Why The B16?

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

I/H and no way to get rid of the extra flow,what a shame.
 
here's the pics 14.5 d16 no internals h/i/c
s3e2f1a7f17dc4.jpg
 
Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jan 22 2003, 05:57 PM
s3db64c291d826.jpg
Theres the proof!!!!!!!!!!Damn

ha ha lmao,

If i get a picture of my car at the beggining of a drag strip and then one of the engine, does that make my car run like...13's? (lower than that time cause sols look cooler)
 
THers no fucking way a stock d16 can propel an eg to a 14.5, not without nitrous.

Lets see a pic of the interior.

edit, and just because he has a 14.6 on his window doesnt mean he's running that...lets see a timeslip scan while your at it.
 
so your saying stock SIs run just as fast as Type Rs?

http://www.geocities.com/arpodd/civicsi.html 15.7 on this review

http://home.san.rr.com/jfroumis/prelude/prelude.html mid 90s lude w/H22 15.2

and I said type Rs range from 14.7-15.2 I guess car and driver messes up all the time but heres them listing their review

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddrive...yper.xml?page=2

I still get a kick outta people wasting money on a Type R when a stock SI can beat them "thats if they run high 14s as you listed"

also my car is a heavy coupe as most people say since its not a HB
and yes preludes are pigs VS a civic and thats why my much lower Torque and HP still let me beat them

and the LS trans is junk to most people then again most people never run them with B16s and bash them yes over all its 2-4tenths slower on a fully stock car but I myself loved the tall gearing I put 60K miles on my car in the last 3 years so MPG is a big factor and having a VERY fast reving car with tons of power I love the really tall gears
 
this is the type of thread that will make people go elsewhere!

if you've ever seen an h22 in a civic, it takes a lot of work, wiring, and changing to cable type shift linkage.

the civic wasn't meant for an h22, and yes it can be done and you're basically making the car a one dimensional vehicle, straight line only.

and b16a's kill ls motors any day of the week. anyone who can drive halfway decently will be shifting at 8k and dropping to 6k upon shifting. this means the b16a is easily making 20 more hp compared to the b18b which is running out of power at 6500.

vtec is great technology!!!!!!!!!!
 
Ok, The Man has arrived.

EVERYONE SHUT THE FUCK UP! :D

#1
I PERSONALLY have driven a 92 CX hatch with a d16z6, Short Ram Intake and Exhaust only to a 14.8 on heavy 16" Revo's with bald low profile tires. I KNOW it had a mid/low 14 in it with better/lighter wheels and tires.

#2
99.9% of the 99-00 Si's with the b16a2 were high 15 to low 16 second cars depending on driver and track sonditions. I HAVE seen ONE, I repeat ONE 99 Si that was STOCK run a 15.2. It was built on a wednesday or SOMETHING. Couldn't explain it. Still had the stock tires on it when it ran that. I THINK it might have had cams, valvetrain, and high compression pistons or SOMETHING, but the engine had a b16a2 on the badge, and the car only had 1500 miles on it. NO NITROUS, I'm smart enough to check EVERYWHERE it could have been hidden.

#3
B16a's and B18a/b's have always been the low end B series that get ragged upon. Everyone likes the b18c1 and c5, of course. I prefer the B16a, but I'm biased ;) I think the b16a is better in most Honda cases, but in a heavier car like an Integra, I can see the LS pulling the heavier chassis along much better.

Oh yeah. My "torqueless" b16a made 180 ft pounds AT THE WHEELS. :p
 
Back
Top