whats the best 4banger ever made?

[LudeBehavior]

I am curious to know what everone's opioion was on the topic. Is it the 4G63 because of massive amounts of potential, the B16 due to size to power output ratio, reliability, and parts available, or the 1.8Ts and thier technology? Give me some feedback and tell me what you think.

[WiggiE]

First, I'd rate the B18C5 over the B16A anyday.

Second, I'm not sure of which 4 banger is the best, but I think 2 of them were completely missed. 3SGTE and the SR20DET. Those two powerplants have shown huge potential.


Edit: Don't forget the good ole Scooby STi powerplant. I'm referring to the 2.0L one, as the 2.5L hasn't had time to prove itself yet.

[Frosty_DUB]

First, I'd rate the B18C5 over the B16A anyday.

Second, I'm not sure of which 4 banger is the best, but I think 2 of them were completely missed. 3SGTE and the SR20DET. Those two powerplants have shown huge potential.

My thoughts exactly

There are 800 hp sr20 and 3S's running around japan. The only 800hp 4 banger honda motors are for drag only where they are rebuilt after every few runs.

[AU RSX-S]

As far as NA cars go, I would have to say the F20C, B18C5, and whatever the Celica GT-S engine is.

[WiggiE]

What was that Cameron, no K motor?

Honestly I'd rate the K20A over the F20, due to it's potential vs. lack of potential with the F20.

And the Celica GTS motor, I forget the motor designation, is a good motor for peak numbers, but it's powerband is smaller than Jon's wee-wee.

[Frosty_DUB]

wtf is a celica?

[AU RSX-S]

What was that Cameron, no K motor?

Honestly I'd rate the K20A over the F20, due to it's potential vs. lack of potential with the F20.

And the Celica GTS motor, I forget the motor designation, is a good motor for peak numbers, but it's powerband is smaller than Jon's wee-wee.

Stock for stock I would choose an F series motor over a K series motor any day of the week. Yes, you are right that the K series motor is much more responsive to mods than the F20C is. MUCH MORE! With $2,000 the K20A2 (not K20A :wink: ) will eat an F20C for lunch any day of the week. But stock for stock, I would have to choose the F20C.

As far as the GT-S motor goes, aftermarket is very limited for that engine, but the mods that are available and are used help bring a little more HP out of the engine.

I'm trying to think of other engines besides Honda bud. :wink:

[AU RSX-S]

wtf is a celica?

Shut the fuck up Clint. You are gay!

[WiggiE]

Stock for stock I would choose an F series motor over a K series motor any day of the week.
Cameron I really hope you didn't just say that. There is only two F motors that are worth a shit: S2000 motor and the Accord R motor. The rest are a joke.

[AU RSX-S]

Stock for stock I would choose an F series motor over a K series motor any day of the week.
Cameron I really hope you didn't just say that. There is only two F motors that are worth a shit: S2000 motor and the Accord R motor. The rest are a joke.

You know what I mean Scott. Like I would really choose an Accord LX motor over anything else. :wink: Oh yeah, the previous Accord Type R motor was an H series motor, not an F series. As a matter of fact, I read that in one of your magazines before you moved off. 220HP.

[1.8t]

Pretty much every boosted engine can take a ton of power......so, it is a toss up there. Max reliable power for 1.8t's is about 410whp. A vortex guy made 465whp for 2 years on stock bottom end, but ended up blowing it on a highway run. So, he said 410whp should be good for a while on a stock bottom end 1.8t.

[AU RSX-S]

We want NA Michael. HAHA! Just kidding. :wink:

[WiggiE]

Oh yeah, the previous Accord Type R motor was an H series motor, not an F series. As a matter of fact, I read that in one of your magazines before you moved off. 220HP.
I did too, for some reason, I thought it was an F motor. My mistake, it is an H motor.

[ActiveAero]

Best can be defined alot of different ways. Power, reliability, modding potential are all things that come to mind. You can't really compare NA to FI engines because the design priciples behind each are different.

