Integra Type-R will be the fastest 4-cyl car in the us!
Dan Lopez
If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car in
the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again that is
turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated car in
the US. If it doesnt hold the title for that, iot sure will for handling.
(.92g)
BTW i have a deposit for one, the worst part is, i dont evan know the
release date!
dan
Chao I (Bobby) Wu
Dan Lopez wrote:
>
> If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car in
> the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again that is
> turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated car in
> the US.
Perhaps you should say...The Type-R will be the fastest normally
aspirated STOCK 4 cylendar car in the US. And the DSM cars
(Eclipse/Talon etc) aren't tops either. The pre V8 Lotus Esprits, I
believe, take the cake.
--
Chao I Wu
ec...@mcw.edu
Medical College of Wisconsin
Co-Editor Integra Performance Page
http://integra.vtec.net
David Masten
In article <01bc21b2$200dc580$1279c697@server>, "Dan Lopez" <virg...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car in
>the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again that is
>turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated car in
>(.92g)
Old argument, but I wouldn't go around equating skidpad G numbers with
"handling". As to G's, it depends a hell of a lot on tires, and apparently
who is doing the testing and when/where. MT reported a 0.93 for the 4-cyl
Z3.
Dan Lopez
the lotus cars i dont think are in production here anymore?
dan
Chao I (Bobby) Wu <ec...@mcw.edu> wrote in article
<3310C4...@mcw.edu>...
> Dan Lopez wrote:
> >
> > If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car
in
> > the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again
that is
> > turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated
car in
> > the US.
>
Ryan Rahim
Dan Lopez (virg...@bellatlantic.net) wrote:
: If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car in
: the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again that is
: turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated car in
: (.92g)
: BTW i have a deposit for one, the worst part is, i dont evan know the
: release date!
: dan
Uhm, sorry to burst your bubble, but weren't the E30 M3s in the early
90's faster, and better handling cars?
They were normally aspirated 4 cyl cars too.
Ryan
--
Speeding never killed anyone. . .stopping did.
David Masten
>Uhm, sorry to burst your bubble, but weren't the E30 M3s in the early
>90's faster, and better handling cars?
I recall reading a R&T (C&D) comparison of the ~88 M3 and 325i. They were
about the same in 0-60. Don't know the numbers, but I bet not in the 7.0
sec range. I believe with years, the E30 M3 developed more power, but don't
know how much. Given that the GS-R can already do 7 second 0-60's (+/-
depending on your source), I'd imagine the R is faster than the E30 M3. I
know there was a lot of hedging above. But bottom line, if 0-60 is what you
want, my money is on the Type R.
As to handling, a subjective term, as always. If you insist on the rwd
oversteer potential, sure stick with the BMW. Probably a lot of fun for a
competent driver (of which I make no claim to be), and a potentially risky
one for the initiate? By the numbers, for what little they're worth, I'd
assume the Type R wins. I'd imagine that in 9 years, technology has
advanced to where the Type R is going to have some significant real-word
advantages. Though I make no claims to the Type R being the end all of
4-banger handling.
One thing they have in common is damn silly wings.
Greg Husemeier
Chao I (Bobby) Wu <ec...@mcw.edu> wrote in article
<3310C4...@mcw.edu>...
> Dan Lopez wrote:
> >
> > If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car
in
> > the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again
that is
> > turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated
car in
> > the US.
>
> Perhaps you should say...The Type-R will be the fastest normally
> aspirated STOCK 4 cylendar car in the US. And the DSM cars
> (Eclipse/Talon etc) aren't tops either. The pre V8 Lotus Esprits, I
> believe, take the cake.
Were the pre V8 Lotus Esprits normally aspirated? They were turbocharged
if I remember correctly.
Greg Husemeier
Greg Husemeier
David Masten <mas...@frontiernet.net> wrote in article
<5er6tn$1f...@node2.frontiernet.net>...
> In article <5er10k$ngn$2...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan
Rahim) wrote:
>
> >Uhm, sorry to burst your bubble, but weren't the E30 M3s in the early
> >90's faster, and better handling cars?
>
> I recall reading a R&T (C&D) comparison of the ~88 M3 and 325i. They
were
> about the same in 0-60. Don't know the numbers, but I bet not in the 7.0
> sec range. I believe with years, the E30 M3 developed more power, but
don't
> know how much. Given that the GS-R can already do 7 second 0-60's (+/-
> depending on your source), I'd imagine the R is faster than the E30 M3.
C&D rated the Type R at 6.6 seconds 0-60, which would make it faster than
the E30 M3 according to your numbers.
Greg Husemeier
John Frost
In article <5eqhjd$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mas...@frontiernet.net (David Masten) wrote:
>In article <01bc21b2$200dc580$1279c697@server>, "Dan Lopez"
>> If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car in
>>the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again that is
>>turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated car in
>>(.92g)
>
>"handling". As to G's, it depends a hell of a lot on tires, and apparently
>who is doing the testing and when/where. MT reported a 0.93 for the 4-cyl
>Z3.
