Some real world facts about Vtec
Crush
1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
2) Not only are the fuel costs greater, but you get less milage than a
non-Vtec engine. This is due to several factors that I won't get into.
Be sure you will be getting V6ish milage.
3) Vtec has the same or even theoretically LESS low end torque than a
similar non-Vtec engine. This is due to many pieces of factual and
anecdotal evidence that I won't get into.
4) Vtec equipped cars weigh more than non equipped due to greater
options. The tighter gearing found in Vtec equipped cars are only
there in *compensation* of this heavier weight and weak low end RPM
cam that I won't get in to.
5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
If you plan on buying a Vtec, read #5 again and again until it finally
sinks in.
6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
conditions.
7) Owner satisfaction is high for Vtecs. People are happy with them
here in the group. Now visit carpoint.com and take a look at owner
satisfaction the Sunfire. Now check the New Beetle. Everyone loves
their car.
People spend a lot on a car and will naturally protect their purchase
with a emotional bias instead of being rational.
Conclusion:
The best Honda power to milage ratio you will get is with a V6 Accord;
it's a light car, has a SOHC engine, takes regular gas, and can get 28
mpg regularly. This car will not be slow, and you will utilize it's
power all the time. Warning. This car will not be cheap. Look at a
Buick or Chrysler if you want this kind of luxury at a low price.
Don't fall for 100hp/l nonsense. That is just a feel good buzz-phrase
created by Honda marks and means nothing in the real world.
Finally, If you want economy, get an Echo. If you want power at a low
price with loaded options, get a Grand Am (3.4L 28mpg), Grand Prix,
Buick Regal, Chrysler Concord et al.
I endorse Vtec if you are into auto crossing and modification only.
Chances are, you are not into this hobby and you want some sort of
magic to happen out of a similar sized engine for a small premium.
Hehehe.. get with it. Engineering is working with compromise and
that's what Vtec is all about. There is no magic created with this
'technology'. It's just a work of compromise. Great for Honda's
advertising though.
BTW: Read number #5 if you are still unsure.
____
"VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
The Vtec Reality Check
http://members.home.net/crush/reality-check
Over 50,000 people educated!
y_p_w
Crush wrote:
>
> Facts about DOHC Vtec:
>
> 1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
> it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
Same goes for a Toyota Camry V6, Mustang GT, or Camaro/Firebird. A
lot of cars these days get optimal performance with premium.
> 2) Not only are the fuel costs greater, but you get less milage than a
> non-Vtec engine. This is due to several factors that I won't get into.
> Be sure you will be getting V6ish milage.
Really. I was getting 30+ MPG with mostly highway driving. I pretty
much
got around the EPA estimates, which were the same for the non-VTEC
Integras of the same vintage. I easily get better mileage than my folks
V6 cars, which see mostly highway driving.
> 3) Vtec has the same or even theoretically LESS low end torque than a
> similar non-Vtec engine. This is due to many pieces of factual and
> anecdotal evidence that I won't get into.
What's the use of bringing it up if you don't cite your sources?
I saw the torque curves were in a brochure, and the VTEC version has
higher torque below the VTEC switchover point.
> 4) Vtec equipped cars weigh more than non equipped due to greater
> options. The tighter gearing found in Vtec equipped cars are only
> there in *compensation* of this heavier weight and weak low end RPM
> cam that I won't get in to.
What's your point? It's hard to find a stripped car these days.
> 5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
Yeah - so what. It's plenty fun to wind up the engine that 0.5% of
the time. Some folks like torque - I like that feeling of winding
up an engine to 8000 RPM that's smoother than a GM 3800 Series II
engine at 3000 RPM.
> If you plan on buying a Vtec, read #5 again and again until it finally
> sinks in.
>
> 6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
> at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
> Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
> conditions.
The typical "magazine" launch is never real world. Anyone doing it
on a regular basis is going to find a smoked clutch or serious auto
tranny repairs. I've easily out-accelerated a V6 Camaro in what I
would consider to be "real-world" conditions.
Kevin McMurtrie
-cru...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>Facts about DOHC Vtec:
>
[snip]
>5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
>will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
Just 0.5%? You drive like a sissy! Oooo. Don't push on the gas pedal
more than 1/4 inch. It might hurt the car. Keep those RPMs under 1500
or the car won't last until I'm 85 years old.
The low RPMs are for cruising. The high RPMs are for fun. It makes
perfect sense for the high RPMs to have all the power.
[snip]
>6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
>at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
>Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
>conditions.
But if the Buick tried a 7000 RPM launch, the engine would jump out
through a fender and kill a pedestrian. Put THAT on your insurance
claim.
[snip]
ak...@webtv.net
than the non-vtec civic lx/dx and they were also quicker and got much
better gas mileage too and they ran on 87 octane fuel
To bad the vtec-e option was not available in the civic hatchback
Mark Gonzales
news:3ab70ed0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> Facts about DOHC Vtec:
>
> 1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
> it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
Absolutely!
> 2) Not only are the fuel costs greater, but you get less milage than a
> non-Vtec engine. This is due to several factors that I won't get into.
> Be sure you will be getting V6ish milage.
Greater than what? Which V6 are you referring too? This is too vague to even
comment on.
> 3) Vtec has the same or even theoretically LESS low end torque than a
> similar non-Vtec engine. This is due to many pieces of factual and
> anecdotal evidence that I won't get into.
Which car are you referring too? Or better yet, which VTEC engine? Wide
range here.
> 4) Vtec equipped cars weigh more than non equipped due to greater
> options. The tighter gearing found in Vtec equipped cars are only
> there in *compensation* of this heavier weight and weak low end RPM
> cam that I won't get in to.
Probably. So what?
> 5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
You will when merging into fast moving traffic. VTEC in an engine as small
as 1.6L could possibly save your life if you make a bad judgement. Thank God
I no longer have that '92 Civic LX automatic! I had to be real careful when
to merge - now a bad judgement can be corrected with a simple down shift.
> If you plan on buying a Vtec, read #5 again and again until it finally
> sinks in.
You don't really buy a VTEC. With Honda, you can buy a Civic, Accord, or
Prelude (cars, anyway). Soon, they will probably all be VTEC equipped. But
don't let a buzz-word like VTEC make a difference. Just do plenty of test
drives!
> 6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
> at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
> Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
> conditions.
Not if "real world" conditions involve down-shifting. Oh, let me guess. You
want to set a limitation of 3000 rpms, right?
> 7) Owner satisfaction is high for Vtecs. People are happy with them
> here in the group. Now visit carpoint.com and take a look at owner
> satisfaction the Sunfire. Now check the New Beetle. Everyone loves
> their car.
Great!
> People spend a lot on a car and will naturally protect their purchase
> with a emotional bias instead of being rational.
Not true.
> Conclusion:
>
> The best Honda power to milage ratio you will get is with a V6 Accord;
> it's a light car, has a SOHC engine, takes regular gas, and can get 28
> mpg regularly. This car will not be slow, and you will utilize it's
> power all the time. Warning. This car will not be cheap. Look at a
> Buick or Chrysler if you want this kind of luxury at a low price.
Oh yeah. Your arguments are usually based on the idea that cost doesn't
matter. May I have one of your money trees, please?
> Don't fall for 100hp/l nonsense. That is just a feel good buzz-phrase
> created by Honda marks and means nothing in the real world.
What 100hp/l tells me that the engine is very efficient so it must have
tight tolerances, good engineering, etc.
> Finally, If you want economy, get an Echo. If you want power at a low
> price with loaded options, get a Grand Am (3.4L 28mpg), Grand Prix,
> Buick Regal, Chrysler Concord et al.
Heh heh.
> I endorse Vtec if you are into auto crossing and modification only.
Or if you want to save your (and possibly someone else's) life when merging
into fast moving traffic. Or you just want to do this comfortably.
> Chances are, you are not into this hobby and you want some sort of
> magic to happen out of a similar sized engine for a small premium.
Like saving your life.
> Hehehe.. get with it. Engineering is working with compromise and
> that's what Vtec is all about.
Absolutely!
> There is no magic created with this
> 'technology'. It's just a work of compromise. Great for Honda's
> advertising though.
And for merging into fast moving traffic!
Just like old times, Crush! Glad you're still here.
--
Mark
'99 Civic Si
www.lt-solutions.com (Batch Processing / MEP Drafting for AutoCAD LT®)
Andrew
"y_p_w" <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AA72171...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Crush wrote:
> >
> > Facts about DOHC Vtec:
> >
> > 1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
> > it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
Nope, check the manuals. You're a liar.
> > 2) Not only are the fuel costs greater, but you get less milage than a
> > non-Vtec engine. This is due to several factors that I won't get into.
> > Be sure you will be getting V6ish milage.
Nope, actually got better mileabge in the VTEC model. You're a liar.
Furthermore if you compare HP to HP instead of comparing engine displacement
you'ff find that the fuel econamy is extremely good. You're a double down
dirty liar.
> 3) Vtec has the same or even theoretically LESS low end torque than a
> similar non-Vtec engine. This is due to many pieces of factual and
> anecdotal evidence that I won't get into.
Compared to similar engines your get more torque at any given point.
Compared to engiones of the same displacement you get more torque. Compared
to engines with the same HP, you get less torque at any given time. Now
compare the area under the entire torque curve. Yu'll find that the VTEC
engine produces more torque overall than any of the above engines. You area
misleading son of a bitch.
> > 4) Vtec equipped cars weigh more than non equipped due to greater
> > options. The tighter gearing found in Vtec equipped cars are only
> > there in *compensation* of this heavier weight and weak low end RPM
> > cam that I won't get in to.
Not true in all cases. Remember the Integra Type R? In any case the 50-100
lbs of added weight is offset by the extra power by a wide margin. Comparing
a bottom of the line stripper to a top of the line car is useless. The two
cars are for two completely different buyers. Honda knows it's market.
You're still giving out half truths.
> > 5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> > will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
Nope again. Some switch over at 5500, some at 4300, some as low as 3300.
You'll never see this power untul you really need or want to. Thats a good
thing. Who wants to drive a car that gives 100% of its rated power output at
cruising speeds. Your fuel mileage would be crap, driveablility would suck
(imaging trying to pass but from 2200 RPM on up your power only drops).
Think of the switchover point as a musical little power reserve. You are a
liar and then some.
> > If you plan on buying a Vtec, read #5 again and again until it finally
> > sinks in.
Read my answer again and you'll be dreaming of VTEC. Lies are useless.
> > 6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
> > at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
> > Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
> > conditions.
0-60 is an almost useless figure for everyday driving which you tout so
much. A much better test is the 30-60 or top gear passing time. Using your
example:
Buick gets to 60 in 10 seconds.
VTEC gets to 60 in 7.5 seconds when launched at 7000.
Do you really think that 7000 RPM launch shaves two and a half seconds of
the time? Go try it. Launch the VTEC car at a normal RPM. See what happens.
Come back with proof.
Now, do this repeatedly for a couple weeks. See which car is still running.
That Buick you mentioned is not meant to regularly see much over 3000 RPMS.
The VTEC however thrives on high RPMs. Go take your stinking, smoking, oil
leaking Buick with a dead transmission home. Better be safe, have the VTEC
car tow you home.
Love,
Andrew
Andrew
> >This is due to several factors that I won't get into.
> > Be sure you will be getting V6ish milage.
Oh, you want compare a VTEC mileage to a V6. Here you go.
My 1995 Integra GSR 1.8 l VTEC---------9.4 l/100km
My 2000 Chev S10 4.3 l V6-------------rated at 15 l/100km, currently
getting 20 l/100 km
BTW, both engines are rated at 170 HP. The V6 gets less than half the kms
out of a tre of fuel than the VTEC. On its best tank the V6 got 60% less kms
on a litre of fuel. Currently I buy more than double the fuel to drive the
same distance. My truck never sees anything above 2800 RPM beacuase I drive
it like an old man. The VTEC however, aw redline shifts daily and at the
very least was driven mildly aggressive.
Sorry, you lose.
Love,
Andrew
Mark Gonzales
news:mcmurtri-3CEC8B...@news.sonic.net...
> In article <3ab70ed0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
> -cru...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> >Facts about DOHC Vtec:
> >
> [snip]
>
> >5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> >will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
>
> Just 0.5%? You drive like a sissy! Oooo. Don't push on the gas pedal
> more than 1/4 inch. It might hurt the car. Keep those RPMs under 1500
> or the car won't last until I'm 85 years old.
>
> The low RPMs are for cruising. The high RPMs are for fun. It makes
> perfect sense for the high RPMs to have all the power.
Since Crush usually aims his VTEC bashing towards the Civic Si, I'll give
him only this much.
Turning 4400 rpms to cruise at 80 mph is a bit high. It's not loud (even my
factory sound drowns out any engine noise at medium volume), and it doesn't
feel bad. It's just the IDEA of looking down at the tack and seeing those
numbers for hundreds of miles (avg. 75 mph - I stay within 10 miles of the
limit).
A 6th gear would have solved this and would probably result in better than
30 -31 mpg hwy. My only REAL complaint so far, but I've lived with it.
> [snip]
>
> >6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
> >at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
> >Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
> >conditions.
>
> But if the Buick tried a 7000 RPM launch, the engine would jump out
> through a fender and kill a pedestrian. Put THAT on your insurance
> claim.
BWHAHAHAHAAA!
Mista Bone
Go back under the rock you were hiding under.
Too many false statements and this has been discussed before.
--
Charles Tague 93 Honda Civic DX HB #17 CSP
1.6L SOHC VTEC 13.56 @ 100 mph,1.908 60 ft.
http://home.cinci.rr.com/mistab0ne/
"Crush" <-cru...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ab70ed0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Greasy Crush ©
He's a fat, loser, greasy dumb ass that has NEVER:
1. Studied automotive technology.
2. Been published in an automotive journal or mass market automotive
magazine.
3. Owned a Civic Si.
4. Owned more than ten cars.
Finally, if you want a great combination of Economy, handling, acceleration
and fun, get a Honda Civic Si (of course you will have to buy used or wait
until the year 2002.
The Pontiac Sunfire and New Beetle (a decent car, btw) have never been
called "The Perfect Car" by a Car & Driver editor.
If you like having fun while driving, you WILL go over the 5500 RPM mark
routinely. BTW, the fun starts below 5500 RPM.