B18C5- compact, light, extremely powerful for its size, very reliable, and easy to work on. In NA stock form it is a hard engine to beat in terms of power/reliability. While the open deck design is not good for extreme power levels it allows for excellent and unhindered cooling of the cylinders, which means you can beat the crap out of it all day long on the track and never have to worry about overheating. Then you have the fact that it is a B series engine so the aftermarket is endless. However if you want big HP numbers be prepared to spend some cash or look into something else.

The F and K series engines seem to be great as well but haven't been out long enough. Hard to argue with 240 NA hp out of 2.0liters stock.

I wouldn't class the 4G63 as being one of the best when you have engines such as the 3SGTE and SR20. Both the 3S and SR can produce alot of hp on stock internals and neither seemed to be plagued with as many reliability problems as the 4G while still having modding potential out the wazoo.

Then you have the 1.8t which is a beast motor as well capable of supporting alot of hp in stock form. I guess the only downfall is that they aren't as easy to play around with and extract power from due to the ECU. I'm sure Micheal, Greyson, and Matt can all fill us in on this.

[linuxman51]

Hm 4g63 is up there, and I would strongly disagree about its ability to reliably take power, the key there is with the builder.. It costs a fair amount to snag a true sr20det, a lot of people talk about em, I personally have never seen one in a car (jess will change that soon tho ;) ) I have also heard from people in the buisness that in bone stock form they're only good to about 350 before you hafta start messing with the headgasket and nittpicky shit like that. I'll be quite honest, not to offend anyone around here, but Honda engines really don't impress me.. So what if they finally got 100hp per liter, mazda did that back in the early 80's, and their engine could rev way the hell up there too. Also, they have almost no torque when compared with engines of similar output, and lets be frank here.. the reason all the ricebois go so fast isnt becase the engine in the car is badass, its because the car doesnt weigh shit..

I'm not going to sit here and preach volvo power (altho mine did quite well yesterday at 20psi, video forthcoming :D ), in terms of longevity, nonea yalls engines got shit on volvos ;)

The inheirant designs behind NA and FI engines are actually very similar, they diverge when it comes to things like compression ratio and overlap, but I would argue the compression ratio myth ;)

I have seen and heard of more and more powerful street driven 4g63's than anything else (and since the ratio there is somewhat skewed, you hear about the shit that blows up far more than the shit that doesnt)

So my vote is with the mitsu motor.

[ActiveAero]

Hm 4g63 is up there, and I would strongly disagree about its ability to reliably take power, the key there is with the builder.. It costs a fair amount to snag a true sr20det, a lot of people talk about em, I personally have never seen one in a car (jess will change that soon tho ;) ) I have also heard from people in the buisness that in bone stock form they're only good to about 350 before you hafta start messing with the headgasket and nittpicky shit like that. I'll be quite honest, not to offend anyone around here, but Honda engines really don't impress me.. So what if they finally got 100hp per liter, mazda did that back in the early 80's, and their engine could rev way the hell up there too. Also, they have almost no torque when compared with engines of similar output, and lets be frank here.. the reason all the ricebois go so fast isnt becase the engine in the car is badass, its because the car doesnt weigh shit..



1. Yeah the SR20 is rare but we've had the 3SGTE here for over a decade. Some consider it possibly better than the SR20. I won't debate on the 4G63 but crank walk isn't a good thing (yes I know all of them don't have it) to promote reliability.

2. Honda didn't "finally" get 100hp/liter. It's been doing it in MASS production form since the 80's as well. Show me all these NA Mazda 4 cylinders you speak of that break the 100hp/liter mark because i sure as heck don't see any of them running around. The B18C5 was the most powerful NA engine in the world for its size at one time at only (I use that lightly) 108hp/liter, and that wasn't until the mid 90's. Did everyone simply forget about the early 80's Mazda's you speak of?

3. Show me another NA 1.8 liter that creates a significant amount more torque. The B series dosen't put out the torque of engines with similar output? Sounds like a compliment to me because most NA engines with 195hp are a heck of alot bigger if not packing 2 extra cylinders all together. The B18C5 also develops 90% of its maximum torque for over 5,000rpms. I assure you thats a heck of alot longer than almost any other NA 1.8liter.