That is an excellent point about the tires. I received my Type-R mini
brochure in the mail last week an it is obvious that Acura is trying to avoid
another tire problem like they had with the NSX. In the cover letter that come
with the brochure Acura touts the "Bridgestone Potenza RE010 summer-use
tires".
The following is a quote from the small print on the back of the brochure:
"The unique high performance tires on this vehicle will wear more rapidly
than normal passenger car tires. Tire life may be significantly less than
10,000 miles depending upon driving conditions. This tire's high performance
tread pattern is also not designed for winter driving. Driving in snow and
ice should be avoided."
While the Type-R will no doubt be a great handling car, most any car can be
improved with a set of autocross or road racing tires. It would be
interesting to see some performance specs for the Type-R with the Michelin's
that come on the GS-R.
John F
Chao I (Bobby) Wu
> > aspirated STOCK 4 cylendar car in the US. And the DSM cars
> > (Eclipse/Talon etc) aren't tops either. The pre V8 Lotus Esprits, I
> > believe, take the cake.
>
> Were the pre V8 Lotus Esprits normally aspirated? They were turbocharged
> if I remember correctly.
Yes they were. But the original post was claiming that the DSM turbos
were the fastest 4 cylendars, turbo or otherwise.
Ryan Rahim
David Masten (mas...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
: >Uhm, sorry to burst your bubble, but weren't the E30 M3s in the early
: >90's faster, and better handling cars?
: I recall reading a R&T (C&D) comparison of the ~88 M3 and 325i. They were
: about the same in 0-60. Don't know the numbers, but I bet not in the 7.0
: sec range. I believe with years, the E30 M3 developed more power, but don't
: know how much.
Uhm no. The M3 is certainly much faster than the 325i. The E30 M3 (with
fender flares) production began in the Summer of 1986, which is 11 years
earlier than the Integra Type R. It started life as a 2.3L with 212 hp
(169.6 lb/ft torque, nice and low at 4600 rpm), and later developed into the
Evolution II 2.5L with 235 hp and 177 lb/ft at 4750 rpm. Those are
serious hp, and torque numbers for a normally aspirated 4 cyl motor with
a 10.5:1 compression ratio. The engines are still open to modifications
unlike Honda's Type-R's modify-n-lose performance policy.
C/D's numbers for the Type R is 0-60 in 6.6 secs, I believe. C/D's
numbers are typically not reproducable in the real world with most
drivers. (C/D typically get faster times than *most* manufacturer
claims) The rated 0-60 for the M3 EVO is 0-62 mph in 6.5s, and a
blistering top speed of 154.1 mph. Manufacturer claims for the
M-Series cars are typically conservative.
Given that the GS-R can already do 7 second 0-60's (+/-
: depending on your source), I'd imagine the R is faster than the E30 M3.
With a piddly-ass <200 hp, vs the M3? I don't think so. What does it do
the quarter-mile at anyway?
I
: know there was a lot of hedging above. But bottom line, if 0-60 is what you
: want, my money is on the Type R.
FWD can't put the power to the road as well as the M3, which is RWD and
has a 25% limited slip differential. Furthermore, the M3 has decent
torque numbers, something lacking in the Type R. And besides, who buys a
car for 0-60 when the numbers are so close? The M3 absolutely
annihilates the Integra in engine-related performance numbers, as well as
overall feel, handling, balance as would be demonstrated on a
race-track, not to mention the Motorsport BMW has a lot more class.
Furthermore, used M3s are less $ than a new Type R, and I wouldn't
hesitate for a hearbeat given the choice between the two cars.
: As to handling, a subjective term, as always. If you insist on the rwd
: oversteer potential, sure stick with the BMW. Probably a lot of fun for a
: competent driver (of which I make no claim to be), and a potentially risky
: one for the initiate? By the numbers, for what little they're worth, I'd
: assume the Type R wins.
And what numbers are you referring to? Skidpad???? The M3 has a
no-compromise track worthy Bilstein sport suspension. That and rear
wheel drive has made is an enviable class leader at many track races. On
the street, in inclement weather, I'll give that the Integra, being FWD
and thus inherently superior, has safer handling.
: I'd imagine that in 9 years, technology has
: advanced to where the Type R is going to have some significant real-word
: advantages.
German engineering is typically a decade ahead of everyone else. :-P
Remember, we're talking about a Motorsport BMW here. In all fairness, we
should equip the BMW with '90s ultra-high performance tires. What does
the Type R come with OEM?
Though I make no claims to the Type R being the end all of
: 4-banger handling.
It certainly isn't. There are a lots of 4 bangers that would handle
better: The Lotus Esprit, MR-2, E30 M3...etc.
: One thing they have in common is damn silly wings.