Read the answer to Crush's VTEC Reality check at
http://www.geocities.com/greasycrush/realitycheck.htm
Get to know the Greasy dumb ass at
http://www.geocities.com/greasycrush/crush.htm
Greasy Crush ©
http://www.geocities.com/greasycrush/
greasycr...@hotmail.com
"Crush" <-cru...@sympatico.ca> driveled in message
news:3ab70ed0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Scott C
> >
> > Facts about DOHC Vtec:
> >
> > 1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
> > it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
>
> Same goes for a Toyota Camry V6, Mustang GT, or Camaro/Firebird. A
> lot of cars these days get optimal performance with premium.
I can assure you that a Mustang GT or Camaro/Firebird does not require
premium fuel.
<snip>
> > 5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> > will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
>
> Yeah - so what. It's plenty fun to wind up the engine that 0.5% of
> the time. Some folks like torque - I like that feeling of winding
> up an engine to 8000 RPM that's smoother than a GM 3800 Series II
> engine at 3000 RPM.
You've obviously never driven anything 3.8L powered then. The GM 3.8 is one
of the smoothest running V6's produced.
Scott
96 GT (one of 1849 made)
9....@74.24mph (1/8th)
MAC cat-back
BBK offroad h-pipe
MAC cold air induction
Steeda Tri-Ax shifter
Steeda Subs
FMS 3.73's
98 Cobra Rims
Synthetics
.
No Way!
The only reason you think VTEC's need premium fuel is that the US is the
only country that still produces 'gas' below 95RON - in Europe 95 is the
minimum.
My Accord Type-R does 0-60mph in 6.1 seconds, 0-100 in 17.3, top speed 145 -
as tested by EVO magazine (www.evo.co.uk). It also returns30.4 mpg in a wide
range of driving, but mainly across main roads and minor routes with lots of
max-rev overtaking and regular 120mph+ sprints (very few police in the UK
Cotswolds where I live!). It also out-performs the likes of the Porsche
Boxster in the low-rev increments such as 30-50 in fourth and fifth - so
much for no bottom end performance! It also produces more torque per litre
than a Boxster with a flat torque curve from 2000 to 7000rpm. Sorry to
interupt your fact-free rantings with attributable figures!
Name me another car that can combine those performance and fuel consumption
figures?
The Accord Type-R is 200kg's lighter than a standard Accord, so bang goes
your weight theory.
The 'Cool' 0-60 times quoted for every car are it being launched at max
revs - whether that is 8000rpm in my Type-R or 3500rpm in whatever pushrod
iron lump from the '60's you prefer.
My Accord leaves V6's for dead and uses less fuel.
Conclusion:
You are a sad man with something against VTEC technology (but you won't go
into that will you. . . . ) that makes you need to deride it and to make
yourself feel superior to all those poor saps who have been fooled and that
you know better than. Smug.
WRONG!
If you were more mature you would find something you like and promote it
rather than criticising something you don't like.
Julian.
"Crush" <-cru...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ab70ed0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
ISDG
>
> "y_p_w" <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA72171...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Crush wrote:
> > >
> > > Facts about DOHC Vtec:
> > >
> > > 1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
> > > it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
> >
> > Same goes for a Toyota Camry V6, Mustang GT, or Camaro/Firebird. A
> > lot of cars these days get optimal performance with premium.
>
> I can assure you that a Mustang GT or Camaro/Firebird does not require
> premium fuel.
I was thinking the Camaro Z28 with the LS1 engine. I know the base
Camaro
works fine on regular. I could be wrong about the Mustang though, but
I'm
sure the recommended fuel for the Z28 is premium.
> <snip>
>
> > > 5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> > > will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
> >
> > Yeah - so what. It's plenty fun to wind up the engine that 0.5% of
> > the time. Some folks like torque - I like that feeling of winding
> > up an engine to 8000 RPM that's smoother than a GM 3800 Series II
> > engine at 3000 RPM.
>
> You've obviously never driven anything 3.8L powered then. The GM 3.8 is one
> of the smoothest running V6's produced.
We've got two V6 cars in the family - a '96 Regal with a 3800 Series II,
and
a 2001 Camry V6. The Camry's engine is considerably smoother and
quieter.
Also - I said at **3000 RPM**. The GM engine starts to vibrate around
there -
it's "sweet spot" is somewhere around 2000 RPM. My Integra GS-R is
indeed
smoother at 7-8K RPM than that 3800 Series II at 3000.
FE410 Merc
strictly as basic transportation. Why have you made it your life's mission
to trash talk the Honda products? We all know that theirs no way a car
produced by GM, Ford, or Chrysler will last like a Japanese car will. As for
nobody ever revving over 5500 RPM I say BULLSHIT! I had an RM 125 screamer a
few years back and that thing was between 6000-12000 RPM ALL THE TIME! YAH
baby! Also my Yamaha 750 Maxim made its power high up in the RPM range so
guess what? I wind the piss out of it every time I ride it, just like a
V-tec owner would! Now my bored and stroked 410 Merc in my 69 mach doesn't
like to go over 5000 RPM so it doesn't! See my point? Drive it the way it
was meant to be driven!
--
FE 410 Merc
If its Ford- I like it!
http://members.nbci.com/fordguru/Mustangs%2064-73.htm
"Greasy Crush ©" <greas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wnKp6.69179$t67.1...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
oz
has been satisfied with there sunfire, In fact I know four people in the
same town that got sick of dumping money into there car to keep it on the
road so they took a huge loss on the car and have traded them in for Hondas
or VW's Those people didn't have old beaters they were all 96 and up cars
with less than 100,000km, one had less than 40,000km.
People buy Sunfires, or Cavaliers because they are cheap, they need a
reliable car to go away to school or because they just got a job. After the
first year when they start to fall apart people end up cursing them. Why do
you think you can buy a 98 sunfire for $3,000 at an auction?,, because
there are so many of them on the used market that have been traded in for a
better car. People have got rid of them because they can't stand them. The
sunfire is the worst car ever built.
I can take Crush dumping on Hondas, that doesn't bother me much as it is
clear he has no clue about why people buy Hondas, but to listen to him say a
sunfire is a good car and people like them, that just proves he should be
locked up because he is quite insane.
OZ
Crush <-cru...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ab70ed0...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> Facts about DOHC Vtec:
>
>
isdg
>
> Clearly this is all nonsense.
>
> The only reason you think VTEC's need premium fuel is that the US is the
> only country that still produces 'gas' below 95RON - in Europe 95 is the
> minimum.
Well - "pump" octane in the US is measured by (R+M)/2. Premium here is
at least 91 by that method, and I'd wager the typical "premium unleaded"
in the country has an RON of at least 95, if not higher. My guess is
that premium unleaded in this country is equivalent to premium in most
of Europe. As for cars needing "premium" - I say so what. A lot of
performance cars here perform better with it.
> My Accord Type-R does 0-60mph in 6.1 seconds, 0-100 in 17.3, top speed 145 -
> as tested by EVO magazine (www.evo.co.uk). It also returns30.4 mpg in a wide
> range of driving, but mainly across main roads and minor routes with lots of
> max-rev overtaking and regular 120mph+ sprints (very few police in the UK
> Cotswolds where I live!). It also out-performs the likes of the Porsche
> Boxster in the low-rev increments such as 30-50 in fourth and fifth - so
> much for no bottom end performance! It also produces more torque per litre
> than a Boxster with a flat torque curve from 2000 to 7000rpm. Sorry to
> interupt your fact-free rantings with attributable figures!
>
> Name me another car that can combine those performance and fuel consumption
> figures?
>
> The Accord Type-R is 200kg's lighter than a standard Accord, so bang goes
> your weight theory.
Can we get one in the US? I'd really like the see that car here.
> The 'Cool' 0-60 times quoted for every car are it being launched at max
> revs - whether that is 8000rpm in my Type-R or 3500rpm in whatever pushrod
> iron lump from the '60's you prefer.
>
> My Accord leaves V6's for dead and uses less fuel.
A lot of folks don't seem to realize that a "magazine launch" in a high
torque car can be as brutal as in a high-rev car. If I tried to launch
my
folks Buick Regal every day, I'm sure that it would have been in the
transmission shop by now.
Mark Gonzales
news:3aa7c...@bulkley.net...
> We all know that theirs no way a car produced by GM, Ford, or Chrysler
> will last like a Japanese car will.
Is there any real proof of this? I don't really believed it.
My beef with domestics is that, IMO, they don't put as much thought or care
into their cheapo cars as the Japs do (i.e. Civic vs. Corolla vs. Escort vs.
Cavalier vs. Neon, etc). I wouldn't be surprised if a Civic or Corolla held
up better compared to domestics in this class.
But I don't buy into this idea with all Japanese vs. domestic. I still see
allot of old OldsmoBuicks still on the road as well as older Mustangs and
Camaros. Heck, I see as many Feiros as I do CRXs, and that WAS a shitty
car - the Feiro, that is!
I think as long as you take care of your junk, it'll last awhile, regardless
of origin - well, maybe not those from Yugoslavia.
Scott C
"ISDG" <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AA7DB78...@hotmail.com...
> Scott C wrote:
> > > > Facts about DOHC Vtec:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends
using
> > > > it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
> > >
> > > Same goes for a Toyota Camry V6, Mustang GT, or Camaro/Firebird. A
> > > lot of cars these days get optimal performance with premium.
> >
> > I can assure you that a Mustang GT or Camaro/Firebird does not require
> > premium fuel.
>
> I was thinking the Camaro Z28 with the LS1 engine. I know the base
> Camaro
> works fine on regular. I could be wrong about the Mustang though, but
> I'm
> sure the recommended fuel for the Z28 is premium.
The Mustang is 87. The Camaro is 91 optimal (87 acceptable), so I really
don't call that a requirement. The Mustang Cobra on the other hand does
indeed require premium.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > 5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> > > > will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
> > >
> > > Yeah - so what. It's plenty fun to wind up the engine that 0.5% of
> > > the time. Some folks like torque - I like that feeling of winding
> > > up an engine to 8000 RPM that's smoother than a GM 3800 Series II
> > > engine at 3000 RPM.
> >
> > You've obviously never driven anything 3.8L powered then. The GM 3.8 is
one
> > of the smoothest running V6's produced.
>
> We've got two V6 cars in the family - a '96 Regal with a 3800 Series II,
> and
> a 2001 Camry V6. The Camry's engine is considerably smoother and
> quieter.
I drove a 98 V6 Camaro 13 hours to FL once, and I in no way found it to be
"rough." It did only have 1500 miles on it at the time though. It is known
to be very smooth. Maybe the 3.8 you have isn't as smooth as most.
> Also - I said at **3000 RPM**. The GM engine starts to vibrate around
> there -
> it's "sweet spot" is somewhere around 2000 RPM. My Integra GS-R is
> indeed
> smoother at 7-8K RPM than that 3800 Series II at 3000.
My girlfriend used to have a Civic, and I can say that the 3.8 is much
smoother at 3000rpm than her Civic was at 4000-5000rpm.
Mark Gonzales
And no, I don't feel like unscrewing the bulb!
The Cavalier, OTOH, just plain pisses me off. I truly believe that most
people who buy this car only do so because they refuse to buy anything else
but Chevrolet/GM. A damn Escort is a big improvement! I rented one about a
year ago for two weeks. This is not a good way to save money - it wasn't
worth it! Worse freggin' trip I ever made.
Can the front seats possibly be more uncomfortable? And what's with the
windows which roll down leaving an inch of window sticking up at the back of
the door (where I like to place my arm)? At least the back seat was slightly
improved from the flat, rectangular design of past Cavaliers - if memory
serves. Man, this car SUCKS!
--
Mark
'99 Civic Si
www.lt-solutions.com (Batch Processing / MEP Drafting for AutoCAD LT®)
oz <nospamdav...@home.com> wrote in message
news:GcQp6.46385$c7.13...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
No Way!
refer to US gas as either 89 or 91RON. In the UK we get premium at 95ron and
super at 97ron. (Guess which I use as it's a company car and I don't pay for
the fuel!).
Shame you don't get the Accord Type-R on your side of the pond - I've driven
both and it's better than the Integra Type-R IMHO.
Have a look at:
http://www.honda-type-r.co.uk/
Julian.
"isdg" <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AA7EEFA...@hotmail.com...
y_p_w
> > > premium fuel.
> >
> > I was thinking the Camaro Z28 with the LS1 engine. I know the base
> > Camaro
> > works fine on regular. I could be wrong about the Mustang though, but
> > I'm
> > sure the recommended fuel for the Z28 is premium.
>
> The Mustang is 87. The Camaro is 91 optimal (87 acceptable), so I really
> don't call that a requirement. The Mustang Cobra on the other hand does
> indeed require premium.
OK - it's just a matter of semantics.
"Premium recommended - but regular is safe to use" vs "use regular - or
premium for better performance". I assume in either case it means
there's
a knock sensor which allows the engine management computer to retard the
timing if regular is used. Any published performance specs will
probably
be from cars running on premium.
> > > You've obviously never driven anything 3.8L powered then. The GM 3.8 is
> one
> > > of the smoothest running V6's produced.
> >
> > We've got two V6 cars in the family - a '96 Regal with a 3800 Series II,
> > and
> > a 2001 Camry V6. The Camry's engine is considerably smoother and
> > quieter.
>
> I drove a 98 V6 Camaro 13 hours to FL once, and I in no way found it to be
> "rough." It did only have 1500 miles on it at the time though. It is known
> to be very smooth. Maybe the 3.8 you have isn't as smooth as most.
>
> > Also - I said at **3000 RPM**. The GM engine starts to vibrate around
> > there -
> > it's "sweet spot" is somewhere around 2000 RPM. My Integra GS-R is
> > indeed
> > smoother at 7-8K RPM than that 3800 Series II at 3000.
>
> My girlfriend used to have a Civic, and I can say that the 3.8 is much
> smoother at 3000rpm than her Civic was at 4000-5000rpm.
What kind of Civic? I'm talking a DOHC VTEC engine in an Integra GS-R.
The DOHC VTEC engines are pretty smooth even at high RPM, since it
switches over to the second set of cams. Also - the 2 stage intake
opens
at high RPMs. Granted - it makes a lot of noise, but it doesn't buck
like a GM V6 near redline.
y_p_w
>
> I'm sure you're right - I was just going by the fact that people seem to
> refer to US gas as either 89 or 91RON. In the UK we get premium at 95ron and
> super at 97ron. (Guess which I use as it's a company car and I don't pay for
> the fuel!).
Like I said - (R+M)/2. The problem is that we can't be too sure what
RON/MON
difference is. For whatever reason, the petroleum industry and auto
makers
here have decided that they'd use the average of the two numbers.
Premium - at least 91. Generally 92 here in California, and I'm told 93
on the East Coast or Midwest.
Mid-range (AKA "Plus") - at least 88, but typically 89.
Regular - at least 86, but typically 87.
> Shame you don't get the Accord Type-R on your side of the pond - I've driven
> both and it's better than the Integra Type-R IMHO.
I'll have a look-see.
Yu-Ping Wang
Berkeley, California
Duered
I. A dual-digit hp, commuter-friendly '88 Accord DX sedan with 230K on
the odometer, and
II. A '00 Prelude.
After 1.3 decades driving the Accord, laughing at people who believe that
130K is high mileage, rolling my eyes at those buying new vehicles every
three or four years...you get the picture...I'd be a fool to have
purchased anything other than a Honda. I had no choice vis`a`vis VTEC
with the Prelude, but I wanted a car as far from SUV as possible.
My comments as per your facts:
1) Who cares? I bought the Prelude after the prices rose significantly in
early 2000; and extra $3, say, per tank is not a problem for me.
2) 26-27 mpg, mixed driving. Sounds OK to me.
3) Who cares? A Prelude doesn't come with a towing package.
4) Who cares?
5) Totally in agreement. Only a fool would race a car on a public road. I
am emotionally secure enough not to feel the need to prove that my car can
go fast. If my Accord can handle on-ramps on I-95 in the Northeast and
Connecticut's Merrit Parkway with very little advanced planning, any of
today's cars can.
6) Who cares? See 5)
7) Agreed.
Conclusion: Buy a car for the long term, drive sensibly, save mucho
dinero.
Mark Gonzales
news:fPQp6.4422$Ac5.8...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
> My girlfriend used to have a Civic, and I can say that the 3.8 is much
> smoother at 3000rpm than her Civic was at 4000-5000rpm.
In fairness to the Civic, it depends on the model. My CRX Si was smooth. My
Civic LX was not (thrashy sounding on hard acceleration). My Civic Si is the
smoothest yet.
However, I rented a Grand Prix GT 3800 not too long ago. It seemed pretty
smooth to me. It did have a lurch problem with acceleration but it also had
many miles on it and it just looked really abused.
I recently took a trip in a brand new Buick Park Avenue. I guess it has the
3.8L. Now it was SooOOOOoooOOOOTH! Fit-n-finish was good too!
--
Mark
'99 Civic Si
www.lt-solutions.com (Batch Processing / MEP Drafting for AutoCAD LT®)
>
Scott C
news:n7Sp6.38$8c....@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
> Scott C <scau...@wpplp.com> wrote in message
> news:fPQp6.4422$Ac5.8...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
>
> > My girlfriend used to have a Civic, and I can say that the 3.8 is much
> > smoother at 3000rpm than her Civic was at 4000-5000rpm.
>
> In fairness to the Civic, it depends on the model. My CRX Si was smooth.
My
> Civic LX was not (thrashy sounding on hard acceleration). My Civic Si is
the
> smoothest yet.
Yep. Hers was an LX. That could also explain it.
> However, I rented a Grand Prix GT 3800 not too long ago. It seemed pretty
> smooth to me. It did have a lurch problem with acceleration but it also
had
> many miles on it and it just looked really abused.
>
> I recently took a trip in a brand new Buick Park Avenue. I guess it has
the
> 3.8L. Now it was SooOOOOoooOOOOTH! Fit-n-finish was good too!
The 3.8 is a really impressive motor. It may not rack up as high as the 2.0
in the S2000, but it's still a fine motor.
Scott C
"y_p_w" <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AA7FF47...@hotmail.com...
> Scott C wrote:
> >
> > "ISDG" <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > I can assure you that a Mustang GT or Camaro/Firebird does not
require
> > > > premium fuel.
> > >
> > > I was thinking the Camaro Z28 with the LS1 engine. I know the base
> > > Camaro
> > > works fine on regular. I could be wrong about the Mustang though, but
> > > I'm
> > > sure the recommended fuel for the Z28 is premium.
> >
> > The Mustang is 87. The Camaro is 91 optimal (87 acceptable), so I
really
> > don't call that a requirement. The Mustang Cobra on the other hand does
> > indeed require premium.
>
> OK - it's just a matter of semantics.
>
> "Premium recommended - but regular is safe to use" vs "use regular - or
> premium for better performance". I assume in either case it means
> there's
> a knock sensor which allows the engine management computer to retard the
> timing if regular is used. Any published performance specs will
> probably
> be from cars running on premium.
This is true, at least on the Camaro, but an engine that is stated in the
manual to run 87 should run 87 in most cases.
Hers was a 97 LX. Like I said in another thread, that could explain it.
I've never driven a DOHC VTEC before.
dizzy
<greas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Facts about Crush:
>
>He's a fat, loser, greasy dumb ass that has NEVER:
>
>1. Studied automotive technology.
>
>2. Been published in an automotive journal or mass market automotive
>magazine.
>
>3. Owned a Civic Si.
>
>4. Owned more than ten cars.
You forgot that Crush is a dumbshit and low-life Troll.
dizzy
>I endorse Vtec if
LOL! You fucking pathetic dumbshit loser. YOU endorse? Why you
feeble-minded newsgroup Troll, I wouldn't let you endorse my ASSWIPE.
Gary Seven
Your brother doesn't have the best laugh for broadcasting. It is high
pitched and shrilly. It sounds like a little girl getting her foot
stepped on. I saw your little Real Audio show last year, and it was
bull back then, and it still is. Couldn't you think of a better name
for your brother? I mean "Super Car Genius" is a bit bland. Do You
call the janitor "Floor Mopping Genius?" The guy at the drive thru:
"You Want Fries With That Genius." Let's not forget the "Garbage
Collection Geniuses," Or is that what you call yourself? How about
the Phi Mu sorority at my old college? Do you call them "Screw Me
Like a Bunny Geniusettes?" Not a bad rush slogan... I'll email their
commander. Think up a good name like "The Intimidator" wait...
that's been taken. Lets think... together we can think of a good
nickname for your dear brother. How about... "High Pitched Difficult
to Understand Genius?" You're right, too long. Maybe "Dorky Laugh
with Dorky Fake Air Scoops Genius?" Check out Edmunds' review of the
Mustang... that's where I came up with that.
Didn't you drop out of college? What happened? You had to read a
book? Tell you what Crush... get a PHD in engineering and maybe I'll
take you seriously. Until then, I'll keep the CL until it dies...
which will probably be around 2015.
Crush
<mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
>I recently took a trip in a brand new Buick Park Avenue. I guess it has the
>3.8L. Now it was SooOOOOoooOOOOTH! Fit-n-finish was good too!
Oh yes.
Buick makes great cars. Old people are the toughest consumers. Most
people look past Buick however.
Crush
<mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
>Oh yeah. Your arguments are usually based on the idea that cost doesn't
>matter. May I have one of your money trees, please?
Corvette C5
Crush
>Oh, you want compare a VTEC mileage to a V6. Here you go.
A truck is not a fair comparison.
Crush
<dsjli...@nospambulkley.net> wrote:
>Why have you made it your life's mission
>to trash talk the Honda products?
I have not. I am merely informing potential consumers of the truth
regarding Vtec and Honda products in general. They are not miracle
products.
>We all know that theirs no way a car
>produced by GM, Ford, or Chrysler will last like a Japanese car will.
Yes they will. There are plenty of 10 year old cars all over the road.
Crush
<mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
>My beef with domestics is that, IMO, they don't put as much thought or care
>into their cheapo cars as the Japs do (i.e. Civic vs. Corolla vs. Escort vs.
>Cavalier vs. Neon, etc). I wouldn't be surprised if a Civic or Corolla held
>up better compared to domestics in this class.
They are more reliable, but the Americans have a different engineering
approach. Look at the seats of a Sunfire, and then compare them to a
Civic. American engineers *always* produce cars with more torque to
their similarly priced Jap counterparts. It's a mindset and
engineering philosophy which every country differs with.
What's funny is that this same engineering mindset is true with cell
phones. My friend has a Samsung and while it is really mechanically
solid, it has a week ringer and lame screen. I have a US designed
Motorola and it's a flip phone with a lithon ion battery. The casing
is more solid and the sound quality is among the best. It has a louder
speaker and generally fits my face better, MUCH better than my friends
Samsung. However, my Startac is known to be buggy and the plastic
casing on the outside squeaks when pressed against my face.
Now the Nokia is a Swedish product and has Swedish engineering. They
are known to be the best engineered phones although some hate them
with a passion.
And since I'm off topic, I'm still single. I met a 25 yr old Lebanese
girl who is single also at a night club last week and I didn't have a
pen and paper to write my number.
My point is that there is a *COMPROMISE* in almost any choice you
make. You can get a V6 Accord, but the compromise is the price. You
can get a 3.4L Grand Am GT which will slaughter your Civic, but the
compromise is reliability. You can get a Civic over a Neon, Grand Am,
Focus, etc. But the compromise is a louder, harsher ride, that
delivers no torque.
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Crush wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:34:04 GMT, "Andrew" <an...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh, you want compare a VTEC mileage to a V6. Here you go.
>
> A truck is not a fair comparison.
>
> ____
> "VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
> does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
You know, Lee Cao has been known to make mistakes, and I wouldn't be
suprised if you quoted him out of context. VTEC improves power at high
RPMs while maintaining low RPM drivibility. If it did nothing for low
RPM operation, then there would be no need for it!
Jeff
Crush
<mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
> A damn Escort is a big improvement!
I was in a 95ish Escort wagon and found it to be very similar to my
friends 96 Accord.
____
"VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
The Vtec Reality Check
Gordon McGrew
>Facts about DOHC Vtec:
>
>1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
>it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
This is true for a lot of high performance cars.
>2) Not only are the fuel costs greater, but you get less milage than a
>non-Vtec engine. This is due to several factors that I won't get into.
>Be sure you will be getting V6ish milage.
Yes, high performance engines tend to use more fuel than low performance
engines, especially when they are driven by the type of person who buys a high
performance engine.
>3) Vtec has the same or even theoretically LESS low end torque than a
>similar non-Vtec engine. This is due to many pieces of factual and
>anecdotal evidence that I won't get into.
They may not have more low end power but that is because that is the way Honda
sets these engines up. I assume the three stage VTEC applications will have
more low end power.
Why do you think they would have theoretically less?
>4) Vtec equipped cars weigh more than non equipped due to greater
>options. The tighter gearing found in Vtec equipped cars are only
>there in *compensation* of this heavier weight and weak low end RPM
>cam that I won't get in to.
Integra 2 dr curb weights (US pounds):
LS 2643
GS-R 2672
Type R 2639
The VTEC cars are geared for performance. It is obviously not to compensate for
greater weight. All car gearing is to compensate for weak low end power of
internal combustion engines. If you use an electric motor, you don't need to
gear it at all.
>5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
>will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
Coincidentally, that is the .5% when I want a lot of power. The rest of the
time it is a smooth, driveable engine. A joy to drive.
>If you plan on buying a Vtec, read #5 again and again until it finally
>sinks in.
Also, run the engine up to redline again and again until your cheeks hurt from
grinning too much.
>6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
>at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
>Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
>conditions.
I don't think so. Consumer Reports does acceleration tests from idle and they
got the Integra LS to 60 in 9.3 seconds so the GS-R must be quite a bit faster.
The S2000 did it in 5.6. Don't know what 10 second Buick you mean but the
LeSabre did 8.8.
>7) Owner satisfaction is high for Vtecs. People are happy with them
>here in the group. Now visit carpoint.com and take a look at owner
>satisfaction the Sunfire. Now check the New Beetle. Everyone loves
>their car.
According to the latest Consumer Reports Auto issue, it is decidedly not true
that "everyone loves their car." For instance, owners of Cateras, Malibus,
Cavaliers, Neons, Sonatas, Cherokees and (are you ready?) Sunfires hate their
cars. However, most Honda/Acura owners (including Integra owners and especially
S2000 owners) do seem to be highly satisfied. Is it just the Honda name?
Passport owners hate their "Hondas."
>People spend a lot on a car and will naturally protect their purchase
>with a emotional bias instead of being rational.
I bought mine second hand for cash. It came with minor body damage. I paid
about a third of what I made in the stock market today (a good day :-] ) I
don't really have a strong emotional attachment to it, but my financial
investment is much less. I wash it about twice a year (you can barely tell what
color it is right now.) But in terms of an automobile, I love it. It is a
sheer joy to drive and I can't wait to get the summer tires on it. Hell, I
might even wash it.
>Conclusion:
>
>The best Honda power to milage ratio you will get is with a V6 Accord;
>it's a light car, has a SOHC engine, takes regular gas, and can get 28
>mpg regularly. This car will not be slow, and you will utilize it's
>power all the time.
V6 Accord is nice but it don't go like a GS-R. (BTW, I drove a '97 TL 2.5 last
week; disappointing. Slow off the line with AT, but the worst was the
handling. It plowed like a John Deere. I wonder how much some good tires would
help.)
> Warning. This car will not be cheap. Look at a
>Buick or Chrysler if you want this kind of luxury at a low price.
I'd sooner buy a used Hyundai.
>Don't fall for 100hp/l nonsense. That is just a feel good buzz-phrase
>created by Honda marks and means nothing in the real world.
Glad to hear that since mine is just shy of 100 hp/l. I'm glad to hear I'm not
missing anything.
>Finally, If you want economy, get an Echo. If you want power at a low
>price with loaded options, get a Grand Am (3.4L 28mpg), Grand Prix,
>Buick Regal, Chrysler Concord et al.
And sell it before the warranty runs out.
>I endorse Vtec if you are into auto crossing and modification only.
Who the fuck cares what you endorse?
>Chances are, you are not into this hobby and you want some sort of
>magic to happen out of a similar sized engine for a small premium.
>Hehehe.. get with it. Engineering is working with compromise and
>that's what Vtec is all about.
Great engineering is about reducing compromise. A single cam profile is a
compromise. Two cam profiles is less of a compromise.
> There is no magic created with this
>'technology'. It's just a work of compromise. Great for Honda's
>advertising though.
