Honda Accord Type R
16-05-2010, 05:50 PM
#41
I can't see why it wouldn't. 0-60 and 0-100 times are almost identical for the two of them.
I dont know why people are under the impression they are "very slow cars".
Look at the ford family salloon equivilent, the mondeo ST range. The accord typeR will hit 60 over a second fast than any std mondeo ST model and get to 100 nearly 2 seconds faster than an ST220.
That said, I'm still not convinced by them for the fact that to have fun in it you have to really kick the shit out of the engine and I hate that. Driving a friends civic Type R and having to just keep it in the red to get any power was awful.
I dont know why people are under the impression they are "very slow cars".
Look at the ford family salloon equivilent, the mondeo ST range. The accord typeR will hit 60 over a second fast than any std mondeo ST model and get to 100 nearly 2 seconds faster than an ST220.
That said, I'm still not convinced by them for the fact that to have fun in it you have to really kick the shit out of the engine and I hate that. Driving a friends civic Type R and having to just keep it in the red to get any power was awful.
16-05-2010, 06:14 PM
#42
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuck me my mate had problems getting rid of me in my 2 litre mk3 mondeo for fooks sake. And yes, one of them had a low mileage, mint example,, and the other had a high mileage abused one, and they were both exactly the same. Slow. 
30mpg? Thats bollocks. Both these cars I am talking about did about 25 mpg when being driven steady. My ST does more than that!
And no, there is no difference when VTEC 'kicks in'. Just gets noisier and drinks more fuel
And as for my sewing machine comment. Have you ACTUALLY sat in one? I stand by that comment!
30mpg? Thats bollocks. Both these cars I am talking about did about 25 mpg when being driven steady. My ST does more than that!
And no, there is no difference when VTEC 'kicks in'. Just gets noisier and drinks more fuel
And as for my sewing machine comment. Have you ACTUALLY sat in one? I stand by that comment!
Secondly, I saw over 30mpg in mine, that wasnt when '2 of my friends had them and I drove them every now and again' but was when I owned one and had my name on the logbook for over 2 years
Your mates VTEC must have been broken when you drove it every now and then as there is certainly a noticable difference in the performance when they swap over...
Sewing Machine? Didnt know you could get a performance VTEC Singer
16-05-2010, 07:06 PM
#43
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again.
I think the conrods are alright, I've tuned stock engines that had 160hp at the factory to 430+hp... I'd say the rods are alright really.
As for the torque though, the whole point of vtec is to have a flat torque curve. For example a typical 1.6 makes more than 110 lb's ft torque for the WHOLE rpm range. It just happens that they pull very well in vtec.
You've got an ST, no wonder you feel this way about the honda. If your talking about an Ep3, there shouldn't be a difference when vtec "kicks" in, its electronic, and constantly variable. So you get the benefit for the whole of the RPM's.
Put both cars in top gear at 20mph, see who makes the most progress
Get the hypocrite with the 'fail' sig
We must all bow down to Vetec...bow down to Vetec and Honda's engineering marvel....yeah right, fuck Vetec and Honda's stupidly thin gay assed conrods...Vetec toss ruined my 2009 Lemans trip
tbh I cant comment for the Accord as the nearest Ive gotten to driving one is whilst carrying out an mot on it but, the Civic was utter shite to drive. You have to screw the bollocks out of it to get to the magic place and when you get there is a let down. Its like driving a diesel vectra except with less torque
We must all bow down to Vetec...bow down to Vetec and Honda's engineering marvel....yeah right, fuck Vetec and Honda's stupidly thin gay assed conrods...Vetec toss ruined my 2009 Lemans trip
tbh I cant comment for the Accord as the nearest Ive gotten to driving one is whilst carrying out an mot on it but, the Civic was utter shite to drive. You have to screw the bollocks out of it to get to the magic place and when you get there is a let down. Its like driving a diesel vectra except with less torque
As for the torque though, the whole point of vtec is to have a flat torque curve. For example a typical 1.6 makes more than 110 lb's ft torque for the WHOLE rpm range. It just happens that they pull very well in vtec.
Yeah truth can hurt at times. Come on though, you've got to admit it....the whole Vtec rubbish is just a gimmic to try and get sales. tbh they feel so gutless low down its almost as though Honda mapped it poorly to give the impression of Vtec being impressive when it 'kicks in' (should read 'stumbles in drunk').
They're just for people that cant afford Cossie repair costs
They're just for people that cant afford Cossie repair costs
Yes they are slow. Fuck me my mate had problems getting rid of me in my 2 litre mk3 mondeo for fooks sake. And yes, one of them had a low mileage, mint example,, and the other had a high mileage abused one, and they were both exactly the same. Slow.
30mpg? Thats bollocks. Both these cars I am talking about did about 25 mpg when being driven steady. My ST does more than that!
And no, there is no difference when VTEC 'kicks in'. Just gets noisier and drinks more fuel
And as for my sewing machine comment. Have you ACTUALLY sat in one? I stand by that comment!
30mpg? Thats bollocks. Both these cars I am talking about did about 25 mpg when being driven steady. My ST does more than that!
And no, there is no difference when VTEC 'kicks in'. Just gets noisier and drinks more fuel
And as for my sewing machine comment. Have you ACTUALLY sat in one? I stand by that comment!
Put both cars in top gear at 20mph, see who makes the most progress
16-05-2010, 07:59 PM
#45
Professional Waffler
Firstly, I call bollocks on you being pinned to one in your Mondeo! Either the Mondy was modified somewhat or the Accord was on limp home...
Secondly, I saw over 30mpg in mine, that wasnt when '2 of my friends had them and I drove them every now and again' but was when I owned one and had my name on the logbook for over 2 years
Your mates VTEC must have been broken when you drove it every now and then as there is certainly a noticable difference in the performance when they swap over...
Sewing Machine? Didnt know you could get a performance VTEC Singer
Secondly, I saw over 30mpg in mine, that wasnt when '2 of my friends had them and I drove them every now and again' but was when I owned one and had my name on the logbook for over 2 years
Your mates VTEC must have been broken when you drove it every now and then as there is certainly a noticable difference in the performance when they swap over...
Sewing Machine? Didnt know you could get a performance VTEC Singer
16-05-2010, 10:41 PM
#49
16-05-2010, 11:38 PM
#50
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they're naff really as on a stock production road car Ive never seen a rod fail on the beam, whilst leaving both the big and little ends intact....never until number four rod of a Civic typeR failed on us on the N138 in France....leaving us to complete the trip in a Ford Ka...at least that had aircon
I love your metallity though your mates broke so the conrods are too thin... You should ring honda and tell them, i'm sure they'll add another 20-30 grams to each rod to make sure this doesn't happen again, making the engine wear out quicker, rev lower and make less power. Sounds like your onto a winner.
17-05-2010, 06:51 AM
#51
I say the rods are too thin after looking at what remind of them after stripping the engine down, and yes you got me, we were gear shifting at around 20k Nothing wrong with revving lower....if they had the ability to map it properly, in fact they may even make a decent road car out of it if they did. Screwing the bollocks off any thing just to make an impression is not a fun way to drive unless you still like skating around McDonalds car park with trays under your back tyre's. IMO its a wank design with its only directive being increased sales...and there's not much you can whinge about to change my mind, ok sweet heart
Nothing wrong with revving lower....if they had the ability to map it properly, in fact they may even make a decent road car out of it if they did. Screwing the bollocks off any thing just to make an impression is not a fun way to drive unless you still like skating around McDonalds car park with trays under your back tyre's. IMO its a wank design with its only directive being increased sales...and there's not much you can whinge about to change my mind, ok sweet heart
17-05-2010, 10:39 AM
#52
Jeez, get a room you two!!
I drove one a good few years back when it was brand new, and was very impressed with it. Really liked the seats, and the power delivery was excellent at the top end, brilliant for overtaking - Unlike Rich I definitely noticed the Vtec (yo!) Handled very well too (better than an ST200 IMO).
My only criticism, and it's the same criticism for all Vtec cars, is that you have to screw them to get meaningful performance, and once it's 'on song' in anything apart from the first two gears, you're breaking the speed limit.
Give me a grunty, low down torquey engine over a Vtec any day of the week.
I drove one a good few years back when it was brand new, and was very impressed with it. Really liked the seats, and the power delivery was excellent at the top end, brilliant for overtaking - Unlike Rich I definitely noticed the Vtec (yo!) Handled very well too (better than an ST200 IMO).
My only criticism, and it's the same criticism for all Vtec cars, is that you have to screw them to get meaningful performance, and once it's 'on song' in anything apart from the first two gears, you're breaking the speed limit.
Give me a grunty, low down torquey engine over a Vtec any day of the week.
17-05-2010, 10:46 AM
#53
PassionFord Post Whore!!
some proper bollox on here.
Think of it this way in 1990 honda were making a 1.6 litre normally asperated engine that produced 150bhp and was very reliable to very high miles.
What were ford making? an xr2i lol and an escort rs turbo that had the same size engine plus a turbo with less power and nowhere near as reliable lol
Think of it this way in 1990 honda were making a 1.6 litre normally asperated engine that produced 150bhp and was very reliable to very high miles.
What were ford making? an xr2i lol and an escort rs turbo that had the same size engine plus a turbo with less power and nowhere near as reliable lol
17-05-2010, 10:51 AM
#54
Only if you join us 
Oh well, why didnt you say....that changes everything then
some proper bollox on here.
Think of it this way in 1990 honda were making a 1.6 litre normally asperated engine that produced 150bhp and was very reliable to very high miles.
What were ford making? an xr2i lol and an escort rs turbo that had the same size engine plus a turbo with less power and nowhere near as reliable lol
Think of it this way in 1990 honda were making a 1.6 litre normally asperated engine that produced 150bhp and was very reliable to very high miles.
What were ford making? an xr2i lol and an escort rs turbo that had the same size engine plus a turbo with less power and nowhere near as reliable lol
17-05-2010, 03:00 PM
#59
BANNED
BANNED
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mars
Posts: 4,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get used to danneth guys, he would argue his dog with three legs is faster than your racing greyhound
Last edited by timrud; 17-05-2010 at 03:01 PM. Reason: danneth taught me how to speel
17-05-2010, 07:58 PM
#60
17-05-2010, 09:05 PM
#61
............
some proper bollox on here.
Think of it this way in 1990 honda were making a 1.6 litre normally asperated engine that produced 150bhp and was very reliable to very high miles.
What were ford making? an xr2i lol and an escort rs turbo that had the same size engine plus a turbo with less power and nowhere near as reliable lol
Think of it this way in 1990 honda were making a 1.6 litre normally asperated engine that produced 150bhp and was very reliable to very high miles.
What were ford making? an xr2i lol and an escort rs turbo that had the same size engine plus a turbo with less power and nowhere near as reliable lol
In 1969 ford were fitting a carbed 1.6 cabable of over 200bhp to their works cars.......its not hard mate,theres nothing new about big powered low capacity screamers
If you see my sig below you'll see Honda arent even the best exponent of that
The fords you are on about were built to a price so they sold in numbers , and it didnt harm their sales if you compare to any of the hondas
The hondas HAD to have decent engines because they had nothing else to sell them with, and were still way outsold by the shitty cvh's lol
Every manufacturer these days makes relatively bulletproof engines with VVT, VCT, dual cam profiles or some variation of VTEC and dont feel the need to mention them as their standout feature, its just NORMAL
17-05-2010, 09:20 PM
#62
In 1969 ford were fitting a carbed 1.6 cabable of over 200bhp to their works cars.......its not hard mate,theres nothing new about big powered low capacity screamers
If you see my sig below you'll see Honda arent even the best exponent of that
The fords you are on about were built to a price so they sold in numbers , and it didnt harm their sales if you compare to any of the hondas
The hondas HAD to have decent engines because they had nothing else to sell them with, and were still way outsold by the shitty cvh's lol
Every manufacturer these days makes relatively bulletproof engines with VVT, VCT, dual cam profiles or some variation of VTEC and dont feel the need to mention them as their standout feature, its just NORMAL
If you see my sig below you'll see Honda arent even the best exponent of that
The fords you are on about were built to a price so they sold in numbers , and it didnt harm their sales if you compare to any of the hondas
The hondas HAD to have decent engines because they had nothing else to sell them with, and were still way outsold by the shitty cvh's lol
Every manufacturer these days makes relatively bulletproof engines with VVT, VCT, dual cam profiles or some variation of VTEC and dont feel the need to mention them as their standout feature, its just NORMAL
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2000/0...ine-design.htm
17-05-2010, 09:25 PM
#63
............
Try the Swift ( Cultus )
FACThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_superlatives
17-05-2010, 09:38 PM
#64
er 2.0 litres, 240 bhp = 120 bhp per litre
Try the Swift ( Cultus ) FACT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_superlatives
Try the Swift ( Cultus )
FACThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_superlatives
as good as it is, it was only sold in japan and had uprated "tubular exhaust headers, a tubular intake manifold, larger camshafts and a reprogrammed ECU." over the standard models as it was a LTD edition
hardly special is it, i dont see it rolling off the production line 15-20 years later
17-05-2010, 09:43 PM
#65
............
as good as it is, it was only sold in japan and had uprated "tubular exhaust headers, a tubular intake manifold, larger camshafts and a reprogrammed ECU." over the standard models as it was a LTD edition
hardly special is it, i dont see it rolling off the production line 15-20 years later
hardly special is it, i dont see it rolling off the production line 15-20 years later
I dont see any othe honda engine at 20 years old???? They all evolve, and the early civic vti ones were shit at low rpm.
