Important specifications of d14 engines
-
saxophonias
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:03 am
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
it's also the gearbox which makes huge difference on b's
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
You are right saxophonias, the final drive of the ek9 seems very short...but also the fuel consumption is crazy:)
And the 1.5 vtec-e has the longest final ever, imagine changing the gearbox on that one plus some regular upgrades, i can bet it would be a performance surprise if it can be tuned properly!
And the 1.5 vtec-e has the longest final ever, imagine changing the gearbox on that one plus some regular upgrades, i can bet it would be a performance surprise if it can be tuned properly!
-
saxophonias
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:03 am
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
Stiil my guess is that a 130+d14 ej9 would be equally fast to an civic eg ESi stock.
-
Dodo Bizar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:36 pm
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
Ok I do not own a EK9, but I do own an EJ1 with B16B which is very close to it.
And I have my EJ9 with 145 bhp.
In short... my EJ9 still needs 15.9 s to do the 1.4 mile and the EJ1 does it in 14.3 s. Ok... the B16B in that machine has over 200 bhp, but still, even before all tuning I have done the car did 14.7.
From a standing the start, both cars are pretty close given that the clutch can cope (the stock B16B clutch laughs at my stinky burning stock D14 clutch). But in cold conditions, 1st gear is pretty close. The 60 ft sprint is normally done in 2.2 or 2.3 by the EJ1, and 2.4 to 2.5 by the EJ9. Nothing to be ashamed at.
But then the gear shifts come.... 1st to 2nd the D14 still makes some bhp, but it is the 2nd to 3rd gear after which my EJ9 totally starts loosing it.
Yes it is the gear box that makes a big diff. But fuel consumption? .... I also have a VTEC-e... car, it's an MB3 or such. Anyway , bone stock 115 bhp aerodeck from 2000. I just hate to drive it. It's a decent drive, but even if you try hard, fuel consumption is not that good. Typically I get 15 km per liter if driving granny style. With the EJ1 I floor it all the time (just today I hit 9000 rpm over 5 times or so) and it does 13 km to 1 liter .... 12.5 at worst... in these winter conditions.
Imagine my B16B hooked up to the same tranny as the VTEC-e.... how lean it would be to drive? I believe it is for two simple reasons. First of all the B16B has an compression of 10.8, making it therefore much leaner than the VTEC-e with 9.5 or something in that range. Second.... the B16B is Jekyll and Hide. The non-VTEC cam is low on torque AND fuel efficient. The VTEC cam makes it a monster. With the VTEC-e (and any SOHC VTEC) a compromise has to be reached between the exhaust lobes of the non-vtec and vtec region... it has to idle well and be drivable, meaning that a SOHC VTEC that goes 9000 rpm cannot be made (not in a normal car). So I believe the non-VTEC part of most B-series is actually leaner than in our D-series. This helps them overcome the short gears I guess...
I never understood fully why they did not go for DOHC VTEC on the D-series ... expensive production? Emission? Or just build a lean B-series tranny... maybe the B18C4 is this?
Ok, to be honest, I do not trust my VTEC-e. But I double checked most aspects of it, cam timing, ignition timing, compression, spark plugs, but I can;t get it to run a decent 17 km per liter like it should. My parents are able to it with their VTEC-e... but it's the 90 bhp version. And perhaps my wind resistance is high since the Aerodeck is not lowered and... is an Areodeck.
And I have my EJ9 with 145 bhp.
In short... my EJ9 still needs 15.9 s to do the 1.4 mile and the EJ1 does it in 14.3 s. Ok... the B16B in that machine has over 200 bhp, but still, even before all tuning I have done the car did 14.7.
From a standing the start, both cars are pretty close given that the clutch can cope (the stock B16B clutch laughs at my stinky burning stock D14 clutch). But in cold conditions, 1st gear is pretty close. The 60 ft sprint is normally done in 2.2 or 2.3 by the EJ1, and 2.4 to 2.5 by the EJ9. Nothing to be ashamed at.
But then the gear shifts come.... 1st to 2nd the D14 still makes some bhp, but it is the 2nd to 3rd gear after which my EJ9 totally starts loosing it.
Yes it is the gear box that makes a big diff. But fuel consumption? .... I also have a VTEC-e... car, it's an MB3 or such. Anyway , bone stock 115 bhp aerodeck from 2000. I just hate to drive it. It's a decent drive, but even if you try hard, fuel consumption is not that good. Typically I get 15 km per liter if driving granny style. With the EJ1 I floor it all the time (just today I hit 9000 rpm over 5 times or so) and it does 13 km to 1 liter .... 12.5 at worst... in these winter conditions.
Imagine my B16B hooked up to the same tranny as the VTEC-e.... how lean it would be to drive? I believe it is for two simple reasons. First of all the B16B has an compression of 10.8, making it therefore much leaner than the VTEC-e with 9.5 or something in that range. Second.... the B16B is Jekyll and Hide. The non-VTEC cam is low on torque AND fuel efficient. The VTEC cam makes it a monster. With the VTEC-e (and any SOHC VTEC) a compromise has to be reached between the exhaust lobes of the non-vtec and vtec region... it has to idle well and be drivable, meaning that a SOHC VTEC that goes 9000 rpm cannot be made (not in a normal car). So I believe the non-VTEC part of most B-series is actually leaner than in our D-series. This helps them overcome the short gears I guess...
I never understood fully why they did not go for DOHC VTEC on the D-series ... expensive production? Emission? Or just build a lean B-series tranny... maybe the B18C4 is this?
