You can put an EK cam into an EL head. I put a .420 lift 296 duration EK cam into an EL head with no problem. It had a pretty rough idle though.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (24.86.60.160) on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 08:28 am:

www.coltcams.com is where i got mine, 272 degree duration, 260 is stock and he's got a 293 (i think) for this engine as well. from what i have read here i believe the EL and EK are interchangable except for the cvcc lobes (so an EK cam can go into an EL head) so the grinds would be the same for your EK cam. he has grinds for most all old honda's

By malcon pierce (Project79) (68.63.18.219) on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 12:55 am:

what kind of cam do you guys racomend? do they even make an aftermarket cam gear for an e series moter. or will another work?

By Kurt (205.250.75.226) on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 07:57 pm:

Malcon go here:

http://www.civic1200.com/discus/messages/1/6808.html?1097021288

12.68 @ 113 mp/h

its a 1200 motor and something to strive for.

By farenheight101 (24.69.255.203) on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 07:53 pm:

Just work with the power to wieght ratio. if a mustang (ewww) with 300hp wieghs 3000lbs and a civic wieghs about 1500lbs than you'll need 150hp to match it. I may be wrong with the calculations but its like that. Theres a formula for it somewhere.

Anyways, you can probably get 150hp from a 1200 with a big turbo and EVERYTHING upgraded and metal treated, etc.

Just get a city turbo shipped...in the end it'll probably cost you like $1500-$2000 but it'll be cheaper than building a crazy turbo motor from the bottom up.

By malcon pierce (Project79) (68.63.18.219) on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 11:30 am:

yeah, maybe i didnt mean to say high compresion pisions, because i know i have to build it mild to turbo it and what not. i just need to get strong parts. well i deffinetly want to go force induction. i would love to get a city turbo but it would cost way to much to get one imported over here. but if anybody knows of one around let me know. is it possible to get the 1200 up there with the mustang? and im really not doing this just to prove a point, nobody has a first gen civic around here and it would be really cool to have and it be fast!

By Kurt (205.250.75.226) on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 10:52 pm:

sounds like a kid doing a whole lot of high school dreaming

I would expect you would beat a Mustang GT with that set up but....Not to burst your bubble but I think you need to step back for a moment and do some math. Your talking about a lot of $$$ here.

If you really want to prove something to your friend direct him to the pages here with time slips in the 12 second range. I believe any of Justin's cars with the engine swaps will do it to. Won't cost ya anything to prove that point. Just my 2 cents.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 10:49 pm:

turbo needs LOW compression, and according to honda's logic cvcc is good for turbo with the right setup (ie. City Turbo = 1200cc CVCC) the reason being that it prevents predetonation. and nitrous with a turbo, i have never seen or heard of this combo and i realy don't think it will be good idea. the EK will just go pop like Adrian said. properly tuned, either turbo OR nitrous will give a mustang a run for it's money, and maybe beat it but together, assuming you could get it to work, you're just asking for a blown everything and a lot of money down the drain

By Adrian (Evocivic) (203.42.97.141) on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 10:21 pm:

Sounds like a good way to waste a lot of money and blow up an engine.
High compression, turbo and nitrous ... POP!!

By malcon pierce (Project79) (68.63.18.219) on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 10:09 pm:

if i get the ek and put an el head and get the head port and polished. high compression pistons, five speed, turbo, and a 50 shot of nitrous, would i be able to beat a stock mustang gt?
because thats what im doing to the car, and my friend still doesnt think it will be worth anything. he just doesnt understand. ( hes the one with the mustang)

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:17 pm:

engine? nothing... ha ha ha ha.... i rebuilt a friends computer in trade for the car. so i didnt mind blowing it up. bolted all this stuff on as a learn to turbo project. the engine had 260,000km on it... didnt burn oil, still doesnt. but i havnt pushed it past 4psi yet. fun as hell though. i have a g-tek thingie and my 2100lb accord with a stock motor ran 0-100km/h in 8 seconds. this at 4psi boost with no engine mods. this motor will go into the much lighter civic.

i now have a back up engine that i will be rebuilding, while i blow up the present one.... haha ha ha ha ha. i want a 1.8L block for the new puppy. no rush to find it yet. wont be cranking up the boost anything past 7psi till i have the back up motor ready. then thar she blows!!!! see what a 265,000 stock motor can take. ha ha ha

anyone know about pedal assemblys in the 2nd gen civic? i have one out of a 82 accord. will it bolt right in or do i have to find one from a civic?

nite

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.102) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:33 pm:

well i looked around and the power is about the same, so its basicly about what i want to do. a pull throught would be easyer and cheaper.. but i like the blow throught because of the sound and i think if i could make the air a little more dense it may perform better...i dont know

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.102) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 09:49 pm:

awesome man. what else have you done to your engine?