4. The reason we are fast is because we are light. THAT'S THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT! Our engines are fully aluminum (block and head), which most of you know is a whole lot lighter than iron. We also don't have weight in the form of turbo, intercooler, and all the nessecary extra lines and fittings. Sounds like good engineering to me.


What you have to understand is Honda designed our engines with the total car package in mind. They weren't designing the ITR (or similar Honda) to be a drag racing beast in stock form. They knew the car had to handle and brake well, be very responsive, and still have plenty of power. Now they could have thrown in a beefy iron block turbo engine, which would be great for straight line speed, but not without adverse side effects. You've now just added substaintially more weight to an already front bais car. This will in turn have effects on both handling and braking. They could of course balance it out by adding more to the rear, but now it seems the car is packing on alot of uneeded pounds. All of this is getting the car farther away from its goal. What you've also done is placed an engine with far greater torque in a FWD car not to mention boost lag, if even slight will not be as responsive as an NA engine. So now you have a car that is already fighting corner exit acceleration and have added boost lag accompanied by a surge of traction braking torque. In the end you have a heavier worse handling car with less responsiveness and more traction problems. Exactly what Honda didn't want. Instead they are like "hey why don't we just slap in a super light weight and reliable NA engine, we'll make it produce the same stock hp levels as many turbo engines, that way we'll keep the handling and responsiveness goals without giving up to much in terms of strait line power while having an extremely well balanced package".

Again I'm not saying it is the "best" because I don't think you can define this. I just think Honda designed it EXTREMELY well for its intended purpose. In that regard I believe it is one of the better (not saying it's the best) engine designs out there.

Bring it on Kenny. :P I own jOo and your fish too! :wink:

[linuxman51]

actually you azn goof ball, my comment on how light hondas are is more of a study on their wreckability than their performance, something that should be considered if you want to go fast.
Its been well documented that honders have dem skinny rods, relativly weak liners, and the argubliy better "open deck design". does nothing for me. Making all my power up around 9000 rpms also does nothing for me.. call me old school, but waiting for a turbo to spool and waiting for a honda to get up in the revs are pretty similar. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what makes more tq at 1.8 liters, mazda pimped the big rotary @ 1.2 litres, eat your heart out. (and yes, I understand its not a 4 cyl)

As a comical side note, brock's still angry that his car makes less tq now than mine did NA ;) (146 ft/lbs of ground pounding tq).

And what "mass produced" honda engine has been making 180hp per litre since the 80s? I distinctly remember them touting the s2k for that very reason when it was introduced.

Why must everything be 1.8 litres? I generaly prefer my displacement to be equal or larger than a standard coke bottle ;)

"Our engines are fully aluminum"So you're proud of honda's recycling efforts, eh? ;)

And you didn't address the longevity issue, heeb.

[ActiveAero]

actually you azn goof ball, my comment on how light hondas are is more of a study on their wreckability than their performance, something that should be considered if you want to go fast.
Its been well documented that honders have dem skinny rods, relativly weak liners, and the argubliy better "open deck design". does nothing for me. Making all my power up around 9000 rpms also does nothing for me.. call me (I'm A Moron) school, but waiting for a turbo to spool and waiting for a honda to get up in the revs are pretty similar. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what makes more tq at 1.8 liters, mazda pimped the big rotary @ 1.2 litres, eat your heart out. (and yes, I understand its not a 4 cyl)

As a comical side note, brock's still angry that his car makes less tq now than mine did NA ;) (146 ft/lbs of ground pounding tq).

And what "mass produced" honda engine has been making 180hp per litre since the 80s? I distinctly remember them touting the s2k for that very reason when it was introduced.

Why must everything be 1.8 litres? I generaly prefer my displacement to be equal or larger than a standard coke bottle ;)

"Our engines are fully aluminum"So you're proud of honda's recycling efforts, eh? ;)

And you didn't address the longevity issue, heeb.