On the M3 it's functional, on the Honda it's to attract those who have
already stuck the "damn silly" Mugen spoilers on their Civics and
Preludes and are interested in trading-up.
<Ducking and hiding>
:-)
David Masten
In article <5eto2i$meg$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
>David Masten (mas...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
>: I recall reading a R&T (C&D) comparison of the ~88 M3 and 325i. They were
>: about the same in 0-60. Don't know the numbers, but I bet not in the 7.0
>: sec range.
>Uhm no. The M3 is certainly much faster than the 325i....
>It started life as a 2.3L with 212 hp
>(169.6 lb/ft torque, nice and low at 4600 rpm),
I guess that's low compared to the Type R :-)
From Consumer Guide, '91 Auto Annual:
M3, 2.3 dohc i-4, 192 hp @ 6750, 170 lb-ft @ 4750. US model.
From NADA, the '91 weighed 2867 lbs.
The numbers, aside from torque, favor the Integra for acceleration.
>With a piddly-ass <200 hp, vs the M3? I don't think so. What does it do
>the quarter-mile at anyway?
I've found with an amazing correlation that 0-60 lets you predict 1/4-mi
within 0.3 sec virtually every time. Basically, I submit it is pointless to
keep quoting both, or to expect a car to be good in one, and not so good in
the other. [Fully expecting I'll now get flooded with cases where it shows
one car being better than the other in one, and not the other. But if you
look at, say R&T's summary, you'll find those differences are probably 0.1
sec]
>FWD can't put the power to the road as well as the M3, which is RWD and
>has a 25% limited slip differential.
Hmmm. I suppose it depends on the weight bias. While the weight does
transfer to the back (advantage rwd) most of the static weight is toward the
front (advantage fwd). Whether the rearward shift makes up for this, I
don't know.
>Furthermore, the M3 has decent
>torque numbers, something lacking in the Type R.
No argument. But if you wanted torque, the 325i was superior :-)
> And besides, who buys a
>car for 0-60 when the numbers are so close?
I 100% agree. I lose track, was the original point about it being better,
or quicker (or quicker == better)? I was just addressing YOUR point about
which was faster :-)
>The M3 absolutely
>annihilates the Integra in engine-related performance numbers,
Not by the above.
>as well as
>overall feel, handling, balance as would be demonstrated on a
>race-track,
IYNSHO. Let's put a '91 M3, not one of your special duded up ones, against
a basic Type R, and see. Since you and I haven't driven the latter, and
most probably not the former, we're just flappin our jaws.
>Furthermore, used M3s are less $ than a new Type R, and I wouldn't
>hesitate for a hearbeat given the choice between the two cars.
Then by all means, do so. Me, I don't plan on getting either. Still have
those damned silly wings...
mikelee
> race-track, not to mention the Motorsport BMW has a lot more class.
Oh gee, that was convincing. Falls in line with the "i bought this car
because chicks dig it" argument.
> Furthermore, used M3s are less $ than a new Type R, and I wouldn't
> hesitate for a hearbeat given the choice between the two cars.
How used is used? A used Porsche 911 can cost less than a Type R, shall
we compare those two? A US Type-R will probably appreciate in value
rather than depreciate, since only 500 exist, and only 600 or 700 next
year.
The M3 is 20k above the Type-R. The NSX is 20k above the M3. NSX has a
3.2, so does the M3. Try comparing these two.
> German engineering is typically a decade ahead of everyone else. :-P
The 800 series has about the same tech as the NSX (drive-by-wire), the
M3
has similar tech to a Type-R (slip differential, variable valve timing).
I don't see an 80's car and a 90's car difference.
Ed Yee
Dan Lopez wrote:
>
> If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car in
> the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again that is
> turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated car in
I'm hoping for a left-hand driven version of the Mitsubishi Lancer
Evolution IV.
It has been acclaimed as the most technologically advanced japanese car
available. It is also considered the fastest Japanese production car
with 4
cylinders. Get this: 280bhp out of a 2 litre engine! 0-60 in 4.9s!
(Numbers
are for an unmodified Lancer!!) Funny thing is, this car has 4-doors!
Don't know about you, but if I had an NSX, I'd be pretty embarassed if
all
of a sudden a family car comes by and kills me!
Bill Bechtold
> David Masten (mas...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
> : In article <5er10k$ngn$2...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan
Rahim) wrote:
>
> : >Uhm, sorry to burst your bubble, but weren't the E30 M3s in the early
> : >90's faster, and better handling cars?
>
> : I recall reading a R&T (C&D) comparison of the ~88 M3 and 325i. They were
> : about the same in 0-60. Don't know the numbers, but I bet not in the 7.0
> : sec range. I believe with years, the E30 M3 developed more power, but
don't
> : know how much.