Ok, to be honest, I do not trust my VTEC-e. But I double checked most aspects of it, cam timing, ignition timing, compression, spark plugs, but I can;t get it to run a decent 17 km per liter like it should. My parents are able to it with their VTEC-e... but it's the 90 bhp version. And perhaps my wind resistance is high since the Aerodeck is not lowered and... is an Areodeck.
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
Aerodeck consumption is fair because it is heavier from EJ1 and maybe worse aerodynamic (although it is Aero-deck 
)
Also the Aerodeck has long gear ratios that is maybe disadvantage in city driving (to reach a certain speed aerodeck has burn more fuel than EJ1).
I think dohc vtec d-series will be just a B-series engine, if you understand what I mean .
130ps were producing some sohc vtec D15B engines, so imagine dual vtec d15 or even DOHC VTEC D14
)Also the Aerodeck has long gear ratios that is maybe disadvantage in city driving (to reach a certain speed aerodeck has burn more fuel than EJ1).
Interesting questionDodo Bizar wrote: I never understood fully why they did not go for DOHC VTEC on the D-series ... expensive production? Emission? Or just build a lean B-series tranny... maybe the B18C4 is this?
I think dohc vtec d-series will be just a B-series engine, if you understand what I mean
.130ps were producing some sohc vtec D15B engines, so imagine dual vtec d15 or even DOHC VTEC D14
-
Dodo Bizar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:36 pm
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
My mileage is rural for the EJ1... mostly highway for the Aerodeck. Even there it is rubbish. When the Aerodeck drives more rural, it is hard to get 14 km out a liter. Bottomline, I love my EJ9!!! My EJ9 easily does 15 km on a liter and the one of my wife almost hits 17 km on a liter on the highway.
As for weight, the EJ1 is 1080 kg on the scales, the Aerodeck just over 1100 kg on paper (but maybe more when really weighing it on scales).
As for weight, the EJ1 is 1080 kg on the scales, the Aerodeck just over 1100 kg on paper (but maybe more when really weighing it on scales).
-
saxophonias
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:03 am
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
Joris, if you had a short gearbox in the ej9 how much faster it would be?
-
mynameisowen
- Posts: 1307
- Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:38 am
- Location: London or Oxford, England
- Contact:
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
For comparison I consistently get 50mpg fro my EJ9. Rural roads.
1996 EJ9 Civic
1998 BB8 Prelude Motegi VTi
1998, B16A2 EK4 Civic VTi
Aims:
EJ9 - Now my GF's car.
BB8 - Rebuild after crash damage to front end.
EK4 - Daily driver. Strip and track prep once prelude project complete
1998 BB8 Prelude Motegi VTi
1998, B16A2 EK4 Civic VTi
Aims:
EJ9 - Now my GF's car.
BB8 - Rebuild after crash damage to front end.
EK4 - Daily driver. Strip and track prep once prelude project complete
-
Dodo Bizar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:36 pm
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
Hey Polivias, lets answer your question alomst a year after you asked it 
.
For clarity, I think I would like a 'closer' gearbox, not so much a shorter one. The drop in rpms should be less. But i numbers... I would not be surprised, comparing my EJ1 with B16B times versus the EJ9 D14 1/4 mile times that I could win a half second. Lets say when I mount the B16B gearbox to my D14, which is not a real option.
Darn, I used to have a small simulation for my quartermile times, but I seem to have lost it... maybe I get back to this.
.For clarity, I think I would like a 'closer' gearbox, not so much a shorter one. The drop in rpms should be less. But i numbers... I would not be surprised, comparing my EJ1 with B16B times versus the EJ9 D14 1/4 mile times that I could win a half second. Lets say when I mount the B16B gearbox to my D14, which is not a real option.
Darn, I used to have a small simulation for my quartermile times, but I seem to have lost it... maybe I get back to this.
-
Dodo Bizar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:36 pm
Re: Important specifications of d14 engines
Yeah found it... bit surprised actually. When I simulate my EJ9 which needs about 16.0 second to run over the 1/4 mile, and I give it the B16B stock gear ratios I hardly win 0.2 seconds, not 0.5... I am a bit surprised and wondering if I did it right. The full simulations actually showed the big gain was in the beginning... ah wait - got it - the first gear gets too short and I limit traction in the sim so 60 ft is around 2.3/2.4 s which it is in my case. The B16B actually did this once in 2.1... but that was with extreme grip.
Bottomline, getting the shorter tranny from B16B in my simulation gives an advantage in 2nd and 3rd gear, so around 60 to 130 km/h. In the simulation my EJ9 would definitely need to shift to 4th gear when I would have B16B ratios. But after shifting to 4th gear the D14 stock tranny would be quicker in 3rd gear for a while
and finish line speed would be equal again... until the point the D14 has to shift into 4th...
Taking a quick look at the results and realising the first gear became too short... I made it 3.5 and 3.7 instead of the normal 3.23/3.25 ones. Then (assuming a lot of grip with R888 and a clutch that can cope) another few tenths of a second came down. So eventually you might get a 0.4 s better 1/4 mile time when you had full freedom to construct your gearratios....
Bottomline, getting the shorter tranny from B16B in my simulation gives an advantage in 2nd and 3rd gear, so around 60 to 130 km/h. In the simulation my EJ9 would definitely need to shift to 4th gear when I would have B16B ratios. But after shifting to 4th gear the D14 stock tranny would be quicker in 3rd gear for a while
and finish line speed would be equal again... until the point the D14 has to shift into 4th...Taking a quick look at the results and realising the first gear became too short... I made it 3.5 and 3.7 instead of the normal 3.23/3.25 ones. Then (assuming a lot of grip with R888 and a clutch that can cope) another few tenths of a second came down. So eventually you might get a 0.4 s better 1/4 mile time when you had full freedom to construct your gearratios....