[engine_work] Type-r-io

[Sandy 191]

It makes the front end feel more natural and improves traction, especially over bumps.

[findlay 0]

At last, someone else who removes the ARB!!! Ecosse said it was 'dangerous' to remove it and, while its there for a reason, it does allow the inside wheel to keep more firmly planted on the road - hence why the Laser Green we built for the PGAC was so bloody good in the twisties (despite the solid rear beam - ah well,beggars can't be chosers!!!)

[Batfink 201]

Colin called it a typical Sandy job, where Sandy says it will be easy and it turns out to be a bit of a headache. I think he likes the challenge really lol

[Rippthrough 98]

At last, someone else who removes the ARB!!! Ecosse said it was 'dangerous' to remove it and, while its there for a reason, it does allow the inside wheel to keep more firmly planted on the road - hence why the Laser Green we built for the PGAC was so bloody good in the twisties (despite the solid rear beam - ah well,beggars can't be chosers!!!)

 

ARB's are always a compromise between handling and grip, hence why I've gone with 24mm rear for the body control, but just a 17mm front at the minute.

 

Maybe I should Have told sandy before now that I was working on some 205 arms which take 306 ball joints. Whoops

[Sandy 191]

Colin called it a typical Sandy job,

I think i'll have to go easy on him for a while, seriously tested his sense of humour this time I think! I do plan the implementation quite extensively, but lack the skills to carry out the fabrication, fortunately Colin usually understands what i'm trying to achieve and has the skills. Not sure he enjoys it as much as I do.

 

Ripp, i've been trying to invent a way of using the 306 ball joints since I was working on my RWD 309 project (iced currently, but not dead). The thing i've been having is, without rose joints, the fabrication of bottom arms is going to be very time consuming to use bushes, so it comes back to fabricating the mounts to use off the shelf arms, which is easier really, but still time consuming and tricky! I didn't anticipate the chassis leg issue , but i've got a couple ideas of how to avoid it in the future, or make the track narrower for 205's.

[Rippthrough 98]

I think i'll have to go easy on him for a while, seriously tested his sense of humour this time I think! I do plan the implementation quite extensively, but lack the skills to carry out the fabrication, fortunately Colin usually understands what i'm trying to achieve and has the skills. Not sure he enjoys it as much as I do.

 

Ripp, i've been trying to invent a way of using the 306 ball joints since I was working on my RWD 309 project (iced currently, but not dead). The thing i've been having is, without rose joints, the fabrication of bottom arms is going to be very time consuming to use bushes, so it comes back to fabricating the mounts to use off the shelf arms, which is easier really, but still time consuming and tricky! I didn't anticipate the chassis leg issue , but i've got a couple ideas of how to avoid it in the future, or make the track narrower for 205's.

 

 

The bushes aren't a problem for us

[Sandy 191]

Just been and corner weighted it on proper scales and quite suprised how good the weight distribution has turned out. The car is fully trimmed, carpets, sound insulation seats etc all in place and minimal fuel:

 

 

Result!!

[jackherer 543]

nice, where does the battery live now?

[Sandy 191]

Lefthand boot during that, but tempted to put it on the OS engine bay!

[pdd144c 0]

Take it those figures are without you in the car?

[smckeown 1]

so a good deal lighter and better front/rear distribution too. I'd keep ithe battery in it's current place, as when you sit in it you'll get a good O/S N/S balance

[GLPoomobile 958]

so a good deal lighter and better front/rear distribution too. I'd keep ithe battery in it's current place, as when you sit in it you'll get a good O/S N/S balance

 

How does the H22 (it is an H22A isn't it?) compare to the Pug 16v engines weight wise?

 

I know that the Honda guys don't like to put them in Civics and CRXs as they are a lot heavier than the B16/B18 engines and make the car nose heavy.

 

Really like this project (can't wait for the RWD F20 engined project either!). Looks very well done. Hope there will be vids on the way when it is on the road (or track).

 

Always fancied a B18 engined 205. Fancy doing me one?

[Sandy 191]

The weights were without me, so yes, on reflection it might be best to keep the battery NSR, might plumb the rear washer bottle to the front also. The spare wheel was in place too. the Trio seems to be usefully lighter than the GTi, not much difference in sound proofing etc, but no PAS and lighter Radiator etc.