>
> Uhm no. The M3 is certainly much faster than the 325i. The E30 M3 (with
> fender flares) production began in the Summer of 1986, which is 11 years
> earlier than the Integra Type R. It started life as a 2.3L with 212 hp
> (169.6 lb/ft torque, nice and low at 4600 rpm), and later developed into the
> Evolution II 2.5L with 235 hp and 177 lb/ft at 4750 rpm. Those are
> serious hp, and torque numbers for a normally aspirated 4 cyl motor with
> a 10.5:1 compression ratio. The engines are still open to modifications
> unlike Honda's Type-R's modify-n-lose performance policy.
Actually the stock E30 M3 printed 0-60 (by BMW) was 6.9 seconds. Due to
the lack of ANY power on a stock E30 M3 below 4000 RPMs, this is not a
good judge of E30 M3 performance. Get on a track, and watch the E30 M3
KILL the Integra Type-R.
>
> C/D's numbers for the Type R is 0-60 in 6.6 secs, I believe. C/D's
> numbers are typically not reproducable in the real world with most
> drivers. (C/D typically get faster times than *most* manufacturer
> claims) The rated 0-60 for the M3 EVO is 0-62 mph in 6.5s, and a
> blistering top speed of 154.1 mph. Manufacturer claims for the
> M-Series cars are typically conservative.
If you bring the 2.5 litre E30 M3 EVO Sport into the comparison, this is
no comparison, period. They did 0-60 in the 5-second range. Of course,
none were OFFICIALLY imoprted into the US (that doesn't meant there aren't
any.)
>
> Given that the GS-R can already do 7 second 0-60's (+/-
> : depending on your source), I'd imagine the R is faster than the E30 M3.
I race one ANY DAY! I have spanked GS-Rs left and right (andVettes-check
my web page for details.)
>
> With a piddly-ass <200 hp, vs the M3? I don't think so. What does it do
> the quarter-mile at anyway?
>
> I
> : know there was a lot of hedging above. But bottom line, if 0-60 is
what you
> : want, my money is on the Type R.
No, if you care about 0-60, you just go buy a car with a V-8. Who are you
kidding? No 4-banger will outperform an equally tuned V-8 in pure
acceleration.
>
> FWD can't put the power to the road as well as the M3, which is RWD and
> has a 25% limited slip differential. Furthermore, the M3 has decent
> torque numbers, something lacking in the Type R. And besides, who buys a
> car for 0-60 when the numbers are so close? The M3 absolutely
> annihilates the Integra in engine-related performance numbers, as well as
> overall feel, handling, balance as would be demonstrated on a
> race-track, not to mention the Motorsport BMW has a lot more class.
> Furthermore, used M3s are less $ than a new Type R, and I wouldn't
> hesitate for a hearbeat given the choice between the two cars.
Amen. No FWD car will be able to perform as well as an equally tuned RWD
car at the limit.
>
> : As to handling, a subjective term, as always.
How so? If a car is balanced, has grip, etc? On the track RWD ALWAYS has
the advantage (forgetting autox.)
>If you insist on the rwd
> : oversteer potential, sure stick with the BMW. Probably a lot of fun for a
> : competent driver (of which I make no claim to be), and a potentially risky
> : one for the initiate? By the numbers, for what little they're worth, I'd
> : assume the Type R wins.
>
> And what numbers are you referring to? Skidpad???? The M3 has a
> no-compromise track worthy Bilstein sport suspension. That and rear
> wheel drive has made is an enviable class leader at many track races. On
> the street, in inclement weather, I'll give that the Integra, being FWD
> and thus inherently superior, has safer handling.
Safer to the beginning driver, maybe. To the advanced driver, FWD and
understeer and be MUCH more dangerous. When I drive a Jetta now I can't
believe how poorly they handle!
>
> : I'd imagine that in 9 years, technology has
> : advanced to where the Type R is going to have some significant real-word
> : advantages.
>
> German engineering is typically a decade ahead of everyone else. :-P
> Remember, we're talking about a Motorsport BMW here. In all fairness, we
> should equip the BMW with '90s ultra-high performance tires. What does
> the Type R come with OEM?
I can pull about 1.0-G on racing compound tires or just below that with my
P-Zeros
>
> Though I make no claims to the Type R being the end all of
> : 4-banger handling.
>
> It certainly isn't. There are a lots of 4 bangers that would handle
> better: The Lotus Esprit, MR-2, E30 M3...etc.
>
> : One thing they have in common is damn silly wings.
>
> On the M3 it's functional, on the Honda it's to attract those who have
> already stuck the "damn silly" Mugen spoilers on their Civics and
> Preludes and are interested in trading-up.
The E30 M3 is TOTALY different from the rear pillars back, and is gives
the M3 a lower drag than the 325/318s of the same era. So, the E30 M3 is
definitely functional. Don't forget the E30 M3 was a homologation
special, not some marketing tool. Everything about the E30 M3 is
functional, and as a result the E30 M3 is the winningest car in touring
racing EVER.
