B18C V B16B Comparison Video -Rolling Start


Not a war mate :)

Basically, the B18C conversion makes a difference.

But in some people eyes, not a enough to warrent the conversion.

The End.
 
To say honda didnt make the b16b to have lots of torque IMO isnt true, its the fact for its displacement and been NA they couldn't get much more torque from it, and wasnt the main reason vtec came about in the first place to over come the problem of not been able to produce or maintain high power at high rpm's and at low rpm's a long duration camshaft would not work so well, hence its camshafts design of a small primary lobe(low rpm) and large secondary(high rpm).
 
EK9dan said:
I said all vtecs even the K20 produce low torque for a peformance car... The Civic EP3 doesnt exactly fly off before VTEC, 2 of my mates had them and i drove one of them and it was nice and drivable but felt very average before VTEC.... The car only weighs 1200KG too.....

Ahh opinions opinions aie, thats all these are........ lol

Not arguing gee, just discussing :)
Click to expand...

Performance car is too vague of a classification though.

A Silvia S15, 2.0L turbo is classed as a performance car.

A 106 GTI is classed as a performance car.

The only fair comparison IMO when talking about the torque of the B16B is to other 'performance' 1.6 N/A engines.
 
All the talk i ever hear about VTECs having no torque low down is really irritating...

My B18 is perfectly adequate driving around without passing 5900rpm....quite spritely infact.

The stock 131lbs/ft peak may be quite well up the rev range, but is still more @ peak than your average GTi of same engine size can muster.. My car is around 140lbs/ft peak now thanks to some simple breathing mods. On a RR day I went to the peak torque figures matched the best 2L tuned VW offerings, & left them on peak BHP:D

When you factor in the lowish kerbweight compared to most its rivals & short gearing to make the most of an 8400rpm redline, then things are way better than they may look on paper IMO......

On the road an EK is close enough to an ITR in VTEC to negate the difference in CC with its slightly lower weight, & lets face it, these cars are all about what happens at the top end:) Id be seriously chuffed to own an EK that went as well as my ITR with only a 1600cc motor:shocked::clap:
 
chrismc_DC2 said:
All the talk i ever hear about VTECs having no torque low down is really irritating...

My B18 is perfectly adequate driving around without passing 5900rpm....quite spritely infact.

The stock 131lbs/ft peak may be quite well up the rev range, but is still more @ peak than your average GTi of same engine size can muster.. My car is around 140lbs/ft peak now thanks to some simple breathing mods. On a RR day I went to the peak torque figures matched the best 2L tuned VW offerings, & left them on peak BHP:D

When you factor in the lowish kerbweight compared to most its rivals & short gearing to make the most of an 8400rpm redline, then things are way better than they may look on paper IMO......

On the road an EK is close enough to an ITR in VTEC to negate the difference in CC with its slightly lower weight, & lets face it, these cars are all about what happens at the top end:) Id be seriously chuffed to own an EK that went as well as my ITR with only a 1600cc motor:shocked::clap:
Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said.

When compared to other 1.6 N/A's the torque is good, even though it might be higher up the rev range.

This why I don't understand peoples views on it.
 
I think the majority of (non type-R owning) folk are a bit naive...

Sure, all the peak numbers are up in the VTEC 7k+ revs area, BUT, because the engines rev so hard to past 8k revs, the gearing is shorter than a comparable "hot hatch", so in the same gear at same speeds the Honda is revving higher...

They thrive on high RPM anyhow, & once the VTEC engages they become a different beast, so what is compromised low down is more than made up for at the top end!

What is written on paper is one thing, but how the engine drives is quite another. There are few small capacity four cylinder N/A motors to match the character or specific outputs of the B-series.....

All the better considering its no longer a new cutting edge design
 
I cant actually think of any other 4 cylinder motors of similar capacity that rev as high (as standard)...

The Toyota motor in the AE86 perhaps??

That pretty much sums up what these engines are about eh!:)
 
They made that pulsar 1.6 NA that revved that hard.....

But yeah I do see your point , well explained..... As said with the few mods I have I find low down power just fine onthe b16b.....
 
I know its supercharged but the 1.8 engine in the Corolla Compressor hits the limiter at 9200
 
B18C maybe a worthy conversion......:nice:

But im loving the SOUND and PULL my Stock B16B gives, especially with the MUGEN intake :))
 
wow, I cant follow any of this... :/
So I guess we all agree that the B18C is 'the' better engine.

