[kblake]

Originally Posted by Nacho

Good story. Big cams still don't fit without mdification to the casting.

Correct. That's not a big deal compared to porting the head.

Originally Posted by Nacho

Yes. Toyota went backwards in their design, and has based their most successful race 3S cars in JGTC and WRC on a poorer head design. It makes perfect sense. Why put R&D into making it better when we can make it worse?

I wouldn't be using what Toyota has done as an example. If you do that, we'll all be driving front wheel drive sedans and econoboxes. The cars you are referring to had to be based on a factory powerplant. They weren't doing the same kinds of mods that people are doing to the engines. If they were after the kind of power some people are looking for these days, they simply broke out the 503e.

Originally Posted by Nacho

More isn't always better. With honda cars, the B18C1 head flows MORE, but the B16/B18C5 head flows better. The latter makes more power. IBhonduhsDontMatter

I'm aware of that. Velocity is important as well, and is one of the things Chris designs for when porting. You ARE aware that he builds race motors for a team down in Australia/NZ?

You're right, unless you want to have a competition for who can transport the most groceries, honDUHS DON'T matter, for the purpose of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Nacho

Shim under bucket won't puke the shims out, so there's much less reason to convert. You still can, if you want to toss money away.

I'm well aware of that. Shim under bucket was what people USED to do to their gen 2 heads, before the shimless bucket conversion was available. You would know this, but you either didn't have your driver's license yet back then, or you were still playing around with honDUHS. Do you have an MR2 YET , or are you still posting based on other people's cars?

The shimless buckets are about $12 each, and you will have to reshim anyway if you change the cams, so the cost difference is minimal. Added to that, the shimless buckets are significantly lighter than shim+bucket, and reducing valvetrain weight is a good thing, especially if you plan to spin the engine higher than stock.

Originally Posted by Nacho

Likewise, why not spend the extra up front and not have to spend MORE replacing inferior parts? riddleMR2 made 312 on his t3/t4 MR2 on the stock gen 3 ECU and an FPR. He made 316 on the Blitz ECU after it was tuned. Seems like the stock ECU is pretty capable. And without the huge restriction of the MAF, there's even less reason to swap it out.

Anybody can make big power once or twice. It doesn't prove a thing. Making it reliably, day in and day out is another thing entirely. One advantage of the AFM is that it adjusts automatically for changes in Ve, as long as you stay within it's range of measurement. Speed/Density is much more sensitive to changes in Ve, and should be retuned with any major changes. Oh wait, there's no way to retune the stock Gen 3 ecu... never mind.

Originally Posted by Nacho

Unlike the gen 2 part, the gen 3 intake manifold isn't a huge restriction, nor does it cause failure with the cyliners going lean.

True.

Originally Posted by Nacho

I agree that if you want to get crazy nasty with the car and make it a 2.3L beast or something of the like, might as well start with the gen II for less cost. However, if you're not planning on basically reworking the entire thing, the gen 3 is a better choice. Hell, the closer ratio transmission w/LSD alone is usually the price difference.

That's me, and a lot of the people I was referring to in my original post.

The gen 3 tranny is no different than a 93+ gen 2 transmission with LSD. The tranny my car CAME with.