Originally Posted by
Toy Civic
I know I am just asking for opinions, and I respect those opinions.
But I will continue to stand by my assertion that scenario #2 SHOULD also be accepted as an LS/VTEC definition. Yes I understand that on the surface, that the two setups cannot be named the same thing.
I maintain that the defining factor of LS/VTEC SHOULD be the 89mm crankshaft and nothing else. Like I said the only other differences are the engine code stamp and the extra oil lines. I say scrap the engine code for the LS/VTEC definition.
Like I said, why bother with the extra work of mating a VTEC head to a non-VTEC block when you can find good condition bare B18C blocks for less than $500? You have to spend hundreds anyway to get the extra quality hardware for the non-VTEC block. This is functionally better than a B18A/B block.
From a practical approach, your setup is brilliant.
I agree with you that from an engineering standpoint, retrofitting the LS crank into a B18C1 motor is a better solution.
But the process by which you've built your motor is entirely different from the process that most people define as an LS-VTEC motor.
When it comes to issues of semantics, it comes down to majority rule. :hs:
The pattern of building an LS-VTEC setup has followed the "wrong" route for so long, that method has become the standard definition. :dunno:
But instead of trying to convince the masses that your method
should be the new definition... just enjoy the fact that you've beat the CA smog bastards at their own game. :goodjob: