Originally Posted by
Chip
Danw, your appraisal seems to be of N/A versus turbo (or diesel turbo) rather than vtec versus non vtec. Everything you said applies equally to all non vtec N/A engines as well, just in most cases they dont even have the go when you do rev them either!
Upto 6K there is basically naff all between a vtec and non vtec engine, then from 6K onwards the vtec wins.
Its weird that cause the engine gets massively better at high rpm it makes people not like it at low rpm, where as without that power at high rpm no one seems to mind their cars being gutless low down (ie a normal 2.0 zetec etc)
We all agree that if you want a big surge of midrange torque you need a turbo, or a lot more capacity, there is simply no way to have an N/A engine of small capacity that pulls well at low rpm, the laws of physics totally prevent it.
Exactly my point, because its good high in the RPM's people think they'r bad at low RPM's when infact they'r on par with just about everything else.
Originally Posted by
DanW@FastFord
Since when?
I think you've read the statement (myth?) that Honda have never had a warranty claim on a VTEC system. It doesn't refer to the engine, just the VTEC bit! Honda engines fail like any other manufacturers engines do... well, maybe a little less commonly that some, but they're not immune to failures.
I'd say a lot less common. If you comparing the S2000 engine you need to compare it to something with the same power output per litre. The only other car is the Ferrari 458 (it's only just been matched 10 years on) I dare say there will be more Ferrari's breaking (as a percentage)
Originally Posted by
DanW@FastFord
My appraisal was of the VTEC engines, and the driving characteristics of them in comparison to their competitors. I didn't know the 'rules' of the discussion was that you weren't allowed mention forced induction cars.
I don't like VTEC engines, and I was throwing my four-penneth into a conversation about them, and I stand by my comments.
Ultimately I'd much rather have an N/A where there was a more even spread of power - I've not looked at the dyno graphs but I'd wager that a Clio 182 would make more power at 2K, 3K and 4K than a Civic Type R - or at least it has driving characteristics that I prefer over the Type R.
I think you will find the 182 is down on power EVERYwhere in the RPM range.
Originally Posted by
Ad4m RST
Ok I'm out on the refinement of my pub talk lol...
But still, call it a 3year warranty on standard cars that rev to 9k rpm & never fail where they're most likely to under those conditions. Completely unmatched.
Add the fact that the S2000 has higher piston speeds than an f1 car, and a haybusa it sound even better.
Originally Posted by
RWD_cossie_wil
Been in an S2000, Prelude 2.2 vtec, integra type R & a civic type R... Not really anything to write home about i'm afraid, the S2000 was the biggest dissapointment, really peaky and flat delivery, even thrashing it's cunt off at 9500rpm it felt Sloooooooooooooow
..Seemed to spend it's life in 2nd and 3rd gear, and I thought the gearing was far too tall for it's power, top of 3rd gear is close to 120Mph IIRC?! I know they are great really, but I just don't like the way they drive, and the HUGE over-hype of Vtec, it really just makes a slightly higher noise with no real forward motion
The idea of vtec is to have a flat torque curve, (which is seen ideal/perfect you cannot get better) honda are closer to this than anybody else. This of course makes them make more power at the top of the RPM's, but why wouldn't you want that? If you've tuned your cossie you've tried to achieve this.
Heres a powergraph of a 1.6 turbo Honda we built. (standard engine) The power delivery is still peaky, but torque is somewhat improved.