Is it really? I would wager that most Honda owners are hardly even aware of it.
I don't think Honda emphasizes it much in recent ads. The two page ad I am
looking at (from the AutoWeek racing guide) focuses on the racing program and
the application of racing technology to production engines but never mentions
VTEC.
>BTW: Read number #5 if you are still unsure.
Are you afraid of high rpm? Is this like a phobia for you? You think it might
rev to infinity and rip a hole in the time-space continuum? Don't worry, the
rev limiter kicks in at 500 over redline.
You recognize that 100 hp/l is an arbitrary number, why not recognize the same
about 5500 rpm. Drive a GS-R or similar Honda for a while. 5500 is where you
think about downshifting.
Lee Cao
>
> 1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
> it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
So does most other high performance engines, including those using forced
induction.
> 2) Not only are the fuel costs greater, but you get less milage than a
> non-Vtec engine. This is due to several factors that I won't get into.
> Be sure you will be getting V6ish milage.
VTEC engines achieve mileages slightly better than other engines of similar
power ratings when installed in comparably sized and weighted cars.
> 3) Vtec has the same or even theoretically LESS low end torque than a
> similar non-Vtec engine. This is due to many pieces of factual and
> anecdotal evidence that I won't get into.
Point A: You admit your evidence is anecdotal, therefore is of no value
beyond a per-case study.
Point B: VTEC engines have more low end torque than a similarly sized
non-VTEC engine.
> 4) Vtec equipped cars weigh more than non equipped due to greater
> options. The tighter gearing found in Vtec equipped cars are only
> there in *compensation* of this heavier weight and weak low end RPM
> cam that I won't get in to.
False. The tighter gearing is due to the fact that DOHC VTEC engines have a
wider usable RPM range.
> 5) Vtecs do indeed produce lots of HP. But this is at +5500 RPM. You
> will not be in this rpm rang even 0.5% of the time you are driving.
>
> If you plan on buying a Vtec, read #5 again and again until it finally
> sinks in.
People with an intelligence level that is justly slightly beyond the "idiot"
cut-off realize that any engine, including VTEC engines, will only spend a
small portion of its life time producing near-peak power.
> 6) The cool 0-60 times you see are a result of the car being launched
> at 7000 rpm. This does NOT represent the real world in any way. A 92
> Buick that get's an 10 sec 0-60 will **smoke** you in real world
> conditions.
Which car are you refering to when you say "the car"?
> 7) Owner satisfaction is high for Vtecs. People are happy with them
> here in the group. Now visit carpoint.com and take a look at owner
> satisfaction the Sunfire. Now check the New Beetle. Everyone loves
> their car.
When did carpoint.com become the pinnicle of automotive journalism?
> People spend a lot on a car and will naturally protect their purchase
> with a emotional bias instead of being rational.
Which explains your attitude towards Honda?
> Conclusion:
>
> The best Honda power to milage ratio you will get is with a V6 Accord;
> it's a light car, has a SOHC engine, takes regular gas, and can get 28
> mpg regularly. This car will not be slow, and you will utilize it's
> power all the time. Warning. This car will not be cheap. Look at a
> Buick or Chrysler if you want this kind of luxury at a low price.
I am *SURE* I don't use 200HP from my V6 all the time. Out of my 120mile
daily commute, I'd say about 2 mile of that is spent actually accelerating
hard. How many percent is that?
> Don't fall for 100hp/l nonsense. That is just a feel good buzz-phrase
> created by Honda marks and means nothing in the real world.
>
> Finally, If you want economy, get an Echo. If you want power at a low
> price with loaded options, get a Grand Am (3.4L 28mpg), Grand Prix,
> Buick Regal, Chrysler Concord et al.
Wow, Echo, Grand Am, Grand Prix, a Buick and a Concord. Fine echlon of cars
you are aligning yourself with. Let me know when hair starts growing on
your palms due to lack of driving excitement.
> I endorse Vtec if you are into auto crossing and modification only.
> Chances are, you are not into this hobby and you want some sort of
> magic to happen out of a similar sized engine for a small premium.
> Hehehe.. get with it. Engineering is working with compromise and
> that's what Vtec is all about. There is no magic created with this
> 'technology'. It's just a work of compromise. Great for Honda's
> advertising though.
>
> BTW: Read number #5 if you are still unsure.
I forgot, I had you on ignore. Switched readers... Plonk! there you go
again.
> ____
> "VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
> does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
>
> The Vtec Reality Check
> http://members.home.net/crush/reality-check
> Over 50,000 people educated!
--
Lee Cao - www.leecao.com
BlueText Development
www.bluetextdev.com
Lee Cao
"Jeffrey J. Potoff" <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AA8561F...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Crush wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:34:04 GMT, "Andrew" <an...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Oh, you want compare a VTEC mileage to a V6. Here you go.
> >
> > A truck is not a fair comparison.
> >
> > ____
> > "VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
> > does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
>
> You know, Lee Cao has been known to make mistakes,
Never! I am flawless! ;)
> and I wouldn't be
> suprised if you quoted him out of context. VTEC improves power at high
> RPMs while maintaining low RPM drivibility. If it did nothing for low
> RPM operation, then there would be no need for it!
That comment was made in the context of torque/HP curve comparison to a non
VTEC engine of the same displacement. Fact is, at low RPMs, there is a
relatively small amount of torque that can be gained through swirl/mixture
optimization. Most modern engines are fairly efficient at squeezing out the
available specific torque output at low-mid RPMs. The VTEC is, of course,
even more efficient, just not dramatically so when compared to what it does
at the high RPMs.
> Jeff
Lee Cao
> FE410 Merc <dsjli...@nospambulkley.net> wrote in message
> news:3aa7c...@bulkley.net...
>
> > We all know that theirs no way a car produced by GM, Ford, or Chrysler
> > will last like a Japanese car will.
>
> Is there any real proof of this? I don't really believed it.
I genuinely think that Ford cars can be quite good in terms of durability.
Heck, I own one, and so does my girlfriend. But I think the attention to
detail, build quality, material quality, and fit/finish are still lead by
Japanese manufacturers like Toyota and Honda. Both instrument clusters in
my Accord and my Mustang are made by FoMoCo. The one in the Accord is
simply better. Under certain day-light conditions, the speedometer in my
Mustang looks like it is painted on. I recently rented a 20001 Mustang for
a 700mile jaunt from Virginia to South Carolina and back. The improvements
were noticeable compared to my 1999, but there are still significant
fit/finish issues.
> My beef with domestics is that, IMO, they don't put as much thought or
care
> into their cheapo cars as the Japs do (i.e. Civic vs. Corolla vs. Escort
vs.
> Cavalier vs. Neon, etc). I wouldn't be surprised if a Civic or Corolla
held
> up better compared to domestics in this class.
Cavaliers are truely horrible cars. Just horrible. Shivers. Oh well, at
least it didn't try to kill me the way that Lumina did on one chilly Texan
night so many moons ago...
> But I don't buy into this idea with all Japanese vs. domestic. I still see
> allot of old OldsmoBuicks still on the road as well as older Mustangs and
> Camaros. Heck, I see as many Feiros as I do CRXs, and that WAS a shitty
> car - the Feiro, that is!
The Feiro has a bad rap. The first couple of years were truely bad. But by
the time they cut off its production, the car had become relatively decent
for its time. A friend of mine has one. The GT ones with the fake
C-pillars and hind quarter windows were real lookers IMO.
Remember that Japanese cars usually do not have any restoration value. They
are usually purchased for the main purpose of reliable transportation. They
do not evoke the same sense of loyalty and comraderie as a Mustang or
Camaro. Not sure about Olds or Buicks.
> I think as long as you take care of your junk, it'll last awhile,
regardless
> of origin - well, maybe not those from Yugoslavia.
Hee hee... =)
>
> --
> Mark
> '99 Civic Si
> www.lt-solutions.com (Batch Processing / MEP Drafting for AutoCAD LT®)
Mark Gonzales
I'm crawling back under that rock for just a couple of weeks. I have to
finish some updates and I am just not smart enough to focus on two things at
once - I've tried. These NG are an addiction to me when I get started and I
literally have to remove the news accounts.
Anyway, some of the other conversations over yonder are waaaay to deep for
me! Glad I stayed out of it and that I was ignored - a good thing sometimes.
;-)
See ya shortly (doubt I'll have the new wheels 'till mid year),
--
Regards,
Mark
'99 Civic Si
www.lt-solutions.com (Batch Processing / MEP Drafting for AutoCAD LT®)
Scott C <scau...@wpplp.com> wrote in message
news:2NSp6.4589$Ac5.9...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
Dennis Murray
<lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
> Remember that Japanese cars usually do not have any restoration value. They
> are usually purchased for the main purpose of reliable transportation. They
> do not evoke the same sense of loyalty and comraderie as a Mustang or
> Camaro. Not sure about Olds or Buicks.
>
Datsun 240Z? Datsun 510? Toyota GT?
I owe a lot of this to the relative rarity of Japanese performance cars in
the 60's. The 70's were a black hole for most cars, so we shall see if
they grow in following. I see them as similar to the numbers of BMW
2002's or 1600's that you see restored. It is a cult following.
Most of the popularity of the American cars for restoration comes from
people who desired the cars when in High school in my opinion. Obviously,
you won't see too many people who want to restore a Corolla - just as you
won't see any one restore a Citation.
Dennis
R. D. II
I think we, you and me needs to discuss it here especially the higher
RPM-you-don't-need-it slogan you got about VTEC in comparison to bigger-you
prefer-more-usable power theory.
Lets make it civil and educated so you might educate me too. Who knows I
might be the 50,001th educated driver.
Agree?
"Crush" <-cru...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3aad5196....@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
ak...@webtv.net
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Dennis Murray wrote:
>
> In article <UN_p6.52206$__6.111...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "Lee Cao"
> <lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember that Japanese cars usually do not have any restoration value. They
> > are usually purchased for the main purpose of reliable transportation. They
> > do not evoke the same sense of loyalty and comraderie as a Mustang or
> > Camaro. Not sure about Olds or Buicks.
> >
>
> Datsun 240Z? Datsun 510? Toyota GT?
The 240Z was a great car, especially after you dropped a small block
Chevy into it. :)
Jeff
Jeffrey J. Potoff
This I agree with. But the point I'm making is that given two engines
of equal displacement and equal peak horsepower, the one with variable
valve timing will have better low end power and drivibility than the
engine without variable valve timing. This is because variable valve
timing allows the use of a sedate cam lift/duration at low RPMs for good
drivibility while switching over to a more wild lift/duration at high
RPMs. Without variable valve timing, you'd be stuck with the wild cam
at low (actually all) RPMs, which would kill the drivibility.
Jeff
Gordon McGrew
>
>Now the Nokia is a Swedish product and has Swedish engineering.
That would be news to the Finns.
dizzy
>I have not. I am merely informing potential consumers of the truth
>regarding Vtec and Honda products in general. They are not miracle
>products.
No one said VTEC was a miricle, you fucking dumbshit. It is a
refinement. An improvement. Live with it.
What the fuck is your problem, anyway?
dizzy
>On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:06:02 GMT, "Mark Gonzales"
><mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> A damn Escort is a big improvement!
>
>I was in a 95ish Escort wagon and found it to be very similar to my
>friends 96 Accord.
Fuck you. You couldn't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
LOSER.
George Macdonald
It fits with all his other "facts" and everything else he's said though. I
dunno if he's on Spring Break or if he's been "sacked" but this guy is
clueless on everything to do with cars.:-)
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Gary Seven
>On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:06:02 GMT, "Mark Gonzales"
><mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> A damn Escort is a big improvement!
>
>I was in a 95ish Escort wagon and found it to be very similar to my
>friends 96 Accord.
Hey Crush... is this guy your brother? You know... the "Super Car
Genius" Just follow the link. Everytime I think these guys can't do
anything worse, they dissapoint me.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?s=fc057b57403c3f878993901bee308f58&threadid=32639
Wow... I had no idea Mustang nuts were that dumb.
Crush
<jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>If it did nothing for low
>RPM operation, then there would be no need for it!
Vtec does nothing for low RPM operation.
See a dyno chart.
____
"VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
The Vtec Reality Check
Crush
<jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>the one with variable
>valve timing will have better low end power and drivibility than the
>engine without variable valve timing.
THis has been proven false time and time again. Actually one person in
New Zealand actually tested a Vtec against a non Vtec and the non-Vtec
performed better in the low end. He was surprised at the results - I
wasn't.
____
"VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
The Vtec Reality Check
Crush
<lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>I genuinely think that Ford cars can be quite good in terms of durability.
Turaus.
>Heck, I own one, and so does my girlfriend.
Has there been anymore problems since we last spoke?
>But I think the attention to
>detail, build quality, material quality, and fit/finish are still lead by
>Japanese manufacturers like Toyota and Honda.
I agree. But this comes at a price. Nothing comes for free. Compare
the V6 Malibu to the V6 Camry in terms of price. There is simply no
comparison.
You can't have your cake and eat it to.
>Both instrument clusters in
>my Accord and my Mustang are made by FoMoCo.
I didn't know that.
>The one in the Accord is
>simply better. Under certain day-light conditions, the speedometer in my
>Mustang looks like it is painted on. I recently rented a 20001 Mustang for
>a 700mile jaunt from Virginia to South Carolina and back. The improvements
>were noticeable compared to my 1999, but there are still significant
>fit/finish issues.
Of course. I think the union is the problem. Ford/GM has no control
over their workers. All the management is also unionized. Pieces are
made to fit, dashed are made to not rattle. Hoses are meant to stay in
place.
When they don't, it is clearly an issue with the assembly and then the
dealer network has to assemble it 'properly' under warranty which must
cost Ford/GM a fortune. Jap cars *generally* come from the factory
built properly.
One Grand Am owner after 2 years will only bring back the car for oil
changes. Another owner had to bring it back 5 times to the dealer in
one month and forced them to buy it back under the lemon law. You'll
never know if the car was assembled properly until you buy the car.
You'll find out soon though. Jap cars lessen this risk greatly IMO.
>Cavaliers are truely horrible cars. Just horrible. Shivers. Oh well, at
>least it didn't try to kill me the way that Lumina did on one chilly Texan
>night so many moons ago...
The seats of the Cavaliers are nice.
The 2.5L is also nice.
The cheap price is even nicer.
nos...@nospam.com
>On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 06:32:20 GMT, "Lee Cao"
><lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>
>>I genuinely think that Ford cars can be quite good in terms of durability.
>
>Turaus.
The Taurus isn't bad but they tend to go through transmissions faster
then a baby goes through diapers.
>I agree. But this comes at a price. Nothing comes for free. Compare
>the V6 Malibu to the V6 Camry in terms of price. There is simply no
>comparison.
>
>You can't have your cake and eat it to.
Like when you say that a VTEC engine offers no power benefits being a
daily driver, yet also claiming it burns more fuel.
Crush
(Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>>1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
>>it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
>
>This is true for a lot of high performance cars.
My God.
The Si is NOT a high performance car. It is amongst the slowest cars
on the road today (during daily driving tasks)
>Yes, high performance engines tend to use more fuel than low performance
>engines, especially when they are driven by the type of person who buys a high
>performance engine.
A NA 1.6L of any kind is not a 'high performance' engine!
>Why do you think they would have theoretically less?
I don't want to get into it. It's basically been proved over and over
at every angle possible. A 1.6L SOHC hatch will give you more low end
torque than an Si.
>Integra 2 dr curb weights (US pounds):
>LS 2643
>GS-R 2672
>Type R 2639
We're not talking about type R's that are actually stripped of weight.
>The VTEC cars are geared for performance. It is obviously not to compensate for
>greater weight.
I disagree.
>Coincidentally, that is the .5% when I want a lot of power. The rest of the
>time it is a smooth, driveable engine. A joy to drive.
Accelerating from slow or stopping positions is a large part of
driving. Bigger engines will deliver better for this. Not smaller
ones.
>I don't think so. Consumer Reports does acceleration tests from idle and they
>got the Integra LS to 60 in 9.3 seconds so the GS-R must be quite a bit faster.
>The S2000 did it in 5.6. Don't know what 10 second Buick you mean but the
>LeSabre did 8.8.
I don't believe the S2000 time first of all.
Secondly, the Lesabre doing it in 8.8 is very impressive. I wish there
was a GS-R rating.
>According to the latest Consumer Reports Auto issue, it is decidedly not true
>that "everyone loves their car." For instance, owners of Cateras, Malibus,
>Cavaliers, Neons, Sonatas, Cherokees and (are you ready?) Sunfires hate their
>cars.
This is propaganda that you just created. Go to carpoint and read what
owners think:
Catera
=====
GM Germany built BMW competitor 8.8
Catera's a winner! 8.8
Good european Caddy 8.0
Good value 7.8
A Fine Near Luxury Car 9.2
Catera Praise 8.7
2000 Catera 9.3
I love my Caddy! 9.8
Malibu
=====
nice Base 9.6
sporty/family ride Base 10.0
Great Car LS 10.0
Excellent sedan LS 9.4
run with dogs Base 9.0
I love this car LS 9.7
Great Sedan LS 10.0
The great Family Car LS 9.3
This is a domestic? Base 10.0
" Great Malibu" Base 9.4
PRICE IS RIGHT LS 9.0
Cavalier
======
Our new car.... Sedan 9.7
best car around Coupe 9.0
A show stopper Z24 Coupe 8.6
best car Coupe 10.0
great little car Coupe 9.8
GREAT LOOKING, GOOD MILEAGE LS Sedan 10.0
nice bang for the buck Coupe 8.2
Great Affordable Sedan LS Sedan 9.7
awesome auto Z24 Coupe 10.0
Chika's Z24 Z24 Coupe 8.4
"One Great Car" Sedan 7.6
mom2two,st.louis Coupe 10.0
Cavalier Sedan 8.6
I'll stop there because the rest are all the same for EVERY car. It
isn't about what car is better, it's about psychology and people
mentally protecting their purchases. The Cavalier offers things that
the Honda's at the same price do not. The same is especially true with
the 3.4L Grand Am GT with sunroof and leather interior:
"The GT V6 allows easy highway cruising. It loafs at 1900 rpm at 65
mph, even though the GT has a 3.29 performance axle ratio for good
off-the-line snap."
"The interior is quiet, especially with the V6, and provides decent
room for four 6-footers."
"The Grand Am will come as close to a BMW as some of its buyers ever
will get." -- Dan Jedlicka, Carpoint.com
"Ram Air V6 has decent power and four-wheel anti-lock disc brakes
provide quick, smooth stops. Monsoon stereo system has nice features
(RDS, EQ settings) and sounds great for a factory stereo. Love the
"Firebird Red" dash lights. Tuned exhaust sounds great. I like the
removable ashtray that rests in the cupholder. " -- owner
"Aggressive styling and excellent performance and handling for a sedan
at this price range. " --owner
>However, most Honda/Acura owners (including Integra owners especially
>S2000 owners) do seem to be highly satisfied. Is it just the Honda name?
>Passport owners hate their "Hondas."
See above.
>> Warning. This car will not be cheap. Look at a
>>Buick or Chrysler if you want this kind of luxury at a low price.
Do you want me to go into the Chrysler reviews and show you people
actually comparing certain Buicks to Lexus LS400's and actually saying
the Buicks were better?
I was in an Escort and found it to be comparable to my friends 96
Accord. Same quality, ride, power, and noisy cabin. Very identical.
Crush
<lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>So does most other high performance engines, including those using forced
>induction.
1.6 NA is not high performance in any way. You can't get performance
from a 1.6L engine and a 2700lb car.
>VTEC engines achieve mileages slightly better than other engines of similar
>power ratings when installed in comparably sized and weighted cars.
I would agree and disagree. The Grand Am GT 3.4L gets about 20/28 mpg
and uses REGULAR gas which means cheaper gas prices.
If you are talking about a 2.5L like that found in the Cougar, than I
would agree that the gas costs would be similar.
>Point A: You admit your evidence is anecdotal, therefore is of no value
>beyond a per-case study.
Dyno charts.
>Point B: VTEC engines have more low end torque than a similarly sized
>non-VTEC engine.
Please post a link.
>Which car are you refering to when you say "the car"?
Si
>When did carpoint.com become the pinnicle of automotive journalism?
Never said it was. I like it much, much more than Mr. Edmund.
He listed a soft suspension as a CON. What a lamer.
>Which explains your attitude towards Honda?
The latest thing on my Honda to go is the fan that blows heat in the
cabin will only work on the high settings. So I have to hear the loud
fan blowing in the car all the time. Now the wheels are vibrating like
crazy and I don't know what to do. The rust is spreading like
wildfire.
>I am *SURE* I don't use 200HP from my V6 all the time. Out of my 120mile
>daily commute, I'd say about 2 mile of that is spent actually accelerating
>hard. How many percent is that?
You use the low end torque a lot of the time though.
>Wow, Echo, Grand Am, Grand Prix, a Buick and a Concord. Fine echlon of cars
>you are aligning yourself with. Let me know when hair starts growing on
>your palms due to lack of driving excitement.
Grand Am GT 3.4L not exciting?
>I forgot, I had you on ignore. Switched readers... Plonk! there you go
>again.
You've got an attitude problem. You just have this negative attitude.
I don't know what your problem is Lee. I've never once called you a
name or insulted you in any way.
Lee Cao
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 06:11:25 GMT, "Lee Cao"
> <lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>
> >So does most other high performance engines, including those using forced
> >induction.
>
> 1.6 NA is not high performance in any way. You can't get performance
> from a 1.6L engine and a 2700lb car.
Show me a car with faster 0-60 times for $17,545... the list will be fairly
short I am sure.
> >I am *SURE* I don't use 200HP from my V6 all the time. Out of my 120mile
> >daily commute, I'd say about 2 mile of that is spent actually
accelerating
> >hard. How many percent is that?
>
> You use the low end torque a lot of the time though.
So you've admitted that your "not used all the time" style argument is
pointless.
> >Wow, Echo, Grand Am, Grand Prix, a Buick and a Concord. Fine echlon of
cars
> >you are aligning yourself with. Let me know when hair starts growing on
> >your palms due to lack of driving excitement.
>
> Grand Am GT 3.4L not exciting?
Only to a 16 year old who has never driven anything else other than a Geo
Metro.
> >I forgot, I had you on ignore. Switched readers... Plonk! there you go
> >again.
>
> You've got an attitude problem. You just have this negative attitude.
> I don't know what your problem is Lee. I've never once called you a
> name or insulted you in any way.
Heh, I am not the one with a problem here. I just would rather spend my
time more productively than try to educate someone who refuse to learn.
> ____
> "VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
> does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
>
> The Vtec Reality Check
> http://members.home.net/crush/reality-check
> Over 50,000 people educated!
--
Dennis Murray
-cru...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> "The Grand Am will come as close to a BMW as some of its buyers ever
> will get." -- Dan Jedlicka, Carpoint.com
If this reviewer is anything near serious, I am very concerned. Accept
nothing he says about any car.
I have driven both, and they share nothing.
Grand Am - Has a dashboard shaped like an ass (literally!), soft seats
that caused my back pain on an 1.5 hour drive, along with styling from the
JC Whitney school of automotive design. Every "performance" exterior look
is used. Along with an engine, which does have decent power, but not the
smoothest thing around. GM's big V6's are fairly smooth, but the small
V6's have not been.
Dennis
Scott C
"Gary Seven" <luck...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:4t4oatse9ljpmdsf2...@4ax.com...
At least it's better than the Honda owners who come in here and ask how much
HP they'll gain by adding huge spoilers and body kits. LOL.
Paul White
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:21:58 GMT, "Jeffrey J. Potoff"
> <jpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >the one with variable
> >valve timing will have better low end power and drivibility than the
> >engine without variable valve timing.
>
> THis has been proven false time and time again. Actually one person in
> New Zealand actually tested a Vtec against a non Vtec and the non-Vtec
> performed better in the low end. He was surprised at the results - I
> wasn't.
>
the VTEC car perfomed better in the higher gears even at low revs - most
people with stick shifts find their cars acceleration more than adequate in
the lower gears when driving normally (which seems to be the criteria you
favour) so this isn't a problem in real-world driving. I've since had the
opportunity to weigh my two Hondas, my non-VTEC car was 150kg (330lb)
lighter than my VTEC car - this is due to the fact that they are different
models (one is a Concerto, the other is an Integra) and has very little to
do with whether the engine is a VTEC or not. There are also other
differences between the engines in these cars besides the VTEC - the VTEC
engine has a short-stroke, short-stroke engines tend to rev better, but have
less torque down low. A few months ago my parents & I did a trip in convoy,
on many hill climbs the Concerto (non-VTEC) had to drop down to 4th gear,
the Integra (VTEC) would still be in 5th gear, but the Concerto would be
slowly gaining on it, I would then shift down to 4th gear, and the Integra
would easily catch up to the Concerto. This proves that in typical open road
driving, my VTEC car, despite its weight penalty performs better than the
non-VTEC car even below the cam-switch over point. For old-times sake I also
did a trip in my old Concerto - I noticed that I was having to change down
much more on hill climbs, and it was much noisier than the VTEC engine when
it was working moderately hard during hill climbing or accelerating -
although this car MAY have less insulation that my Integra. The scariest
thing was that it had much less engine braking, which was particularly
worrying when going downhill into sharp corners. I had to concentrate so
much more when driving this car .
I've also recently towed a trailer with both cars weighing approx 700kg
(1500lb). The VTEC engine coped much more easily - the non-vtec car
struggling to go over 50mph, the vtec car going over 70mph in 5th gear no
problem at all (I didn't go any faster as the speed limit in NZ for cars
hauling trailers is 50mph & the road I was on is well known for having cops)
nos...@nospam.com
>I was in an Escort and found it to be comparable to my friends 96
>Accord. Same quality, ride, power, and noisy cabin. Very identical.
Dude, if you had any credibility to begin with you would have just
lost it here. Come back again when you think of some new flamage.
nos...@nospam.com
wrote:
>
>"Gary Seven" <luck...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:4t4oatse9ljpmdsf2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:08:07 GMT, -cru...@sympatico.ca (Crush) wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:06:02 GMT, "Mark Gonzales"
>> ><mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> A damn Escort is a big improvement!
>> >
>> >I was in a 95ish Escort wagon and found it to be very similar to my
>> >friends 96 Accord.
>>
>> Hey Crush... is this guy your brother? You know... the "Super Car
>> Genius" Just follow the link. Everytime I think these guys can't do
>> anything worse, they dissapoint me.
>>
>http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?s=fc057b57403c3f878993901bee308f58
>&threadid=32639
>> Wow... I had no idea Mustang nuts were that dumb.
>
>At least it's better than the Honda owners who come in here and ask how much
>HP they'll gain by adding huge spoilers and body kits. LOL.
1) Who has actually done this? Everybody I've seen tends to be people
trying to be funny or sarcastic.
2) At least it's on topic.
Scott C
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ka0qat4fg69cl39gu...@4ax.com...
How long have you been posting in here? I've lurked in here for over 3
years and have seen it come up more than once. The ones about adding HP,
yeah, they were probably being sarcastic, but the others had asked about the
aerodynamics and improved handling characteristics by adding wings/body
kits.
> 2) At least it's on topic.
True.
Random Act of Stupidity©
Don't ever include gearing with threat like this.
Gary Seven
>At least it's better than the Honda owners who come in here and ask how much
>HP they'll gain by adding huge spoilers and body kits. LOL.
>
Well... as far as I know, nobody got their hand mutilated by adding a
spoiler.
I suggest you go to www.dictionary.com and look up "sarcasm."
Gary Seven
>
>>When did carpoint.com become the pinnicle of automotive journalism?
>
>Never said it was. I like it much, much more than Mr. Edmund.
>
Lets see what edmunds.com says about the Mustang...
"Cons: Solid rear axle, dorky-looking fake hood and side scoops,
poor stereo ergonomics."
Dorky looking? But I thought the Mustang was the epitome of cool!
You complain about huge spoilers that do nothing, yet the Mustang
already has something like that from the factory. I bet the 2003
Mustang has clear taillights like the IS300.
Paul White
talked a lot about in-gear performance (a different issue to gearing), which
seeing as Crush refuses to recognise 0-60 time as valid in the real world
seems to me the only relevant measure of performance left. i.e. you are
going at 50 mph in 4th gear, you suddenly need to speed up (for whatever
reason), which car will give you the most acceleration if you
a) stay in the same gear in each car or
b) shift down a gear in each car
i.e. if you are doing the same thing in either car, which will perform the
best?