--
-Bill Bechtold
bbec...@cisco.com
bbec...@batnet.com
For my cars and more goto my homepage:
http://www.batnet.com/bbechtol/
'89 BMW ///M3- Modified Also can be seen at:
http://www.psnw.com/~primenet/rides.html
'67 Firebird 400- Stock and for sale - Winner MCOTW 1/4/97:
http://www.psnw.com/~primenet/mcotw.html
See my web page for details on my cars and my Firebird 400 For Sale.
Bill Bechtold
> > race-track, not to mention the Motorsport BMW has a lot more class.
>
> Oh gee, that was convincing. Falls in line with the "i bought this car
> because chicks dig it" argument.
>
> > Furthermore, used M3s are less $ than a new Type R, and I wouldn't
> > hesitate for a hearbeat given the choice between the two cars.
>
> How used is used? A used Porsche 911 can cost less than a Type R, shall
> we compare those two? A US Type-R will probably appreciate in value
> rather than depreciate, since only 500 exist, and only 600 or 700 next
> year.
That is funny! Buya Integra Type-R it is a good investment, yeah right!
If so, why didn't the M3 go up in value? It was produced in about the
same numbers. Sure, it held its value pretty well, but it surely didn't
go up!
I still put money on the M3 any day of the week on a track. It is there
where the M3 shines, can the Integra say the same?
Bill Bechtold
In article <5etpbh$25...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mas...@frontiernet.net
(David Masten) wrote:
> >FWD can't put the power to the road as well as the M3, which is RWD and
> >has a 25% limited slip differential.
>
> Hmmm. I suppose it depends on the weight bias. While the weight does
> transfer to the back (advantage rwd) most of the static weight is toward the
> front (advantage fwd). Whether the rearward shift makes up for this, I
> don't know.
How many FWD Top-Fuel dragsters have you seen? How many FWD Exotic cars?
If there was a performance advantage wouldn't these folks take advantage
of it? Weight transfer always gives the RWD a performance advantage.
doug h.
I believe the Porsche 968 would beat both cars, in the category of
a normally aspirated 4-cylinder available in the US. The factory
claims 0-60 in 6.3 secs, and a 156 mph top speed, with a 6-speed
manual. The engine is a 3.0L 16 valve with 236 hp at 6200 rpm and
225 ft-lbs of torque at 4100 rpm. I don't know the car's weight,
but I think it's around 2800-2900 lbs.
I would guess that the Honda would get the award for the fastest NA
production 4-cylinder that's currently sold in the US.
Tuan M. Nguyen
Ryan Rahim wrote:
> On the M3 it's functional, on the Honda it's to attract those who have
> already stuck the "damn silly" Mugen spoilers on their Civics and
> Preludes and are interested in trading-up.
Honda's lead Integra design engineer has been quoted in Best Motoring
magazine's
saying that the Integra Type-R's rear wing was created to increase
stability while lapping Honda's test track. Best Motoring is a Japanese
video magazine. The issue is January 1995. It was verbally translated
to me by a very competent Japanese-American.
> a 10.5:1 compression ratio. The engines are still open to modifications
> unlike Honda's Type-R's modify-n-lose performance policy.
And you state this as fact? Please state the source of this opinion/
statement etc...
Bill Bechtold wrote:
> I still put money on the M3 any day of the week on a track. It is there
> where the M3 shines, can the Integra say the same?
Does this include when the race track is wet? ;) ;) Come on Bill, no
need
to be so confrontational. ;) ;)
From: McGirk
Subject: Honda/Acura Dominate Wordl Touring @St. Petersburg, Florida!!
Date: Monday, February 24, 1997 1:29 PM
Just a little tid bit of info direct from the Florida Gran-Prix,
Honda/Acura dominated the wet track at the St. Petersburg road course.
A NSX took first place in Touring I (T1) and an Integra Type-R took
third in Touring II (T2). I was talking to a guy with the Honda/Acura
team in the paddock area about the Type-R, he said it was the one that
either Road&Track ot one of those mags. tested, one of only two in the
US, The car looked sweet painted the traditional Acura white/bright
orange two tone. I was told the car itself was mostly stock with the
exception of NSX brake callipers up front, new shocks/springs, and some
roll bar tweaking etc. The engine was bone stock right down to the air
box. This car is a real screamer, shifting much later than most other
cars, and seemed to handle very well not having to slow for the chicane
(actually accelerating a little) like the others. I enjoyed watching
this car run and hope to see it more in the future, it was nice to see
an Integra in front of T1 cars the like of Mustangs and Camaros.
David Masten
In article <bbechtol-250...@dhcp-j11-12-152.cisco.com>, bbec...@cisco.com (Bill Bechtold) wrote:
>In article <5etpbh$25...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mas...@frontiernet.net
>(David Masten) wrote:
>> Hmmm. I suppose it depends on the weight bias. While the weight does
>> transfer to the back (advantage rwd) most of the static weight is toward the
>> front (advantage fwd). Whether the rearward shift makes up for this, I
>> don't know.