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 06:30 pm:

pull through vs blow... lots of info on the net. just search for it and make up yer own pros and cons. i like the carb as close to the manifold as possible.

turbo, get a used one, rebuild it yourself. easy stuff. anything will pretty much do, mine is a t3 garret running on a 1.6L. works excelent.

By malcon pierce (Project79) (68.63.54.210) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 06:25 pm:

then why not just go pull through.im caught up between the two... whats the draw backs of both?

By malcon pierce (Project79) (68.63.54.210) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

you talked me into it. haha im going to have to build the intake mani aswell. any advice? and what size tuurbo do you think i should use? i was thinking about going to a wreck yard and getting a turbo out of an eclipse, and get the intercooler and what not. or should i buy a new turbo?

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 01:17 pm:

encasing the entire carb does 3 things. it pressurizes your float bowl vent as well. very important... so gas doesn squirt out under boost.

secondly you have far less chance of blowing out carb gaskets from the unequal pressure inside to outside.

lastly, no need for special seals on the throttle shafts etc.

build a box, you'll be happy ;)

By malcon pierce (Project79) (216.78.114.43) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:49 am:

i guess ill just go carborated haha. so to run pull through you need a turbo without an internal waste gate, or with? i would think if its internal maybe it would work because of the gas? and for a blow through stystm why couldnt you just run a turbo had ontop of the carb. and hook the vacume line to the intake or somthing else...i just done know if i want to incase the entire turbo. seems like it makes alot harder to adjust and what not. i dont know

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (24.86.60.160) on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 12:32 pm:

well the jdm injection would be ideal but i could imagine someone working up some sort of MPFI injection system with parts form a newer engine like a D16A1 or even off an old 1.6l VW Rabit. the nice thing about the rabit engine is that it is largly mechanical

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 11:20 am:

i've been teased my these guys.... this will be my path when i decide its time to inject.

http://www.megasquirt.info

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (24.86.60.160) on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:40 am:

go to japan and get a City Turbo 5 point injection system and a manifold like this
http://www.redpepperracing.com/gallery/Various-drawings-from-honda-dot-com/aan

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.130) on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 09:31 am:

how could i fuel inject it? is ther an engine with a efi that will work with the ek, or did they make the ek with efi...and how hard is that to hook up. because of the wiring and stuff

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:26 pm:

4psi, hey i was just scared.... my system is capable of 12psi boost, i just havnt been willing to crank it up yet.

4psi for now, 7 psi next, then.... the moon! ha ha ha

the mud bogger ran 10psi of boost with a blow through system... sure ripped till we blew a head gasket.... time for better gaskets, then to the mud again!

By Bryan (66.245.71.40) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:36 pm:

oh.......4psi is too low.....

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (24.86.60.160) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:29 pm:

it's shnitzel's setup in the url

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.45.205) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 11:33 am:

so andrew, how much boost are you running? and your set up looks pretty simple. did you have any problems setting al that up?

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 07:37 am:

i used an aeromotive boost dependent fuel pressure regulator and a 15psi pump off a throttle body injected ford v-8

i have yet to put in plastic floats, still running brass. but it hasnt collapsed at 4psi boost yet. yet......... ha ha ha

By Bryan (66.32.253.227) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 06:14 am:

If you run a blow through system you will also need to run a boost reference line to the top of the diaphram on the fuel pump to increase the pump pressure as boost rises. Blow through designs work the best out of the 2 if you are limited to a carb. The carb cannot have a brass float in it however because the boost pressure will collapse it.

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 09:37 pm:

blow through system is great. reason for, the carburator doesnt know any different. makes adjustements between atmospheric (or whats in the box) and venturie pressure. plus, no fear of blowing out carb seals in box. no worries about float bowl vents etc in box.

dont be afraid. pressurized is the key!

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 09:11 pm:

i would imagine a blow through system would be more responsive as the jets are physically closer to the combustion chamber. with a pull through system the carb functions the same as it would in a N/A engine, there is just a lot more air going through it.