If we all can just open our eyes and see through the clouded bushes and just understand that 'more capacity' gives 'more torque' and that mods for mods on both engines will still brings EVERYTHING back to 'square 1'. This thing where people YAP about that "B16 is better and faster than B18" would finally come to an end and ditch that **** in the bin!

I remember when I first drove the b16B and thought, wow B18 would just probally feel a little better with 200cc advantage. And even hearing others saying 'B18 is much torquey man', I also thought, hmm, i think the b16b got some good bottom end torque too! 'Shouldnt be that much difference', "I think I can pawn a B18".
....
Boy was I wrong. That was when I had a B18C :D Jumping from one car to the other, B16B feels sluggish now, nothing happens till 7000rpm+. You get very nice power from 3000rpm on the B18. Which is something that occurs on the b16 from 6000rpm.
 
I guess what Dan`s opinion is he doesnt think that gain from a B18 is worth the money you spend on buying the engine and so on which i agree with when you can build a B20 with mooore torque and same or more power for the same or little less money.
 
Last edited:
thats exactly it jason ^^^^

Im not silly, im aware it is over all a better engine providing more power throughout rev range, a whole "Circa" 15bhp.... Weather it feels alot better for some at the end of the day 15bhp is 15bhp....

Thats power you can gain with a few good mods, a little less weight along with a flywheel the B16B IMO is more then good enough for the job and to be very competative.... Were not talking of 50BHP more here we are talking of around 15bhp.

I think im repeating myself here......................
 
Yes..but you are comparing B16B plus mods to stock B18C. If you put the same mods on the B18C as the B16B you still come out on top with the B18C!!!!!!

LOL

But yes, I understand 100% what you are saying and it may seem costly doing the swap for '15bhp', but its not that much considering you can sell off the B16B.

And most like the fact it just drops in, direct replacement.

Think everything has been said now :)
 
Gee said:
Yes..but you are comparing B16B plus mods to stock B18C. If you put the same mods on the B18C as the B16B you still come out on top with the B18C!!!!!!

LOL

But yes, I understand 100% what you are saying and it may seem costly doing the swap for '15bhp', but its not that much considering you can sell off the B16B.

And most like the fact it just drops in, direct replacement.

Think everything has been said now :)
Click to expand...


most car breakers sell the b16's and b18's for the same price. i would of thought that if you want to sell a b16b your going to have to make it quite a bit cheaper than the cost of a b18. only because the vast majority of people are going to choose a b18 for engine swaps. suppose you loose £300-500 in swapping your b16 to a b18 then you still have to pay someone to swap the engines over. unless you have the capability to do the swap yourself could cost up to a grand for that extra power. i think its far to much money for what your getting. even though i have a b18c:D
 
Yeah, you could end up 'losing' £300-500..but really you are gaining extra torque and power across the whole rev range and considering headers/exhausts are sold for £300-500 and give you less gains, it might not seem so bad after all...

But yup..could be considered too much for the gains to some.
 
Gee said:
Yeah, you could end up 'losing' £300-500..but really you are gaining extra torque and power across the whole rev range and considering headers/exhausts are sold for £300-500 and give you less gains, it might not seem so bad after all...

But yup..could be considered too much for the gains to some.
Click to expand...

Listen to rice! lol

he has both so comments are wise.... Hes being realistic.
 
EK9dan said:
Listen to rice! lol

he has both so comments are wise.... Hes being realistic.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing in so many ways Dan. I understand completely what you are both you saying.

The fact is, a B18C EK9 will perform better than a B16B EK9! Irrespective of it is cost affective or not.

Rice himself went for B18C rather than going back to B16B and yes I know he was buying a replacement anyway, but he still made the choice.

I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon because two people share the same opinion.
 
thanks dan :nice:
in the real world gee its going to cost more than £300-£500 that was just an estimate on the loss of swapping your motor to a b18. you still need to pay someone to remove the b16 and then to fit the b18 which face it isnt going to be cheap unless you do it yourself.
it just seems your underestimating the actual cost involved. the average garage charges around £50 an hour in labour i think?

either way good luck if you do the swap:nice:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top