>
>How many FWD Top-Fuel dragsters have you seen? How many FWD Exotic cars?
>If there was a performance advantage wouldn't these folks take advantage
>of it? Weight transfer always gives the RWD a performance advantage.
C'mon Bill. Give others some credit. I did think of top-fuel dragsters
when I posted the above. There are some obvious differences between them,
mid/rear engine exotics, and the more typical front-engine/rear drive of
more normal cars. What is the static weight bias of your examples? Is it
like the 52/48 or so of a typica BMW, or the, what, 55-58% front bias of a
camaro or corvette? I have no idea what the M3's whas/is. Again, I'm not
saying that the advantage doesn't go to the RWD, even for your typical
street RWD. But just simply saying it "always gives" doesn't make it so.
So, if anyone has the numbers for the dynamic weight transfer, rather than
just logical/hypothetical constructs, I'd like to see them. Thanks.
Second, I would be the first to agree that 0-60 does not make the car. I
was just adressing Ryan's assertion that the E30 M3 was quicker 0-60. No
amount of talk of balance or handling has any relevance to that one
(and to me relatively insignificant) point.
r c w y - ã‚’
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:35:50 -0800, Ed Yee <ey...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
wrote:
>I'm hoping for a left-hand driven version of the Mitsubishi Lancer
>Evolution IV.
>It has been acclaimed as the most technologically advanced japanese car
>available. It is also considered the fastest Japanese production car
>with 4
>cylinders. Get this: 280bhp out of a 2 litre engine! 0-60 in 4.9s!
>(Numbers
>are for an unmodified Lancer!!) Funny thing is, this car has 4-doors!
>Don't know about you, but if I had an NSX, I'd be pretty embarassed if
>all
>of a sudden a family car comes by and kills me!
>
>Ed
>ey...@acs.ucalgary.ca
good luck finding out of those as they are limited production cars
also. On one of the Japanese sports car tapes I've watched, it
actually beat a stock Skyline GTR V-Spec on a track. It's sure is fast
with the help of a twin-turbo system. It's the champion car of a
famous Rally which name I forgot...
rc
David Manning
> And what numbers are you referring to? Skidpad???? The M3 has a
> no-compromise track worthy Bilstein sport suspension. That and rear
> wheel drive has made is an enviable class leader at many track races. On
> the street, in inclement weather, I'll give that the Integra, being FWD
> and thus inherently superior, has safer handling.
>
Remember, the Type R is lowered and substantially stiffened from a GS-R,
and on lower profile tires. Nice for handling, but you're losing the
forgiving quality that lets people drive Hondas hard and get away with
it.. Sure, FWD is safe when driven safely, but remember to stay off the
brakes in a hard turn or that Integra's a groundbound frisbee, and
unlike the M3, once that baby's sliding, you can't just squeeze the
throttle and pull out. (I just 360'd my Legend, different story
altogether, but with FWD sliding is just NO FUN).
Power-wise, the Type R has, what, 190 hp and 170 ft-lb; but that's at
8000 RPM!! Pulling 6.6 second 0-60s means DESTROYING clutches and tires
to get to that power. Oh, and I think a '97 Prelude can swing 0-60 in
either 6.5 or 6.7 and has a higher top-end; plus whatever ungodly system
(ATTS??) they've devised for the front-drive system almost lets you
forget it's front-drive. The Type-R is, IMHO, a last-ditch effort to
keep people buying Integras when they've outdone themselves with the
superior Prelude. But either car still doesn't compete with the 4 cyl
German competition of a few years back.
Henri Helanto
bbec...@cisco.com (Bill Bechtold) writes:
<...>
>definitely functional. Don't forget the E30 M3 was a homologation
>special, not some marketing tool. Everything about the E30 M3 is
>functional, and as a result the E30 M3 is the winningest car in touring
>racing EVER.
Hold it right there, Bill...
What about Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500 (nearly unbeatable just
about everywhere, with the possible exception of: ) and Nissan
Skyline GT-R (highest percentage of victories per races
participated in, well over 95% ) ?
Admittedly, both of them were banned from racing, by changing
the rules after a couple of dominating seasons or outright,
which probably gives E30 M3 that title.
-Henri
--
# Henri Helanto ; he...@muncca.fi ; hhel...@cc.hut.fi #
# Nissan Skyline GT-R ; Corvette Coupe 454/LS-6 ; others...#
CAUTION: Before engaging mouth make sure that the brain is in gear.
Ryan Rahim
David Masten (mas...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
: In article <5eto2i$meg$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
: >David Masten (mas...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
: >: I recall reading a R&T (C&D) comparison of the ~88 M3 and 325i. They were
: >: about the same in 0-60. Don't know the numbers, but I bet not in the 7.0
: >: sec range.
: >Uhm no. The M3 is certainly much faster than the 325i....