1. Our cars do very well in crash tests. When did weight nessecarily mean something is safer? Last time I checked a heavy car traveling at the same speed will have more force. Not exactly what you want when slamming into a concrete wall.

2. A car being in its powerband relates to its gearing. Thankfully mine is geared to stay at high rpms. When I punch the throttle power is right there. I wasn't arguing about which is better, but what is more responsive. Also my car does quite well even out of its rev range. Ask micheal about our test race from dead idle in 3rd gear. Both of us are geared similar. When we punched it guess who took off? Surprisingly the no torque Honda that was only 6,000rpms shy of its power peak did. At that point in time Micheal had no boost at all. It might not have much torque but at least when I punch it I never have to wait.

Not trying to start a turbo vs NA thread. My arguement was for responsiveness. Just want to make that clear.

3. Exactly the rotor is not a 4 cylinder and doesn't belong in this arugement.

4. 180hp/lt!? What are you talking about? The F20 makes 120hp/lt and is the highest output NA engine in production (or was as far as I know). Unless you are talking about a rotary engine which again has no relevance. If you mistakenly meant to type 100hp/liter check the history of the B series VTEC motors. They've been here since the 80's.

5. I never said everything had to be 1.8liters. You brought it up with the word "similar". You stated Honda's make no torque compared to similar output engines. I said show me a NA 1.8 that makes significantly more. Similar means close to the same last time checked.

6. Longevity. They last a long time.

Oh and you are a dumb face so take that! :P :wink:

[1.8t]

1. People who have lag can't shift
2. I think honda went N/A because for track purposes, most N/A power curvers are MUCH more linear than your average F/I power curve. Therefore making the car more controllable and fluid on a track.
3. When you weigh 2500lbs, 140lb/ft of tq goes a long way.
4. Weight isn't as much an issue with todays turbocharged engines as it was in the past.
5. Kenny=heeb :shock: 8)
6. My race with Brock back in the day from a low roll in 3rd gear sucked. My engine in n/a form makes 120hp, and I was n/a untill around 2200rpms. He walked my a$$ untill I got some boost.
7. DBW sucks. There is no need for a computer to tell the TB how far I am pushing the pedal. I would rather have a DBC. Then at least you can modulate the throttle some as apposed to mine where there is no modulation at all(ask Sam, he couldn't launch my car for anything)...oh, this one was just a rant.
8. I am on race gas right now and my car is feeling very strong. I think I am finally getting my full +9 deg. of timing on top of my 93oct chip. Only took a full tank of 100oct(or $65 dollars worth)
9. My waverunner is fun, been out on the lake every day so far playing bumper tubes(we tow 2 tubes at the same time)
And 10. nnnnnnnnnnnnnnndawg

[Frosty_DUB]

blah. fock hondas im getting a mk4 supra. (when i graduate)

[AU RSX-S]

blah. fock hondas im getting a mk4 supra. (when i graduate)

Do you think you know how to drive it?

[TheGuyWithTheMustang]

Just a little domestic tidbit

In 1985 (the last year ford made em) the 2.3L Turbo in the SVO stang made 205 HP and 240 tq in stock form.

Although it's far from stock (but a daily driver though) one guy in an SVO shootout rolled 513 HP on a dyno and ran mid 9's @ 25 psi trapping near 150.

The other cars in the svo shootout were mostly stock with only stuff like cams, bigger intercoolers, exhaust and ported heads running anywhere from low 13's to low 10's. All from a car weighing 2800~3300 lbs.

They're far from the Japanese market but I gotta speak my piece. :D

[Frosty_DUB]

yea i would like to see some fast svo's. Isnt it just a pinto motor with a turbo?



Cameron ( probably not, i would get a boost controller to turn the boost down when i first get it. jk:lol: )

Ive driven joshes mk3 in low boost and i do ok. Thats faster than a stock mk4.

[TheGuyWithTheMustang]

yeah the motor is nearly identical to a pinto. just tweaked a few things to handle the boost :D The article actually mentions a few pintos that run 9 flat! times

[Frosty_DUB]

post some pics hoe!