By the way, both cars reach redline in each gear at very similar speeds
(within 2mph for each gear), so you have a very similar road speed range for
each gear.
"Random Act of StupidityŠ" <seann...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AAD3C27...@gte.net...
Lee Cao
"Scott C" <scau...@wpplp.com> wrote in message
news:wJ3r6.20578$Ac5.4...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Gary Seven" <luck...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:4t4oatse9ljpmdsf2...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:08:07 GMT, -cru...@sympatico.ca (Crush) wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:06:02 GMT, "Mark Gonzales"
> > ><mgon...@lt-solutions.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> A damn Escort is a big improvement!
> > >
> > >I was in a 95ish Escort wagon and found it to be very similar to my
> > >friends 96 Accord.
> >
> > Hey Crush... is this guy your brother? You know... the "Super Car
> > Genius" Just follow the link. Everytime I think these guys can't do
> > anything worse, they dissapoint me.
> >
>
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?s=fc057b57403c3f878993901bee308f58
> &threadid=32639
> > Wow... I had no idea Mustang nuts were that dumb.
>
> At least it's better than the Honda owners who come in here and ask how
much
> HP they'll gain by adding huge spoilers and body kits. LOL.
And when exactly was the last time that happened? =)
> Scott
> 96 GT (one of 1849 made)
> 9....@74.24mph (1/8th)
> MAC cat-back
> BBK offroad h-pipe
> MAC cold air induction
> Steeda Tri-Ax shifter
> Steeda Subs
> FMS 3.73's
> 98 Cobra Rims
> Synthetics
--
Gordon McGrew
>On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:19:57 -0600, gRmEcM...@mindspring.com
>(Gordon McGrew) wrote:
>
>>>1) Needs premium fuel for optimal performance. Honda recommends using
>>>it and every owner I have spoken to uses premium.
>>
>>This is true for a lot of high performance cars.
>
>My God.
>
>The Si is NOT a high performance car. It is amongst the slowest cars
>on the road today (during daily driving tasks)
Either there is room to use power or there is not. It is meaningless to talk
about a car being fast or slow when you are stuck behind grandma in the Town
Car. When there is a chance to pass, the Si will do so easily. It is not the
fastest car on earth but it is faster than most cars on the road.
>>Yes, high performance engines tend to use more fuel than low performance
>>engines, especially when they are driven by the type of person who buys a high
>>performance engine.
>
>A NA 1.6L of any kind is not a 'high performance' engine!
Why not? 170 hp (or whatever the Si makes) in a light car along with a good
suspension and tires makes for a high performance vehicle. Again, not the
fastest car on the road but definitely better than most.
>>Why do you think they would have theoretically less?
>
>I don't want to get into it. It's basically been proved over and over
>at every angle possible. A 1.6L SOHC hatch will give you more low end
>torque than an Si.
Humor me, cite a source.
>>Integra 2 dr curb weights (US pounds):
>>LS 2643
>>GS-R 2672
>>Type R 2639
>
>We're not talking about type R's that are actually stripped of weight.
OK, then let's talk about the GS-R. 29 pounds heavier including the weight of
the VTEC hardware and the strut tower brace. Not exactly a crippling weight
penalty.
>>The VTEC cars are geared for performance. It is obviously not to compensate for
>>greater weight.
>
>I disagree.
What, do you think Honda grinds a new set of gears because the car weighs 29
pounds more? This is a pretty stupid assertion, even for you.
>>Coincidentally, that is the .5% when I want a lot of power. The rest of the
>>time it is a smooth, driveable engine. A joy to drive.
>
>Accelerating from slow or stopping positions is a large part of
>driving. Bigger engines will deliver better for this. Not smaller
>ones.
It is not the strongest part of the car's performance but it is not nearly as
bad as you make it out. Besides, getting a good jump off the line is part of
the skill factor which adds to the enjoyment of the car. If I give up a half a
car length on a start, it is seldom enough for the other driver to get ahead of
me unless he has got something pretty fast.
>>I don't think so. Consumer Reports does acceleration tests from idle and they
>>got the Integra LS to 60 in 9.3 seconds so the GS-R must be quite a bit faster.
>>The S2000 did it in 5.6. Don't know what 10 second Buick you mean but the
>>LeSabre did 8.8.
>
>I don't believe the S2000 time first of all.
What, do you think they made it up?
>Secondly, the Lesabre doing it in 8.8 is very impressive. I wish there
>was a GS-R rating.
I guaranty it would be faster than 8.8. The Celica with nearly identical specs
(10 more hp) turned a 7.5. The MR2 with 32 less hp than GS-R and 250 fewer
pounds turned a 7.1.
>>According to the latest Consumer Reports Auto issue, it is decidedly not true
>>that "everyone loves their car." For instance, owners of Cateras, Malibus,
>>Cavaliers, Neons, Sonatas, Cherokees and (are you ready?) Sunfires hate their
>>cars.
>
>This is propaganda that you just created. Go to carpoint and read what
>owners think:
<snip random praise from owners>
Why is the CR scientific survey propaganda but self-selected comments collected
on a web site to be taken seriously?
OK, check this survey from car talk:
http://cartalk.cars.com/Survey/Results/Demographics/General/loyalty.html
And here are a couple Catera owners who left comments:
The Cadillac Catera is the best handling and most fun to drive car I
have ever owned. This car, however, has been plagued with
numerous problems although not serious they are never-the-less
annoying. In 11 months of ownership I have had the heater control
valve repaced, the driver's door lock accuator was replaced, the
passenger's a/c temperature control was replaced, the windshield
wiper fluid level indicator broke-off and was replaced, the low oil
level indicator light kept coming on although the level was o.k., ti too
was replaced. Currently the rear left seat belt height adjuster dosen't
work and the ignition switch sometimes locks-up and no amount of
wiggling the steering wheel will free it to start the car. Over-all this car
is a disappointment to own from a mechanical stand point although it
is a quick, responsive, stylish car with so many standard features. If
better quality componants and/or better attention to detail went into
this car it would be hard to beat!
The Cadillac Catera is a huge disappoint. Reliability is the
problem--and it's a big one. Fifteen repairs in the first year of a car's
life is just too much. Plus, this car outprices nearly all of its
competition, and the recommended maintenance is very expensive
and does nothing to deter problems. This is the only rear-drive
Cadillac, unfortunately, which is why I bought it. I should have bought
a used RWD Fleetwood or Brougham. A Vega or Gremlin would have offered more
utility as well (seriously--the Catera is THAT BAD.)
>I'll stop there because the rest are all the same for EVERY car. It
>isn't about what car is better, it's about psychology and people
>mentally protecting their purchases. The Cavalier offers things that
>the Honda's at the same price do not. The same is especially true with
>the 3.4L Grand Am GT with sunroof and leather interior:
<snip favorable reviews>
What they offer that Honda's do not, is a worse than average repair record.
That's OK, if you are willing to live with that. I am not, so I really don't
give a crap how much more Cavallier or Grand Am I could have gotten for the $12K
I paid.
>
>>However, most Honda/Acura owners (including Integra owners especially
>>S2000 owners) do seem to be highly satisfied. Is it just the Honda name?
>>Passport owners hate their "Hondas."
>
>See above.
How does above explain why Passports got poor satisfaction ratings from owners
in the CR survey. CR measures differences in owner satisfaction. Car Point, et
al. just collect random comments.
>
>>> Warning. This car will not be cheap. Look at a
>>>Buick or Chrysler if you want this kind of luxury at a low price.
>
>Do you want me to go into the Chrysler reviews and show you people
>actually comparing certain Buicks to Lexus LS400's and actually saying
>the Buicks were better?
What does that prove? A guy who works for me thinks that his 1980 Chevy was the
epitome of automotive design and hasn't found a car since that he likes as much.
People have all kinds of tastes. That's fine. I wouldn't buy a Buick or an
LS400. Or a 1980 Chevy.
>I was in an Escort and found it to be comparable to my friends 96
>Accord. Same quality, ride, power, and noisy cabin. Very identical.
That's nice.
Scott C
"Lee Cao" <lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote in message
news:FChr6.97446$Z8.19...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
<snip>
>
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?s=fc057b57403c3f878993901bee308f58
> > &threadid=32639
> > > Wow... I had no idea Mustang nuts were that dumb.
> >
> > At least it's better than the Honda owners who come in here and ask how
> much
> > HP they'll gain by adding huge spoilers and body kits. LOL.
>
> And when exactly was the last time that happened? =)
It's been a while, but it has happened. Of course they were probably just
being sarcastic. Regardless, there are some pretty stupid questions asked
in here. Stupidity has no make and model, as Gary would like to believe.
There are just as much dumb Honda owners as there are Mustang owners. Just
look at the rice crowd.
Scott C
And I suggest you look up the word "stereotype."
Scott C
Why do you always have to compare everything to a Mustang?
R. D. II
Since everybody here is trying to compare Honda VTECs with other bigger
engined car (I'll use the Mustang-Crush favorite) let me add some things to
think about. I'm biased towards Honda, for a reason.
First. Come on everybody, we are not doing 0-60 everyday, we go to work and
groceries everyday including our 300hp V8's with a riceboy hood and sides,
drive home, little races on the highway and that's it right?
Believe me you will have more fun chasing V8's with your, lets say, GS-R
than other way around. If you have a Mustang theres no fun. You might even
get stunned and humiliated if this puny car beat you on highway speeds.
And I see V8 mustangs everyday in front of grocery store.
Why do you need 8 cylinders-300hp for a dozen eggs and bread? And going to
scholl? Is that a waste of gas? You press the pedal and you better be on a
lookout for a gas station.
Lets say, VTEC. You go to store, go to work, groceries, the 4 cyl VTEC
engine is more than enough even if you dont push it to VTEC range. The same
bread and a dozen eggs will be happier. Mileage is better but if you want to
have fun you can always push to VTEC range. I have a 97 prelude for 4 years
I never felt the need to go above 5200rpm from stop light to corners in
everyday driving.
So lets see now which one is better for everyday driving? A truck engine, I
mean Mustang or puny little 1.8 DOHC VTEC?
What I am trying to say is, with a mustang or other V8s you don't have a
choice. You turn on the ignition and you car in going straight to the gas
station. You will try to prove me wrong but just continue driving.....
While with a puny VTECs, you have a choice. Press the pedal lightly and
there goes you miles stretch. Press it hard and you tap the extra power.
Scott C
"R. D. II" <car...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:VXqr6.7387$6p5.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Some real world facts about VTEC:
>
> Since everybody here is trying to compare Honda VTECs with other bigger
> engined car (I'll use the Mustang-Crush favorite) let me add some things
to
> think about. I'm biased towards Honda, for a reason.
I seriously don't know why everyone in here likes to compare their cars to
Mustangs, but OK.
> First. Come on everybody, we are not doing 0-60 everyday, we go to work
and
> groceries everyday including our 300hp V8's with a riceboy hood and sides,
> drive home, little races on the highway and that's it right?
> Believe me you will have more fun chasing V8's with your, lets say, GS-R
> than other way around. If you have a Mustang theres no fun. You might even
> get stunned and humiliated if this puny car beat you on highway speeds.
I'll give you that. It is always more fun chasing something you can't
catch. :-)
> And I see V8 mustangs everyday in front of grocery store.
> Why do you need 8 cylinders-300hp for a dozen eggs and bread? And going to
> scholl? Is that a waste of gas? You press the pedal and you better be on a
> lookout for a gas station.
Why? Fun factor I guess. Why would anyone buy an S2000 as a daily driver.
Sure as hell isn't very practical. If everyone felt as you do, there would
be no performance automobiles on the road.
> Lets say, VTEC. You go to store, go to work, groceries, the 4 cyl VTEC
> engine is more than enough even if you dont push it to VTEC range.
If you don't push it up into VTEC range, it hasn't got much.
> The same bread and a dozen eggs will be happier.
How exactly does that make eggs and bread happier?
Mileage is better but if you want to
> have fun you can always push to VTEC range. I have a 97 prelude for 4
years
> I never felt the need to go above 5200rpm from stop light to corners in
> everyday driving.
Then you are not getting the maximum performance from your car.
> So lets see now which one is better for everyday driving? A truck engine,
I
> mean Mustang or puny little 1.8 DOHC VTEC?
Most people buy V8's over 4cyls. because of one thing. Torque. I'll take
the Mustang, thanks.
> What I am trying to say is, with a mustang or other V8s you don't have a
> choice. You turn on the ignition and you car in going straight to the gas
> station. You will try to prove me wrong but just continue driving.....
> While with a puny VTECs, you have a choice. Press the pedal lightly and
> there goes you miles stretch. Press it hard and you tap the extra power.
Your obsession with gas mileage from V8's are blatantly false. I can get
21mpg out of my car all day long pushing it to redline, or 26mpg on the
highway. Vette owners have been known to get well over 30mpg on the
highway, and have lots more HP than my car. That's very close if not better
than lots of Hondas with VTEC and a lot less HP.
Gary Seven
wrote:
>"Gary Seven" <luck...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:e4vqatghiotvcd0de...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >
>> >>When did carpoint.com become the pinnicle of automotive journalism?
>> >
>> >Never said it was. I like it much, much more than Mr. Edmund.
>> >
>>
>> Lets see what edmunds.com says about the Mustang...
>> "Cons: Solid rear axle, dorky-looking fake hood and side scoops,
>> poor stereo ergonomics."
>> Dorky looking? But I thought the Mustang was the epitome of cool!
>> You complain about huge spoilers that do nothing, yet the Mustang
>> already has something like that from the factory. I bet the 2003
>> Mustang has clear taillights like the IS300.
>
>Why do you always have to compare everything to a Mustang?
Because it is supposed to be the God of all cars lord of powerful
engines. Its supposed to be the 'anti-rice.' Yet it has features on
it, that are completely useless. Stickers don't add hp, neither do
fake air scoops.
p...@pacbell.net
wrote:
>Your obsession with gas mileage from V8's are blatantly false. I can get
>21mpg out of my car all day long pushing it to redline, or 26mpg on the
>highway. Vette owners have been known to get well over 30mpg on the
>highway, and have lots more HP than my car. That's very close if not better
>than lots of Hondas with VTEC and a lot less HP.
LOL, give me a break. 21mpg out of your 98 GT 'all day long pushing it
to redline?' My friend has a 97 GT coupe with a manual, babys it, and
never gets better then 19 mpg in his daily commute that's about 1/2
city driving. And you're saying you get better then that when pushing
it?
Lee Cao
> "Gary Seven" <luck...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:e4vqatghiotvcd0de...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >
> > >>When did carpoint.com become the pinnicle of automotive journalism?
> > >
> > >Never said it was. I like it much, much more than Mr. Edmund.
> > >
> >
> > Lets see what edmunds.com says about the Mustang...
> > "Cons: Solid rear axle, dorky-looking fake hood and side scoops,
> > poor stereo ergonomics."
> > Dorky looking? But I thought the Mustang was the epitome of cool!
> > You complain about huge spoilers that do nothing, yet the Mustang
> > already has something like that from the factory. I bet the 2003
> > Mustang has clear taillights like the IS300.
>
> Why do you always have to compare everything to a Mustang?
I think he brought up the Mustang because that's Crush's favorite car.
> Scott
> 96 GT (one of 1849 made)
> 9....@74.24mph (1/8th)
> MAC cat-back
> BBK offroad h-pipe
> MAC cold air induction
> Steeda Tri-Ax shifter
> Steeda Subs
> FMS 3.73's
> 98 Cobra Rims
> Synthetics
Lee Cao
>
> "R. D. II" <car...@iname.com> wrote in message
> news:VXqr6.7387$6p5.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Some real world facts about VTEC:
> >
> > Since everybody here is trying to compare Honda VTECs with other bigger
> > engined car (I'll use the Mustang-Crush favorite) let me add some things
> to
> > think about. I'm biased towards Honda, for a reason.
>
> I seriously don't know why everyone in here likes to compare their cars to
> Mustangs, but OK.
I think he was pretty clear about why he chose it. The "Crush favorite"
part is a big hint.
> > Lets say, VTEC. You go to store, go to work, groceries, the 4 cyl VTEC
> > engine is more than enough even if you dont push it to VTEC range.
>
> If you don't push it up into VTEC range, it hasn't got much.
But that's when you don't need much. Thus the flexibility of the engine.
> > The same bread and a dozen eggs will be happier.
>
> How exactly does that make eggs and bread happier?
They are not being smooshed against each other by the massive amounts of low
end torque?
> Mileage is better but if you want to
> > have fun you can always push to VTEC range. I have a 97 prelude for 4
> years
> > I never felt the need to go above 5200rpm from stop light to corners in
> > everyday driving.
>
> Then you are not getting the maximum performance from your car.
Why do you need maximum performance from a car in everyday driving? You
telling me we should be doing burn-outs and red-lining in each gear in
everyday driving?
> > What I am trying to say is, with a mustang or other V8s you don't have a
> > choice. You turn on the ignition and you car in going straight to the
gas
> > station. You will try to prove me wrong but just continue driving.....
> > While with a puny VTECs, you have a choice. Press the pedal lightly and
> > there goes you miles stretch. Press it hard and you tap the extra power.
>
> Your obsession with gas mileage from V8's are blatantly false. I can get
> 21mpg out of my car all day long pushing it to redline, or 26mpg on the
> highway. Vette owners have been known to get well over 30mpg on the
> highway, and have lots more HP than my car. That's very close if not
better
> than lots of Hondas with VTEC and a lot less HP.
This is laughable. How many HP do you think the Vette is generating while
it is getting 30mph in that extra tall sixth gear?
> Scott
> 96 GT (one of 1849 made)
> 9....@74.24mph (1/8th)
> MAC cat-back
> BBK offroad h-pipe
> MAC cold air induction
> Steeda Tri-Ax shifter
> Steeda Subs
> FMS 3.73's
> 98 Cobra Rims
> Synthetics
--
nos...@nospam.com
<lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>
>"Scott C" <scau...@wpplp.com> wrote in message
>news:YApr6.26617$Ac5.6...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
>> "Gary Seven" <luck...@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:e4vqatghiotvcd0de...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > >
>> > >>When did carpoint.com become the pinnicle of automotive journalism?
>> > >
>> > >Never said it was. I like it much, much more than Mr. Edmund.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Lets see what edmunds.com says about the Mustang...
>> > "Cons: Solid rear axle, dorky-looking fake hood and side scoops,
>> > poor stereo ergonomics."
>> > Dorky looking? But I thought the Mustang was the epitome of cool!
>> > You complain about huge spoilers that do nothing, yet the Mustang
>> > already has something like that from the factory. I bet the 2003
>> > Mustang has clear taillights like the IS300.
>>
>> Why do you always have to compare everything to a Mustang?
>
>I think he brought up the Mustang because that's Crush's favorite car.
Nah, Crush's favorite car is his 'Scorpion Edition' fantasy car he
posted the specs to the newsgroup I don't know how long ago.
Scott C
<p...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ubjtatkhilskko905...@4ax.com...
Yep. There are people in RAMFM that get better gas mileage than me. V8's
are nothing like what they used to be.
Scott C
<snip>
> > I seriously don't know why everyone in here likes to compare their cars
to
> > Mustangs, but OK.
>
> I think he was pretty clear about why he chose it. The "Crush favorite"
> part is a big hint.
Well, if you'd read some of the threads Gary posts in RAMFM and most of his
posts in here, he's always comparing/saying something about a Mustang.
> > > Lets say, VTEC. You go to store, go to work, groceries, the 4 cyl VTEC
> > > engine is more than enough even if you dont push it to VTEC range.
> >
> > If you don't push it up into VTEC range, it hasn't got much.
>
> But that's when you don't need much. Thus the flexibility of the engine.
And what about the time you need speed in a hurry and haven't got time to
downshift? To me, that's not flexibility.
> > > The same bread and a dozen eggs will be happier.
> >
> > How exactly does that make eggs and bread happier?
>
> They are not being smooshed against each other by the massive amounts of
low
> end torque?
I'd really like to see a production car with enough torque to smash bread
and bust eggs as they were being transported home.
> > Mileage is better but if you want to
> > > have fun you can always push to VTEC range. I have a 97 prelude for 4
> > years
> > > I never felt the need to go above 5200rpm from stop light to corners
in
> > > everyday driving.
> >
> > Then you are not getting the maximum performance from your car.
>
> Why do you need maximum performance from a car in everyday driving? You
> telling me we should be doing burn-outs and red-lining in each gear in
> everyday driving?
No, but spirited driving is always fun every once in a while.
<snip>
> > Your obsession with gas mileage from V8's are blatantly false. I can
get
> > 21mpg out of my car all day long pushing it to redline, or 26mpg on the
> > highway. Vette owners have been known to get well over 30mpg on the
> > highway, and have lots more HP than my car. That's very close if not
> better
> > than lots of Hondas with VTEC and a lot less HP.
>
> This is laughable. How many HP do you think the Vette is generating while
> it is getting 30mph in that extra tall sixth gear?
I guarantee you it's much more than most VTEC engines at redline, besides
your comment is way off base. We're talking about gas mileage, not HP per
gas mileage. How much HP do you think VTEC motors put out when not in VTEC
range (optimum gas mileage)? You guys just can't accept the fact that a
huge V8 (5.7L) can get better gas mileage than lots of your cars. The fact
that the big V8 is still a pushrod engine makes it even funnier.
> Lee Cao - www.leecao.com
> BlueText Development
> www.bluetextdev.com
Scott
Scott C
> >Why do you always have to compare everything to a Mustang?
>
> Because it is supposed to be the God of all cars lord of powerful
> engines. Its supposed to be the 'anti-rice.' Yet it has features on
> it, that are completely useless. Stickers don't add hp, neither do
> fake air scoops.
Come on Gary. Even people in here have told you that your CL even has some
non-functional (see: ricey) things on it. Also, who in the hell says a
Mustang is the God of all cars and lord of powerful engines? It seems to me
you're just making excuses. You know just as well as I do that in RAMFM,
everyone will tell you how much faster an f-body is than a Mustang.
Crush
wrote:
> the non-VTEC car performed better in the lower gears,
Thank you.
That's what we are discussing.
____
"VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
The Vtec Reality Check
http://members.home.net/crush/reality-check
Over 50,000 people educated!
Crush
(Gordon McGrew) wrote:
> getting a good jump off the line is part of
>the skill factor which adds to the enjoyment of the car.
Hehehe... too funny.
Crush
<lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>Show me a car with faster 0-60 times for $17,545... the list will be fairly
>short I am sure.
I can list many.
>Heh, I am not the one with a problem here. I just would rather spend my
>time more productively than try to educate someone who refuse to learn.
I am willing to learn. And most of the time you agree with me. See my
sig.
Crush
<lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>I think he brought up the Mustang because that's Crush's favorite car.
My favorite car this week is the Grand Am 3.4L V6 GT1. Just kidding.
Crush
>Nah, Crush's favorite car is his 'Scorpion Edition' fantasy car he
>posted the specs to the newsgroup I don't know how long ago.
Oh yes! Now that would have been a good Honda for once. And it would
have been fast with a Supercharged 3.0L V6 in the Civic hatch and
tight, tight gearing.
And lets not forget the Super Sound Deadening (tm), and 16" 5 spoke
Cobra wheels painted championship while like the car.
All this for $17,500 would be appropriate for this vehicle.
And I had a picture of this car too. I don't know where it is or if
it's still on the server or what.
nos...@nospam.com
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:36:49 -0800, nos...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>Nah, Crush's favorite car is his 'Scorpion Edition' fantasy car he
>>posted the specs to the newsgroup I don't know how long ago.
>
>Oh yes! Now that would have been a good Honda for once. And it would
>have been fast with a Supercharged 3.0L V6 in the Civic hatch and
>tight, tight gearing.
>
>And lets not forget the Super Sound Deadening (tm), and 16" 5 spoke
>Cobra wheels painted championship while like the car.
>
>All this for $17,500 would be appropriate for this vehicle.
>
>And I had a picture of this car too. I don't know where it is or if
>it's still on the server or what.
Anybody remember the Simpson's episode when Homer got to design his
dream car and it turned out to be a nightmare and bankrupted the
company who built it?
Gary Seven
wrote:
>"Gary Seven" <luck...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:edl2btsnrfsm4k5se...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> >Why do you always have to compare everything to a Mustang?
>> >>
>> >> Because it is supposed to be the God of all cars lord of powerful
>> >> engines. Its supposed to be the 'anti-rice.' Yet it has features on
>> >> it, that are completely useless. Stickers don't add hp, neither do
>> >> fake air scoops.
>> >
>> >Come on Gary. Even people in here have told you that your CL even has
>some
>> >non-functional (see: ricey) things on it. Also, who in the hell says a
>> >Mustang is the God of all cars and lord of powerful engines? It seems to
>me
>> >you're just making excuses. You know just as well as I do that in RAMFM,
>> >everyone will tell you how much faster an f-body is than a Mustang.
>>
>> Correction, they are available as options, which I didn't get. All
>> the new ones I see have the scoops.
>
>Ah, but you do have a ricy parking sticker. :-)
Good point. I can see my car from a quarter mile away now.
Gary Seven
>Vtec-E will and alwas has gotton better gas mileage than nonVtec civics,
>manual and cvt tranmisions
Is Sab developing something along the lines of Vtec but with constant
varying cams? Anyone know what I'm talking about? Or did I just pull
that out of the air?
Gene S. Berkowitz
says...
Saab has a prototype where the cylinder head can _tilt_ relative to the
top of the piston. This allows them to have variable displacement...
Expect to see a camless engine for sale within 5 years, using
electromechanical valve actuators.
--Gene
YZFrider
Well I was bored tonight, so I looked up the top gear accleration for a C5
corvette and a Prelude SH:
Taken From :
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/previews/1998/June/199806_previe
w_chevrolet_corvette.xml?&page=9
Corvette:
top gear acceleration time, 30-50 : 11.6 (OUCH!)
50-70: 11.7 (DOH!!)
also note:
PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 mpg
EPA highway driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 mpg
**C/D observed fuel economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 mpg
Prelude SH: (C&D NOV 96)
top gear acceleration, 30-50: 9.3,
50-70 9.6
and just for grins....
Civic Si (C&Dapril 99)
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
50-70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.3
and for humiliation...
2000 Honda Civic EX (whopping 127 hp or so)
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph RoadTest 11.3 (*spank*)
Top-gear acceleration, 50-70 mph RoadTest 12.6 (err...)
Wow, not only does the prelude spank the bajesus out of the C5 in top gear
tests, Crush's hero of torquelessnes, the un-daily-driveable Honda Civic Si
takes a dead fish and slaps the corvette upside the head. And if you don't
use the rediculously tall (which the C5 reaches it's top speed of 172mph at
only 3500 or so rpms in 6th) then the mileage fall off closer to the
observed 18 mpg... not too hot. It would suck to own a vette and HAVE to
downshift to pass someone on the highway. I guess Crush would never buy a
C5... god help him if he had to downshift. Also take note (CRUSH) that the
SI is considerably faster in the top gear tests than the new civic, even
with the bigger motor and the Si NOT using it's vtec. Gee, VTEC must really
work.. 1,000,000 crushs proven wrong... or is that Cush proven wrong
1,000,000 times?
YZfrider
00 YZfr6
99 Honda prelude
Mark Gonzales
corvette upside the head."
Thank you for explaining the meaning of those numbers in terms that even I
can understand. ;-)
--
Mark
'99 Civic Si
www.lt-solutions.com (Batch Processing / MEP Drafting for AutoCAD LT®)
YZFrider <swal...@woh.rrr.com> wrote in message
news:OXBs6.99504$Aj2.1...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
Lee Cao
> > Okay, so while it is a problem for drivers of VTEC cars to not extract
> > maximum performance in everyday driving, it is perfectly fine for a V8
> > driver to do the same? Clarification please.
>
> Where do you keep reading this between the lines I wrote?? Did you not
read
> the above statement? No wonder there are many people in here that give
you
> a hard time. You twist peoples words around to suit your needs.
I didn't twist your words. I asked you a question, because you had said
"Then you are not getting the maximum performance from your car." in
response to someone saying to the effect that he never go above 5200rpm in
every day driving. The tone of your comment suggested that you considered
"not getting the maximum performance" to be a negative thing.
> > > > Huh? You don't realize that there is a direct connection between HP
> > > output
> > > > and gas mileage? This is plain physics. Increased engergy output
> must
> > > > necessarily require increased energy input, given that the engine
> > > efficiency
> > > > is constant.
