Acura TSX Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Sleeperus-Maximus
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
When its not in a TSX! :spit:

I kidd, I kidd...

I just dynoed the 2000 EM1 Si. Here are the results:



Engine:
2001 B18C5 Short block assembly - completely stock
B16A2 head - 3 angle valve job, Omni Power valve springs & titanium retainers

*STOCK B16A2 cams, intake manifold, throttle body, and 5 speed transmission*

Password JDM J's Racing style carbon fiber intake
JDM ITR header
Omni power 2.5" test pipe
RS*R EXMAG cat-back exhaust
12lb ACT street-light flywheel
Modified P28 ECU running Crome (tuned my slef, on the street)


10.6:1 compression, running 91 pump gas.








I currently have Skunk 2 Stage 2 cams & cam gears, plus a Spoon 2 layer head gasket sitting in my room. Ill be throwing those in while milling the head a bit to achieve a little over 11.5:1 compression. I will then have everything tuned using a wideband and dyno. This should easily put me over 200WHP after I also take care of my bottle necks. Namely the stock throttle body and intake manifold.
 

·
Sleeperus-Maximus
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I had an AEM CAI. Thing was all beat though. It was 7 years old, had a hole in it from the nitrous tap and what not. I needed something new. This intake scores more gained WHP then any other CAI or SRI out there for B series engine, and only cost me 145 bucks which is less then a new brand name CAi.
 

·
Sleeperus-Maximus
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
LOL, for an N/A 1.8l Honda engine, that’s a butt-load. It comes out to something like 155 tq at the crank (which is what the advertised power ratings are rated at). To compare, stock, my car came with 111 ft lbs at the crank.

More torque is on the way via lumpy bump sticks & higher compression; however for a 2600lb car with the gearing mine has its more then enough for the time being. I’m already looking at mid-low 14 second ETs.

To put into perspective, The TSX puts out 166 ft lbs of tq. at the crank and 200 BHP (also crank). That means its making 5 more BHP and 16 ft lbs more tq. then my car. Keep in mind though, that the TSX is doing this with a 2.4l engine VS my 1.8 liter engine. Yet the Acura weighs in at 3300lbs; 700lbs MORE then my car.

Thats a big difference in power to weight ratios.
 

·
gas-aholic
Joined
·
208 Posts
hm....


what exactly is Brake Horsepower?

i hear it rather often...but i don't know what it is.. .
 

·
Sleeperus-Maximus
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
BHP or "brake horse power" is the rating for power produced directly at the crank of the engine. Power is lost through the gears and other mechanics that it must be transferred through to get from the engine to the wheels and then to the ground. This is why chassis dynos rate power (horse power and torque) at the WHEELS, like the one I used. And frankly WHP (wheel horse power) is really what counts, since you never know exactly how much power is being lost between the engine and ground. For FWD vehicles it’s usually 15-20% and for RWD it’s more like 20-30%. They do have engine dynos, which rate in BHP, but the engine must be OUT of the car in order to hook it up. This is one reason why manufacturers rate their cars with BHP and not WHP... plus it makes it seems like it’s more powerful then it really is. It’s more marketing then anything.

So if I wanted to rate my hp in BHP like a car company would, I would be saying my engine is putting out something like 190-200 horse power and 150-155 ft lbs of torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Looking good, like you said, your killing the power with the Si cams/TB. Once it's opened up you will see some significant gains.

I loved my EM1, too bad I had to sell it when I was FIRED oops downsized in 2001.



Here is my best B16a2 dyno, notice the lack of torque out of that little engine(just Toda B cams, ITR intake manifold, bored TB and Mugen header, 2.5" exhaust and a bunch of tuning) the other dyno is from an ITR block with the same B16 head, but with Toda pistons, ended up with 210 whp and 140 wtq, so you're looking really good.


Good luck, and as you said, weight is your enemy :tard:
 

·
Sleeperus-Maximus
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
TodaSi said:
Looking good, like you said, your killing the power with the Si cams/TB. Once it's opened up you will see some significant gains.

I loved my EM1, too bad I had to sell it when I was FIRED oops downsized in 2001.



Here is my best B16a2 dyno, notice the lack of torque out of that little engine(just Toda B cams, ITR intake manifold, bored TB and Mugen header, 2.5" exhaust and a bunch of tuning) the other dyno is from an ITR block with the same B16 head, but with Toda pistons, ended up with 210 whp and 140 wtq, so you're looking really good.


Good luck, and as you said, weight is your enemy :tard:

Thank you, and yes I hated my B16 for that very reason. I cant stand the lack of torque it produced. I was only happy with it when it was on the nitrous. THAT produced a buttload of torque, more then Im making here, thats for sure. But it only lasted 15 seconds a a time, you know? Other then that I gave up on that weaksauce engine.

Also, as has ben pointed out by a few people, I could be looking at an easy 10-15WHP more if I had properly tuned it. Right now its using a stock B16A2 ECU map with a displacement modifier. Its very rough and approximate so there is a lot of power to be had there. No point in doing that till I get the cams in though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I wonder what that i2.4 could do with a little tweaking? Especially since I hear that engine could probably rev at 10K without too much discomfort.

I know there is nothing avaliable at this point in time, but can any of you make any speculative guesses?
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top