Originally Posted by Joseph Davis

I meant RS™, not rod/stroke itself. Still for 99.9% of cases you either boost what you've got or you're a ***** with too much money who's slower than 99.8% of the guys who just boosted what they had.

Here, I'll explain:

Yes, this is the only thing that is significant in a Honduh application. A "shittier" RS is always better for a boosted Honduh, period, end of story, HT Hypewagon bullshit and general faggotry can stay on HT. Pistons accelerate quicker, and this is a good thing. You can pack a really dense intake charge into a given engine size, where you'd be past knock limit, when the piston is decompressing the charge before pressures skyrocket and the charge explodes (detonation).

You can also suck on goat dick and be a complete TOO-loving NA *** and claim RS™ is important, and try to configure the Perfect™ RS™ engine when all the big name guys who make any power are going for the most stroke and bore they can get with no concern for the ****** RS™ niceties. Don't tell Widmer.

Irrelevant in tiny 75mm bore engines where all four pistons weigh as much as one piston in a engine where side loading is an actual concern. The alleged bore wear comes from forged pistons + low silicon aluminum expansion, and you can't get away from that unless you run something else (iron piston pls). But, then you are concerned with (OMG JDM Perfect™ RS™)²!!!222!!2, and not actual real world rod/stroke, you can't be convinced of that.

But not anywhere near as much as ingested airmass does. You know at the 500 whp level that stock B16 cams are still making power at 9500 rpms, power still climbing if the turbo is correctly sized? This can not be done with RS™, sorry. Yunick agrees.


On HT, anyway, when a JDMed out EK hatchcrap means you're right and people who build fast cars are wrong.

Air compresses, "small" ports don't mean so much. The D16 bore (and stroke, but only as much as displacement ever affects anything) is the limitation, not the cylinder head. Why else do a lot of D16 make the same power numbers as LS with the same turbo at the same pressure when the LS head flows "better," which anyone can tell you because of junk flowbench numbers and simple observation that the LS ports and valves are way bigger, duh.

You can be told 1.9 million times that gas flow is a wierd thing. You can observe it with a flowbench, and then see how flowbench numbers can be a general guide, but if you aren't on top of it power numbers and track times get worse despite superior JDM flow bench junk numbers coupled with the ultimate in RS™ Salesmanship And Marketing Technology. All this stuff is completely amazing!!!!1 and totally JDM!!1111!!!12 but what really drives it home is a good long study of CD aka Convergent-Divergent aka DeLaval nozzles. A CD nozzle chokes flow down to an opening that is stupid small ---> flow accelerates to sonic as it passes through this opening ---> but if the exit is a smooth enough transition and correctly expanded/contoured the flow (goes supersonic, temps drop drastically, pressure drops drastically) draws the flow on the other side of the nozzle out more efficiently than any size pipe (port, orifice, blah blah blah) that doesn't choke the flow. This is how Goddard turned insanely powerful 2% efficient liquid fuel rockets into insanely powerful 68% efficient goddamn ----------ers a hundred years ago. But, I digress. Head/bore situation can be described as an incredibly fucked up horribly designed CD nozzle arraingement, with a D16 configuration being the most worthless design ever. Except GM 4.3 V6, of course.

D16 is limited in power by it's BORE first, displacement second, head about fifth or sixth down the list. With forced induction, ALL of the tuning/reliability problems with a D16 are caused by the BORE. As you go from a stock to a built block, and the boost controller is JB Welded into the nig nog position, the BORE is what limits the flow into the cylinder and again compromises power. At no time are we concerned with rod/stroke, except the "shitty" rod/stroke that you want in a big power situation that comes with a stroked out motor, so it goes without mention.

Hoo-whee, coffee rules. I miss bourbon, though.

Originally Posted by AMkrew

Thank you for the insight. Only thing I'm getting lost is, is the difference between RS^tm and R/S. I'll search for the answer tomorrow. Thanks.

Originally Posted by AMkrew

I'll also be sure to look into some of the other points you made. Not to try to "prove" anything, just to clarify, since sometimes the wording/terms can mix me up.

Originally Posted by AMkrew

But another thing... You mentioned that all 4 d16 pistons weigh the same as the pistons from a motor where sideloading really matters... Are you saying that a typical d16 motor cannot benefit from lighter pistons? Or, are you saying they have little affect on sideloading, since the r/s ratio is way out there already? I figured a lighter piston, resulting in lighter reciprocating mass, would free up the power the motor would otherwise use to change the direction of a heavier unit, and the "worse" the ratio, the more it could affect this (non-turbo application). And also, as a result of being lighter, reduce friction and side-loading.

Originally Posted by Secondaries

Also, since MistaBone seems to be inundated with pretty obscure engine specifications, do you know what the deck height is on the D15B VTEC?