By malcon pierce (Project79) (216.78.114.108) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 08:52 pm:

well i knew about the set up, and i talked to a few people and they say blow through is better. but i was refering to pressure.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 04:47 pm:

a pull through system puts the carb in front of the turbo compressor so that the air/fuel mixture goes through the turbo. not exactly sure which is better as far as performance goes but a pull through system is harder on the turbo

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.45.153) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 04:01 pm:

then how does the pull through system work? well i guess it creates a vacume...

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 02:10 pm:

you encase the carb because a carburetor won't work properly when air is forced through it. it requires vacuum force from the engine to suck the gas in. if the pressure inside the carb is higher then outside there is no vacuum. that is a really basic description of a carb ut you get the idea

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.177) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 01:42 pm:

oh ok haha ive sen it. so why encase the entire carberator? are youhappy with the set up. because it looks fairly simple and to me thats better.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:37 pm:

:: cough ::
http://nuac.ca/accord/

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.38) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:04 pm:

any pictures? i am going to probably end up fabricating my parts too. its cheaper than having sombody to it and i can make sure i get it all done right.

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 09:26 am:

no cracks yet... i spent a lot of time on that manifold. so far so good. i braced the turbo back to the block as well. i think it will hold up.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:18 pm:

hey shnitzel, did you have any cracking issues when welding to the cast exhaust manifold?

By Christoph (209.89.90.251) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:04 pm:

Thanks Andrew/shnitzel,
that's what I was looking for.

By malcon pierce (Project79) (216.78.114.71) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 04:25 pm:

i too like blow through. it seems to be more eficiant. plus i love the sound you get from the waste gate and blow off. that may be a shallow thing to say. but its cool.

By shnitzel (24.66.80.104) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 02:50 pm:

i'm realy happy with the blow through system. puts the carb where its supposed to be instead of infront of 5 feet of hose. very responsive. runs like it did stock but with the perks ;)

pulled the civic motor today, turbo accord engine going in soon!!! whoopeee!

we pressurized a 4bl carb on a 350 V8 with 2 turbos, works just as good. its on the bogger, boy does it throw mud!

only draw back of the pressurized carb is you need the $$$ boost dependent fuel regulator. other than that the instal is smoooooth.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:51 pm:

maybe this is what you are thinking of. this is shnitzel's site with pictures if his EL1 turbo setup:
http://nuac.ca/accord/

By Christoph (209.89.90.251) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:20 pm:

Nice work Don. Does any one know what thread has the pictures of the dude's "boxed carb" blow through turbo set up on a non EB engine. I've been using the keyword search but haven't had any luck. Any help appreciated.

By Don (199.2.139.238) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 07:43 am:

http://autoracer.net/my66.html
Finished my 66-Stang... It was a money pit The 1200 is just as expensive though. I dont miss it at all always new stuff to build.

By Kurt (205.250.75.226) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 07:43 pm:

Jackson Racing sold a turbo kit for the EK in the late 70's early 80's. It also used an EL head and was dynoed at 126 HP.

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.45.189) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:02 am:

i finished mine, but then i sold it . i regret that. but yeah anyway...so im going to get an ek1 with tranny, find an el head. get a good head job . then run a pull through turbo system. i hope it turns out fast. ill probably need a larger fuel pump and ill end up getting an msd ignition from a friend of mine. but yeah what do you think "if done right" the power for this set would be?

By DaRk (66.50.181.37) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 04:56 am:

Yea... I had a 65 Mustang and it too was a money pit...Never got to finish it oh How I miss it...

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.223) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 09:08 pm:

yeah that will always happen, i used to have a 66 mustang and it was a money pit man.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.67.22) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 07:11 pm:

expect things to take longer and cost more than you anticipated

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.201) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 04:04 pm:

yeah i bet you cant wait to get that done. i got payed today so tomorrow im going to start looking for an EK out of an 82 prelude, ill probably get the tranny too. then ill star the rebuild. i cant wait!
any advice on what to do first? anybody had problems with this swap that you could warn me about would be very helpful thanks alot

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (24.86.60.160) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 10:39 am:

82 was the last year for the EK/EL in the prelude. honda revamped the prelude a year before the civic and accord. as far as i know the prelude EK/EL has the same power rating as the accord. and i think kurt is right, the EL has a shorter stroke but the power is probably compareable to the EK with the non-cvcc head.

i can wait to get my stuff back from the machine shop, they're a couple days late tho i've got an EL head going onto an EK block

By Kurt (205.250.75.226) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 10:59 pm:

The EK may have some more HP but it is only 151 cc larger. It may be that the Canadian EL has more HP than the US EK though as it is not constrricted by the CVCC head. What you want is the EK with the EL head. There are tons of threads covering this though...