Anyway i'm bored winding you up now.
By the way Alpha Romeo were the first to use VVT in a road car too in 1980.
17-05-2010, 09:48 PM
#66
sore loser? i started off saying ir was good
just takes the edge off it imo having to change most of the car for a few extra bhp "The US market saw the first VTEC system with the introduction of the 1991" ok not quite 20 years
trust me your not winding me up i love the vtec haters i still here smileing all the way through reading the replys
alfa romeo enough said already
Last edited by danneth; 17-05-2010 at 09:52 PM.
17-05-2010, 09:53 PM
#67
............
sore loser? i started off saying ir was good just takes the edge off it imo having to change most of the car for a few extra bhp
"The US market saw the first VTEC system with the introduction of the 1991" ok not quite 20 years
trust me your not winding me up i love the vtec haters i still here smileing all the way through reading the replys
alfa romeo enough said already
just takes the edge off it imo having to change most of the car for a few extra bhp "The US market saw the first VTEC system with the introduction of the 1991" ok not quite 20 years
trust me your not winding me up i love the vtec haters i still here smileing all the way through reading the replys
alfa romeo enough said already
But if you think the engines have remained unchanged for 20 years you're a fucking loon
they're developed just like any other manufacturer!As for Alpha engines, i'd rather the 3.2 V6 alpha engine than any engine Honda will ever produce.
17-05-2010, 10:03 PM
#69
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say the rods are too thin after looking at what remind of them after stripping the engine down, and yes you got me, we were gear shifting at around 20k Nothing wrong with revving lower....if they had the ability to map it properly, in fact they may even make a decent road car out of it if they did. Screwing the bollocks off any thing just to make an impression is not a fun way to drive unless you still like skating around McDonalds car park with trays under your back tyre's. IMO its a wank design with its only directive being increased sales...and there's not much you can whinge about to change my mind, ok sweet heart
Nothing wrong with revving lower....if they had the ability to map it properly, in fact they may even make a decent road car out of it if they did. Screwing the bollocks off any thing just to make an impression is not a fun way to drive unless you still like skating around McDonalds car park with trays under your back tyre's. IMO its a wank design with its only directive being increased sales...and there's not much you can whinge about to change my mind, ok sweet heart That swift engine was made in very limited numbers, if it was so good people would know about it!
I've got an Evo as well, but they simply don't compare to the honda engine. If you put an Evo turbo on a 1.6 honda it spool earlier and makes 60hp more on the same boost as a stock evo! I'd say the actual engine is pretty good.
17-05-2010, 10:03 PM
#70
............
I'm sure if I was so wrong then westfield and caterham wouldnt be using them. They are very light too. Not the pinnacle, but very good VFM
Any other misquoted bollx to add?
17-05-2010, 10:06 PM
#71
Dont think i've ever said that, just pointed out its in a very mild tune as standard and is easily moddable
I'm sure if I was so wrong then westfield and caterham wouldnt be using them. They are very light too. Not the pinnacle, but very good VFM
Any other misquoted bollx to add?
I'm sure if I was so wrong then westfield and caterham wouldnt be using them. They are very light too. Not the pinnacle, but very good VFM
Any other misquoted bollx to add?
ill take your westy and raise it an atom
17-05-2010, 10:19 PM
#72
Advanced PassionFord User
Dont think i've ever said that, just pointed out its in a very mild tune as standard and is easily moddable
I'm sure if I was so wrong then westfield and caterham wouldnt be using them. They are very light too. Not the pinnacle, but very good VFM
Any other misquoted bollx to add?
I'm sure if I was so wrong then westfield and caterham wouldnt be using them. They are very light too. Not the pinnacle, but very good VFM
Any other misquoted bollx to add?
18-05-2010, 06:01 PM
#73
............
Please quote where I said the Sigma was the pinnacle of car engines
I've always said it was tuneable and very mild in stock form and it is.
We're having quite a nice discussion on here with good examples, you've just come on with a vendetta and added nothing, no opinion, no examples.....
Only one chap looking like a cock hereAND FYI My list of the greatest engines/family of engines is here https://passionford.com/forum/genera...gine-ever.html post 25
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
chowfornow
Ford Non RS / XR / ST parts for sale.
14
05-01-2019 09:01 PM
Johnny Knoxville
General Car Related Discussion.
4
30-09-2015 07:21 AM
Si B
General Car Related Discussion.
2
12-09-2015 06:49 AM