: >It started life as a 2.3L with 212 hp
: >(169.6 lb/ft torque, nice and low at 4600 rpm),
: I guess that's low compared to the Type R :-)
Yes, it sure is. Good torque numbers for a 4 banger with a hot cam.
: one car being better than the other in one, and not the other. But if you
: look at, say R&T's summary, you'll find those differences are probably 0.1
: sec]
Exactly, so we should compare them performance wise in overall balance.
After all the subject doesn't just imply 0-60, but *overall* quickness.
: >FWD can't put the power to the road as well as the M3, which is RWD and
: >has a 25% limited slip differential.
: Hmmm. I suppose it depends on the weight bias. While the weight does
: transfer to the back (advantage rwd) most of the static weight is toward the
: front (advantage fwd). Whether the rearward shift makes up for this, I
: don't know.
Ever drive a powerful FWD car? Normal GSRs have trouble getting enough
traction esp, accelerating around a corner, where one wheel can end up
spinning uselessly. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the M3
can put better pwr to the pavement than the Honda.
: >Furthermore, the M3 has decent
: >torque numbers, something lacking in the Type R.
: No argument. But if you wanted torque, the 325i was superior :-)
The point is that for a 4 cyl, the M3 offers the hp _and_ the torque,
while the Teg has the hp but lacks in the torque dept.
: > And besides, who buys a
: >car for 0-60 when the numbers are so close?
: I 100% agree. I lose track, was the original point about it being better,
: or quicker (or quicker == better)?
I suppose the original poster (which incidentally, for those of you
joining from rec.autos.driving, started off in the rec.autos.makers.honda
newsgroup), thought that the Type R he was buying was the fastest 4 cyl
car sold in the U.S. My point is that the M3 which precedes this Type R
by almost a decade is an overall sportier 4 cyl sedan.
I was just addressing YOUR point about
: which was faster :-)
Honestly, I couldn't give a damn about a couple of milliseconds or even
1/2 a second. Overall feel, balance, is what matters to me, and I've
always stressed handling more than engine related performance for the
street.
: >The M3 absolutely
: >annihilates the Integra in engine-related performance numbers,
: Not by the above.
...over the long run, I wonder which will be a more durable motor after
being beaten on at the track.... As usual Honda is a prisoner of its low
displacement and high revving 4-cyl engines (always that torque-problem)
so my money's with the Bimmer.
: >as well as
: >overall feel, handling, balance as would be demonstrated on a
: >race-track,
: IYNSHO. Let's put a '91 M3, not one of your special duded up ones, against
: a basic Type R, and see. Since you and I haven't driven the latter, and
: most probably not the former, we're just flappin our jaws.
I submit that there is no way, the Type R is ever going to reach
the reputation, or the enviable standings the E30 M3 has built over the
years its been raced. Furthermore, there is a whole world of aftermarket
like Dinan tuning, and Korman Autowerks that will seriously increase
performance for the M3. With the Honda, out the box is close to the max
potential you're ever going to see (prisoner-of-displacement again.) In
fact, the Honda engineers stated that any modification to the engine
would most likely result in a power loss. See, www.integra.vtec.com (?)
for details.
: >Furthermore, used M3s are less $ than a new Type R, and I wouldn't
: >hesitate for a hearbeat given the choice between the two cars.
: Then by all means, do so. Me, I don't plan on getting either. Still have
: those damned silly wings...
It ain't silly on the M3. It's a functional design that compliments the
flared rear fenders.
The E30 M3 has been one of my all time favourite cars for a long time.
Ryan Rahim
mikelee (mik...@icomsim.com) wrote:
: > race-track, not to mention the Motorsport BMW has a lot more class.
: Oh gee, that was convincing. Falls in line with the "i bought this car
: because chicks dig it" argument.
My point is that it is a joke even to say that the Integra is in the same
class as the M3. The M3 simply outclasses the Honda.
: > Furthermore, used M3s are less $ than a new Type R, and I wouldn't
: > hesitate for a hearbeat given the choice between the two cars.
: How used is used? A used Porsche 911 can cost less than a Type R, shall
: we compare those two? A US Type-R will probably appreciate in value
: rather than depreciate, since only 500 exist, and only 600 or 700 next
: year.
So says Honda. I doubt we'd see any appreciation in value. But knowing
the blind dedication and fanaticism of Honda fans, I won't put money on it.
: The M3 is 20k above the Type-R. The NSX is 20k above the M3. NSX has a
: 3.2, so does the M3. Try comparing these two.
I believe we were comparing an E30 M3, which is >5 yrs older than the
Teg, so both can be acquired for the same $.