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.44.91) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 10:18 pm:

what year prelude has the ek moter? and doesnt the prelude ek have more power than the accord? seems like i read that somwhere. how much base hp does the ek and the el have?

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (24.86.60.160) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 12:33 pm:

83 prelude does not have the EK/EL motor in it. it's a completly different engine/tranny set up

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.45.157) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 09:04 am:

and the gk, thats the tranny that would come with the ek, if i were to get a moter out of an 83 prelude, would i be able to find the gk with the moter on there?

By Kurt (205.250.75.226) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 09:52 pm:

(In Canada) For the swap you want the cable tranny as opposed to the hydraulic one. The 82-83 GK trannys used a cable clutch while the 81 and down used hydraulic.

- Kurt

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:43 pm:

in north america the EL engine ended in 83 (82 with the prelude). my 82 EL Accord came with a GK cable trans, anyone know what the difference is?

By lazy (139.130.237.102) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:23 pm:

An EL engine with cable GL transmission.

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (24.86.60.160) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:31 am:

yes pre 84 would be a bretter description. here in canada it's my understanding (and experience) that all hondas from 83 and earlier have the same basic drivetrain mounting set up except the 83 prelude. not sure about the Rover. honda did different things in other places like the City Turbo which used the first and second gen mounting set up until 88, the Rover may be another case of that. what motor came in the 84 Rover Quintet?

By lazy (139.130.237.102) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:39 pm:

'85 was something I thought I remembered from a previous post.

I'm sure you're correct. Do you mean pre 83 (i.e. 1982 and earlier) or pre 84?

Preludes/Accords may be a different story. The gearbox I currently have is out of a 1984 Rover Quintet (a.k.a Honda Accord)...

By -Andrew Smit- (Cvcc_Wagon) (154.20.95.104) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 09:31 pm:

pre 85? are you sure you don't mean pre 83? third gen civics (84-87) have a completely different drivetrain

By lazy (139.130.237.102) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 09:12 pm:

I don't really think you have a choice.

All Honda gearboxes from pre 1985 E-series engines should 'bolt up' (whether the clutch will fit/work is a different story). With the exception of some of the earliest Accords, all EL/EK boxes have a main shaft that is thicker than those used in the civic boxes. My logic dictates that this would make for a stronger transmission.

Strength-wise I don't think there would be any real difference between the EL/EK transmissions - I'd just pick which ever has the better ratios for a turbocharged engine.

If you wanted to dump a bit of cash into it you could look into the possiblity of using a tranny off a D series engine (i think i have that correct) with a custom bellhousing. Surely mugen would have made a gearbox for those engines ........

By malcon pierce (Project79) (216.78.114.113) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 07:58 pm:

if i find an ek with tranny should i get it, or shoud i find a better transmission. i guess what im asking is, is the transmission on an ek prelude strong enough?

By malcon pierce (Project79) (209.214.45.139) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:48 am:

yeah, its easyer for my to set up a turbo though, but supercharging would be cool also. i like contant power of the supercharger but its easyer to add or take away hp wih a turbo, w/ boost and all. im going to order my engine this weekend

By Tim (210.50.87.145) on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 09:19 pm:

That's what my father wants to do except he doesnt like turbo, going for supercharging instead. Would be difficult to get it out to 1.9 or 2.0, but if you could and turbo that you would have a monster car

By malcon pierce (Project79) (68.63.54.210) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 08:19 pm:

on the EK is the EK head a good choice, could i get a head job and a vaulve job and be fine running a turbo and or nitrouse? or should i get another head. i herd somthing about how the head doesnt have much room for a bigger bore? thanks
and if i got the T3 how much boost should i be looking to run?
i plan on getting an EK out of a prelude and i would like to get it to maybe a 1.9, or even 2.0..if possable.. i would have to replace internals to handle boost .. would i need to build the engine with mild parts? i would like to have a full power band. i dont want to have to wait untill 4 grand untill i start to feel power.
and what kind of hp would i be looking at?