration. This is why VTEC engines are more difficult to launch off the line than large displacement muscle car engines.

ORIGINAL: neon 05

got a long point graph , i was asking b/c i got my b18 stage 2 turbo engine tranny clutch and everything else from my honda in my garage ..