 

The H22 I weighed at 135kg bare, which is between the Alloy and Iron block XU 16v's. It's alloy blocked but alot more substantially cast and has balancer shafts and the typically over-engineered Honda crank! You could ditch the balancer shafts and fit a lighter flywheel and clutch, but I wanted to retain the smoothness of the standard engine, which is remarkable, better than some V6's. The gearbox is pretty hefty, about 40kg. I have moved the front wheels forward slightly and made every effort to keep the engine as far back as possible. The shafts sit higher than with XU/BE, which helps.

 

It amuses me how much of the Honda crowd seem to shun the H22, I think it's the best 4 cylinder Honda of recent history, on balance. But i'm not sure many Honda owner/tuners really think outside the box, they tend to stick with single inlets or forced induction on the whole. I would bet that many of the conversions that have been done weren't thoroughly executed.

Edited January 30, 2007 by sandy309

[Sandy 191]

Colin trailered it back here at an ungodly hour this morning! Really nice to get it back to the lab again, celebrated with a good old wash down. First time i've cleaned the Trio's engine bay and it came up smashing!

 

http://noboost.com/temp/sandy/Trio9.jpg

 

Measuring up space and so on, meant checking for possible trumpet length. There's 160mm of usable space beyond the TBs without moving the brake lines, which with sensible clearance allows me up to 370mm overall tract length if need be. I'll probably start with 360mm and experiment from there; or just drive the damn thing, I doubt i'll care for the time being!

 

http://noboost.com/temp/sandy/Trio8.jpg

 

Thanks to Atters (Neil A) for the spare injection tank, it's in much much better nick than the Goodwood one and doesn't need removal!

[jim205GTI 3]

Mmmm tasty looks so at home in the engine bay aswell.......... can't wait to see this on the move.... will suprise many people aswell

[Sandy 191]

It's so much easier to work around than an XU!

[Rippthrough 98]

It's so much easier to work around than an XU!

 

Looks it, similar size to the TU?

[Sandy 191]

Haha, it sits quite like a TU, it's as long as an XU/BE, the block is wide but the head is quite narrow.

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

Looks like an ace build, was the subframe a base model or a GTi one you modified one to fit the 306 arms?

 

That engine is just going to make such a howl, it might even drown out the cries from the car driver you just left for dead in a 309 Trio.

 

Top work Sandy, can't wait to see the finished car.

 

Graham.

[Sandy 191]

Cheers Graham, i'm pretty excited about finishing it and slightly apprehensive as well!

 

We used a base model subframe because you don't need to cut off the rear pivot brackets before you start. I would strongly advise anyone thinking of doing the 306 wishbone swap, to come up with a less bulky rear mount that won't need the chassis leg modified! I'm perfectly happy with it, it's just more hassle and defeats the "bolt on" element I wanted.

[Guest JasonS]

Sandy, did you happen to look into the B16 and B18 engines when you had the idea of doing this? Would you know what size these engines are compared to the XU & TU?

 

309 looks class by the way!

Edited February 1, 2007 by JasonS

[Sam 4]

Getting there then mate! I'm hoping to have a go when I get back to the UK!

 

Goodbye from sunny Acapulco where its 30c (and very humid), every taxi (pretty much) is a beetle, and the buses sound like big V8's.

[Sandy 191]

Are you going Loco Sam? having a good time then I hope mate!

 

Sandy, did you happen to look into the B16 and B18 engines when you had the idea of doing this? Would you know what size these engines are compared to the XU & TU?

I didn't really look into the B-series, although I do have some knowledge of them. I have a particular fondness for th ATR engine, so I didn't really deviate from the start. If I was to do it again (unlikely!!) I would probably use the K24 from the Accord Type-S, massive potential i'm sure and much cheaper than the CTR K20 to buy. Althout I admire the B-series (who wouldn't?), it doesn't have the smoothness or guts of the H22. The B-series mounts would probably be easier to work in, but the alternator location might cause issues.

[GLPoomobile 958]

K24 would be very impressive, as long as it is not too tall to fit.

 

Don't know how much truth there is in it, but I heard that the K20A is lighter than the old B18A from the DC2 Teg Type R. If true, that would make it lighter still than the H22 you have used. And since (in the Civic at least) it sits further back and at an angle (like the Mi16), it would give even better weight distribution.

 

Kind of a moot point though, given that I don;t know how much heavier a K24 is compared to a K20!!

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

This is a fantastic engine and a fantastic project and I personally think on track it will be an absolute weapon. However, according to the other thread running in this section at the moment, a lot of people will argue it will be useless on track and a lot of tuned 8v's will be comming past with their nice "mid range" torque . Would you have an opposing argument for this sandy??? (I agree with the charachteristics of this engine and why you are using it 100%, I need no convincing yet other on here do).

 

Maxi