> > >
> > > And there are many other factors you blatantly left out. One being
> > > efficiency. Another being coeficiency of drag. There are many
others.
> >
> > I was talking about the horsepower output of the engine with relation to
> > fuel consumption, because the two are directly connected, a fact which
you
> > seem to discount. As such, only the engine efficiency is the major
> factor.
> > As far as how much power the Vette needs to sustain highway cruising is
> > addressed in the following:
>
> I never discounted anything.
You said, and I quote, "We're talking about gas mileage, not HP per gas
mileage." I read that as a discount of the relationship between HP output
and fuel economy.
> It was you who was using *only* HP in relation
> to fuel consumption. There are many other factors that you discounted.
Given that the car presents a certain (arbitrary) load to the engine, the
engine's fuel consumption can be looked as a equation of power output and
engine efficiency. And if we hold engine efficiencly to be more or less
constant, then the power output of the engine is an indication of its fuel
consumption rate. I can find no simpler method of explaination for this
phenomenon.
> > I was waiting for you to pull out a dyno plot as a perfect example of
just
> > how misguided you are about this discussion. A couple of points can be
> > lifted from the above horse power plot. HP plots are made with the
> throttle
> > wide open. No Corvette cruising at a constant highway speed is holding
> the
> > throttle wide open. And it goes without saying that an engine produces
> less
> > power at a given RPM with the throttle far from being wide open.
>
> It's not exact, but it will be close. Sure, there will be more gas burned
> and more HP per given rpm at WOT than at a constant rpm, but it won't
> differentiate as much as you'd like.
This is absolutely absurd. How can you even begin to suggest that the HP
necessary to accelerate a corvette at the average rate of 19.56 ft/s/s is
"close" to that is needed to sustain it at a constant velocity?
> >The other
> > point is that a Corvette does not got anywhere near 4000RPMs while
getting
> > that 30mpg cruising in 6th gear at 60-70mph. Both of these points are
> prove
> > positive that your assertion regarding power output levels of the
Corvette
> > at 30mpg cruising is severely erroneous.
>
> I seriously don't know why you always have to throw these loops and twists
> in discussions to suit your needs and downplay whatever it is the other
> person you are talking to is talking about, but oh well.
What loops and twists? These are the flaws in your logic.
> Does it really
> matter how much HP at a certain speed the vette is making?
Yes it does, because you made the erroneous assertion that a corvette is
making more than 127HP while getting 30mpg cruising in sixth gear.
> I won't be able
> to give you real world data to back up my claim, nor can you give me any
to
> back up yours.
No real world data, but sound reasoning and logic, supported by dyno plots
and common sense.
> Regardless of tranny, it is still capable of >30mpg on the
> highway, with a 350HP V8.
Again, you are only generating a very small amount of HP from that V8
*WHILE* getting 30mpg.
> BTW, how much HP do you think the Prelude has cruising in 5th at 60-70mph?
> Considerably less than the vette, for sure.
Like I said in a previous post, the prelude is likely producing 30-40 HP
while cruising at 60-70mph. The Vette would probaly need slightly more than
that due to the fact that it is a bigger car. But because of its 30mpg
rating, it is not much more than the power of a prelude under the same
cruise condition. I would guess 50hp?
> Also, why doesn't Honda take
> advantage of 6spd. tranny's?
Higher end Hondas do in fact use 6 speeds. Both the prelude and integra are
older designs to be replaced with the newer RS-X, which I heard is available
with a 6-speed.
> They could get a whole lot better gas mileage,
> especially with VTEC engines.
Not a whole lot. But I would say about 10%.
> They *are* supposed to be one of the worlds
> most efficient car companies you know.
And they are! Go ahead and see what the typical fuel economies are like for
a Civic sized car with a 127HP, 160HP, 170HP and 195HP engine, or a prelude
sized car with a 200HP or 240HP engine. These are the few VTEC engine power
ratings I remember off the top of my head.
> Scott
> 96 GT (one of 1849 made)
> 9....@74.24mph (1/8th)
> MAC cat-back
> BBK offroad h-pipe
> MAC cold air induction
> Steeda Tri-Ax shifter
> Steeda Subs
> FMS 3.73's
> ASP Pulley's (coming soon)
> 98 Cobra Rims
> Synthetics
--
Lee Cao
"Gene S. Berkowitz" <ge...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.151caf6c4...@news.rcn.com...
> In article <rh85btkk0ra78u7oe...@4ax.com>, luck...@usa.net
> says...
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:39:13 -0900 (AKST), ak...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > >Vtec-E will and alwas has gotton better gas mileage than nonVtec
civics,
> > >manual and cvt tranmisions
> >
> > Is Sab developing something along the lines of Vtec but with constant
> > varying cams? Anyone know what I'm talking about? Or did I just pull
> > that out of the air?
>
> Saab has a prototype where the cylinder head can _tilt_ relative to the
> top of the piston. This allows them to have variable displacement...
I think the greater effect is varied compression ratio. I think it's a
neato idea.
> Expect to see a camless engine for sale within 5 years, using
> electromechanical valve actuators.
I thought this was old news? It was introduced a long time ago, became
obsolete, retired, and then resurrected by BMW in order to implement their
own variable valve timing system. Electromagnet based valve actuators have
serious rpm range limitations. It has to do with how fast a electromagnet
can switch polarities... a.k.a. hysterisis. Have they found a new
implementation that solves this problem?
> --Gene
Lee Cao
"Crush" <-cru...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ab40125....@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:48:40 GMT, "Lee Cao"
> <lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote:
>
> >Show me a car with faster 0-60 times for $17,545... the list will be
fairly
> >short I am sure.
>
> I can list many.
Still waiting.
> >Heh, I am not the one with a problem here. I just would rather spend my
> >time more productively than try to educate someone who refuse to learn.
>
> I am willing to learn. And most of the time you agree with me. See my
> sig.
You are a walking contradiction. You recently made many posts that directly
contradicts the following quote of mine.
> ____
> "VTEC is used to improve breathing at higher RPMs, it
> does very little for low RPM operation." --Lee Cao
>
> The Vtec Reality Check
> http://members.home.net/crush/reality-check
> Over 50,000 people educated!
--
Lee Cao
> "Lee Cao" <lig...@leecao.spam-be-gone.com> wrote in message
> news:BZBr6.84766$__6.16...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I seriously don't know why everyone in here likes to compare their
cars
> to
> > > Mustangs, but OK.
> >
> > I think he was pretty clear about why he chose it. The "Crush favorite"
> > part is a big hint.
>
> Well, if you'd read some of the threads Gary posts in RAMFM and most of
his
> posts in here, he's always comparing/saying something about a Mustang.
>
> > > > Lets say, VTEC. You go to store, go to work, groceries, the 4 cyl
VTEC
> > > > engine is more than enough even if you dont push it to VTEC range.
> > >
> > > If you don't push it up into VTEC range, it hasn't got much.
> >
> > But that's when you don't need much. Thus the flexibility of the
engine.
>
> And what about the time you need speed in a hurry and haven't got time to
> downshift? To me, that's not flexibility.
Sheesh, how long does it take to downshift? And its not like a VTEC engine
is incapable of reasonable acceleration at low RPMs.
> > > Mileage is better but if you want to
> > > > have fun you can always push to VTEC range. I have a 97 prelude for
4
> > > years
> > > > I never felt the need to go above 5200rpm from stop light to corners
> in
> > > > everyday driving.
> > >
> > > Then you are not getting the maximum performance from your car.
> >
> > Why do you need maximum performance from a car in everyday driving? You
> > telling me we should be doing burn-outs and red-lining in each gear in
> > everyday driving?
>
> No, but spirited driving is always fun every once in a while.
Great! So all those other times, you are not "getting the maximum
performance from your car". And if that's not a problem with your car, then
why is it a problem with VTEC cars?
> <snip>
>
> > > Your obsession with gas mileage from V8's are blatantly false. I can
> get
> > > 21mpg out of my car all day long pushing it to redline, or 26mpg on
the
> > > highway. Vette owners have been known to get well over 30mpg on the
> > > highway, and have lots more HP than my car. That's very close if not
> > better
> > > than lots of Hondas with VTEC and a lot less HP.
> >
> > This is laughable. How many HP do you think the Vette is generating
while
> > it is getting 30mph in that extra tall sixth gear?
>
> I guarantee you it's much more than most VTEC engines at redline, besides
> your comment is way off base.
There is no way that a VETTE requires more than 127HP (the lowest current
power rating of any VTEC engine) just to cruise at highway speeds.
> We're talking about gas mileage, not HP per
> gas mileage.
Huh? You don't realize that there is a direct connection between HP output
and gas mileage? This is plain physics. Increased engergy output must
necessarily require increased energy input, given that the engine efficiency
is constant.
> How much HP do you think VTEC motors put out when not in VTEC
> range (optimum gas mileage)?
Enough to sustain a constant vehicle speed, which is to overcome drivetrain
and rolling friction, as well as drag. At 60-70mph, I'd be surprised if
this is more than 30 to 40HP for the average Civic, S2000, Prelude, or
Integra. For the Corvette, I'd be really surprised if it takes more than
50HP to sustain 60-70mph on level road.
> You guys just can't accept the fact that a
> huge V8 (5.7L) can get better gas mileage than lots of your cars. The
fact
> that the big V8 is still a pushrod engine makes it even funnier.
What's funny is that you think the Vette's V8 is pushing gobs of power
*WHILE* getting that 30mpg in the tall sixth gear.
> Scott
> 96 GT (one of 1849 made)
> 9....@74.24mph (1/8th)
> MAC cat-back
> BBK offroad h-pipe
> MAC cold air induction
> Steeda Tri-Ax shifter
> Steeda Subs
> FMS 3.73's
> 98 Cobra Rims
> Synthetics
--
Gene S. Berkowitz
@sympatico.ca says...
> The latest thing on my Honda to go is the fan that blows heat in the
> cabin will only work on the high settings. So I have to hear the loud
> fan blowing in the car all the time. Now the wheels are vibrating like
> crazy and I don't know what to do. The rust is spreading like
> wildfire.
Okay. Why don't you take your stubby fingers outside and
actually FIX something on your '90 Civic. Here is a repair that
even YOU can perform:
Go to the Honda Dealer. Ask for part # 79330-SH3-003.
Mine cost US$19.34. Open the glove compartment. Remove
the two Phillips head screws (you do OWN a screwdriver, right?)
that hold the hinges to the dash.
Notice the black plastic duct under where the glove compartment
used to be. Notice the wiring harness plugged into a small bump
the exact size and shape of the part you bought. Unscrew this part.
Put your new part in. Replace screws. Attach wiring harness.
Replace glove compartment. Congratulate yourself on finally repairing
something. Notice that the fan now works.
Let's see now, what's left? Oh yes. You declare yourself qualified
to evaluate the benefits of electrically controlled variable valve
timing, but you don't know what to do about "the wheels vibrating".
You could haul your ass around the car once or twice and check the
tires, for starters. Do they have enough air? Would you know how to
tell if they didn't?
Can you see where a balance weight has fallen off? Would you know one if
you saw it?
Have you ever rotated the tires? Do you know what that means, or how to
do it?
Finally, take the car out on the highway, floor it, and let it shake
until a wheel falls off. It should be easy to figure out what the problem
is then.
The good thing about all this is that your poorly maintained Civic will
eventually fail the safety inspection. Since the only way you would ever
see $17,545 is by selling a kidney, it should be amusing to hear what
piece of crap you actually do buy.
--Gene
Scott C
news:98qish$dj0$1...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...> news:Qp3s6.6790$PH.5...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
>
> > And it's just as hilarious watching you try to defend your little 4
> > cylinder's gas mileage compared to a huge V8.
>
> Heh heh. I can't wait to find out first hand!
Hey, I thought you had work to do. :-)
> In any case, it doesn't surprise me that a Vette gets similar HWY mileage.
I
> mean, could you really tell a difference between a Civic and a Vette if
you
> set the cruise to 70 and close your eyes and ears (before you hit
> something)?
>
> The difference would be in accelerating, right? The Vette has gobs more
> power. The Vette sucks gobs more gas.
>
> Do I have it right?
In a sense, but the vette is very efficient. You also have to remember that
you're feeding 8cyls. instead of 4 though. I have no idea why it gets as
good a gas mileage as it does, but it's been proven time and time again. I
wish my V8 got the gas mileage of a vette!
BTW, to Lee. If a vette gets good gas mileage only because it has such a
high 6th gear, then why isn't the Viper comparable? It has basically the
same tranny, albeit a few more HP, but really sucks the gas.
> And I do believe that Honda has gone downhill since the late 80s. The cars
> are actually nicer (bigger, more power, etc). But the fit-n-finish is no
> longer perfect (I have 2 examples of awkward fit-n-finish flaws shared by
> all '99 Civic coupes that I've seen). This is unacceptable. The rest of
the
> fit-n-finish is perfect - or close to it, IMO (body gaps, interior molds
and
> seams, etc).
I agree. My girlfriends 97 was nice on the inside compared to previous
models, but had lots of rattles and the damned ash tray lid kept breaking.
Also, some of the interior lines didn't match up well. It also had less
than 20,000 miles on it. I've been in lots of late 80's and early 90's
Accords, Civics, and Preludes and they didn't seem to have as many rattles
or flaws as the 97 Civic, even being on average 7 years older and above
100,000 miles.
> A recent car mag (MT I believe) stated that the new Civics' body panels
are
> so tight, you can't squeeze a dime between the gaps. I'm going to check
one
> out soon to see what IS messed up, though. Looking at my family's new
> Accords, I bet that new Civic isn't perfect at all.
Hmm... Your findings should be interesting. I've put many body panels on
cars before, and lining them up is a bitch. Especially if you're going to
line them up close enough that you can't fit a dime between the gaps.
> BTW, I realized after leaving the NG recently that I can't disconnect from
> Usenet (an addiction which cuts into my work) because it's a good
> advertising tool! I'll just have to try moderation...yeah, right!
Moderation never works. I've been trying to quit smoking for well over a
year now (in moderation, of course).
__
> Mark
> www.lt-solutions.com (Batch Processing / MEP Drafting for AutoCAD LT®)
Scott
96 GT (one of 1849 made)
9....@74.24mph (1/8th)
MAC cat-back
BBK offroad h-pipe
MAC cold air induction
Steeda Tri-Ax shifter
Steeda Subs
FMS 3.73's