That's the problem with the big eco's. No cams. There's no shortage of options for the 1.8, it's a hyd.. bucket large base circle design, and there are performance parts available from Europe.
I wasn't recommending it as an option, only disputing the turd label.
Edit now that I've caught up:
Let me see what duraMZR abomination recipe I can cook up.
Did not know that about the cams for the 1.8 Ecotec. Its main claim to fame in the US was being the base model Cruze engine for a few years before Chevy dropped it because nobody bought one.
What bellhousing pattern does it have?
Cams ARE available for what I will call the first generation Ecotecs. They were good drag engines and GMPP had a recipe book for up to 1200hp in turbo form, a 300hp naturally aspirated engine, and how to adapt them to the standard 60deg V6 bellhousing pattern. And how to make a 4T65 manual shift and plug Porsche 930 CVs on it.
It is annoying how they stick a brand name on an engine. Everything in a car is an Ecotec, everything in a truck is a Vortec. Ford does the same thing, everything is either a Duratec or an Ecoboost no matter the engine family.
SR16VE makes 173 hp stock and rwd transmissions are readily available. They made a SR18 so I imagine the crank from that engine would swap in. There are quite a few people making decent power from the sr20ve.
Might be worth looking into...
I thought the SR16VE made way more than that. Like two more horsepower than the B16 in the original Civic Type R, no?
edit: I am thinking of the N1, which apparently goes for only $4kish. I say "only" because building an engine is not very cheap...
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
The 1.8 was also in the Saturn Astra, and most years of the Sonic. I don't know what they call the pattern but I think you can use an Isuzu bell housing to convert to RWD. The cam profiles are very similar to the Quad4, 2.4TC, and many others, so there are a lot of options. I was kind of hoping to find a $500 base Sonic hatch to use as a commuter, and have a set of Q4 HO profiles on hand to use. The final drive, and individual gear ratios are many, so there are some interesting mix and match options as well. Unfortunately those cars have retained their value far better than I expected.
Yes, the non VVT ecos are the only ones you can get decent cams for. There are some welded up reground cams, and some billets available for the later VVT ones, but I know the guy who grinds them and I'd be wary. It's a difficult application to get right. And stuff breaks if you don't.
I think the question is budget and hp goals.
If stockish power levels (140-180 maybe) and low budget is the goal, use pretty much anything common.
If hotter power is the goal but not crazy (maybe under 220) and budget is a little bigger, find a relatively robust engine that has some aftermarket adoption, so hop up parts don't get crazy. Stuff like ecotec, Toyota zz,Mazda bp, Honda b come to mind. Things like headers, tuning, and maybe intake and cams are actually available.
If crazy power is what your after and budget it less of a concern. You just want a theoretically well designed engine regardless of stock tune. Strong block, head and general design is important because things like cam specs and timing, port design, and intake design is all fixable but can get expensive, but it's pretty hard to stabilize a poorly designed bottom end or make a block stronger
I'm only calling the 1.8 ecotec a turd (from the factory) relative to the more performance oriented options being discussed in this thread. A 140hp 1.8L is pretty 'standard' output so I guess "vanilla" would be a more accurate description. If the parts are there to turn it into something spicier... awesome. At first glance it seems to slot right in with the Toyota 1.8, the Honda R18, and the Nissan 1.8Ls. They all seem to suffer from a lack of aftermarket.
Out of curiosity, how complicated is it to spin a B series Honda backward? Different oil pump, water pump, and starter? Easier than de-stroking a K series?
If it didn't spin the wrong way it seems like it (+ RWD trans adapter) would truly be the easy button here. B18s are very well understood and it seems that making 200whp out of them is a matter of ordering the right things from a catalog.
I seem to remember hearing that the issue with a longitudinal RWD Toyota ZZ is the motor mount up high on the front (timing) end and the lack of mounts on the sides.
I mixed and matched transverse FWD A-series flywheel, pressure plate and disc with longitudinal RWD A-series T-50 transmission, starter, pilot bearing, and throw out bearing, and it all bolted together.
Toyota put transverse A-series with a C-series transmission in FWD Corollas, and then put transverse ZZ-series in the same chassis with C-series transmissions. I sold my spare 2ZZ C60 transmission to a guy who put it in a 4A-G powered transverse FWD Corolla. Sooo...it seems likely getting a ZZ mated up to a 4A-G RWD transmission shouldn't be hard. The aftermarket makes parts to put a RWD W58 or six-speed from the twins where a T-50 once was if you need beefier.
Not sure how the motor mounts would work, but where there's a will and a welder, there's a way. 
Another thought I had, What does you ORG do with Rotaries? A Renesis or 13B can make 230-250 with relatively high reliability. They love just singing along at 7000+RPM so seem suited to the constantly sideways ways of rally. RX7 transmissions are plentiful and seem reliable. Not the lightest things but pretty compact and low CG.
Though figuring out the Mazda 1.8 V6 SOUNDS like the most interesting option.
nocones said:Another thought I had, What does you ORG do with Rotaries? A Renesis or 13B can make 230-250 with relatively high reliability. They love just singing along at 7000+RPM so seem suited to the constantly sideways ways of rally. RX7 transmissions are plentiful and seem reliable. Not the lightest things but pretty compact and low CG.
Hahahaha.... No. I demolished many transmissions over a career of rallycrossing, not even doing stage rally. Usually 2nd gear, sometimes 3rd, one time destroyed the input/countershaft gear.
Plus the ratios kinda suck, the cheap fix is to modify NA/NB internals to fit, but you still have the problem of thrust load pushing against two or three very undersized bearing retainer bolts, that usually back out so the thrust resolves by 1st gear grinding directly against the midplate.
Rotaries usually have a 1.7 or 1.8 displacement modifier, anyways.
I googled reverse rotation Honda B series and it linked me back to GRM:
I'm guessing the G-force reverse rotation gearbox is around the $10k mark, so I'd think it would be cheaper to figure out how to adapt a clockwise starter, re-design the timing belt tensioner, and figure out the water and oil pump.
In reply to Run_Away :
And get reverse rotation cams, too. The lobes are asymmetrical and the VTEC lobe is not centered with respect to the low speed lobes, so the cams are not ideal for just resetting the lobe separation to run backwards.
I forget if anyone ever made reverse rotation oil pumps or if people just went to dry sumps.
I think you need to look at the problem from a different angle. whats the smallest/lightest RWD car you can find. Especially if you are going for an open build 2000lb rally car seems like early 70s celica or starlet, maybe a BMW 2002.
In reply to fidelity101 :
Lightest current competing car is (I think) a Datsun 1200. Mazda GLC also comes to mind as an option.
Or, if the Subaru discount is still a thing, an early GL could be a sort of reasonable rwd chassis after you cut everything out.
You'll need to log in to post.