: > German engineering is typically a decade ahead of everyone else. :-P
: The 800 series has about the same tech as the NSX (drive-by-wire),
I am rather troubled by the way you worded that statement. What you mean
to say is that "the NSX has about the same tech as the 800 series BMW
(drive-by-wire)." While the two cars are certainly not comparable - the
NSX being a dedicated sports car while the 8-er is designed as a luxury,
touring coupe, (don't let the styling fool you), I would have to
seriously disagree with your notion that the 8-er and NSX are on the same
technology-plane.
Firstly, BMW's V12 had drive-by-wire since its introduction in the late
80's, while throttle-by-wire was a recent addition to the NSX.
Furthermore, the NSX is nowhere as complex a car electronically as the
850i (multiplexed wiring etc). The 8-er was BMW's technological leader
and served as a statement to the world that they intended to beat
Mercedes Benz from a technology standpoint.
There is a lot of rivalry
between these two premium automakers - Honda fits nowhere in this equation.
Consequently, the 850i did indeed win, most advanced production car in
the world (see Popular Mechanics circa early 90s) when it was
introduced. MB, insulted by being dethroned set out to build a car that
would solidify its image as the one and only, King - the S600 with a 400
hp, 6L V12 heart. A fat, over-indulgent creation sold at a price that
BMW would not dare tread in. The car was severely overengineered but did
manage to reclaimed its title. BMW folded its deck producing newer cars
which offered more value, while MB sales nosedived. For the first time,
BMW sold more cars on a global scale than MB. Mercedes had lost focus of
the market. MB admits past sins and is building cars more to market
tastes. These two automakers have quite an interesting recent history,
and if you are truly interested you might check out Fortune Magazine's
June 1996 issue of the two companies titled, "BMW & Mercedes, they've left
the Japanese in the dust and they're racing each other."
So please, do not try to bring in Honda, Acura or Lexus when we discuss
state-of-the-art technology from the premium German marques. If I ever
see a Honda rated as most advanced production car in the world, I
just might drive into a concrete barrier at 100 mph.
the
: M3
: has similar tech to a Type-R (slip differential, variable valve timing).
That's only factor. BMW technology absolutely blows away Honda. It's
just like saying that the RL and the S600 have the same technology
because they both have automatic climate control. You're neglecting the
other systems the M3 has which Type-R lacks. You also fail to realize
the amount of technolgy that BMW and Mercedes have innovated, that has
been implemented by many other marques (ESP Yaw control, ABS etc.) Honda?
At this point, the Honda fans usually dig up something about their F1 and
Cart victories, as if it has a carrier-effect on their production cars.
To that, I have just one word: "Renault."
Ryan
Ryan Rahim
om>
:Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution:
Tuan M. Nguyen (tmng...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
: Ryan Rahim wrote:
: > On the M3 it's functional, on the Honda it's to attract those who have
: > already stuck the "damn silly" Mugen spoilers on their Civics and
: > Preludes and are interested in trading-up.
: Honda's lead Integra design engineer has been quoted in Best Motoring
: magazine's
: saying that the Integra Type-R's rear wing was created to increase
: stability while lapping Honda's test track. Best Motoring is a Japanese
: video magazine. The issue is January 1995. It was verbally translated
: to me by a very competent Japanese-American.
If that wing was needed to increase stability in a car that travels less
than 150 mph, I'd say it has a serious problem. Let's face it, it's for
show, just like Soichiro Honda's son, founder of Mugen, creating those
ridiculous tall spoilers for Civics and Preludes. Perhaps it wouldn't be as
ridiculous if it was motorized to activate above a certain speed.
: > a 10.5:1 compression ratio. The engines are still open to modifications
: > unlike Honda's Type-R's modify-n-lose performance policy.
: And you state this as fact? Please state the source of this opinion/
: statement etc...
Honda's own powertrain engineer. See the Integra web page for details.
: Bill Bechtold wrote:
: > I still put money on the M3 any day of the week on a track. It is there
: > where the M3 shines, can the Integra say the same?
: Does this include when the race track is wet? ;) ;) Come on Bill, no
: need
: to be so confrontational. ;) ;)
: From: McGirk
: Subject: Honda/Acura Dominate Wordl Touring @St. Petersburg, Florida!!
: Date: Monday, February 24, 1997 1:29 PM
:
: (actually accelerating a little) like the others. I enjoyed watching
: this car run and hope to see it more in the future, it was nice to see
: an Integra in front of T1 cars the like of Mustangs and Camaros.
I see no mention of AWD cars like the DTM, or the Quattros. In good race
conditions, the M3 will be a better performer than the Type R. Mustangs
and Camaros have always sucked in the rain.
Chuck Tomlinson
do...@netcom.com (doug h.) wrote:
>
>I would guess that the Honda would get the award for the fastest NA
>production 4-cylinder that's currently sold in the US.
Isn't that kinda like the "tallest midget" award?
--
Chuck Tomlinson
'94 Corvette :-)
Ron O'Neill
>other systems the M3 has which Type-R lacks. You also fail to realize
>the amount of technolgy that BMW and Mercedes have innovated, that has
>been implemented by many other marques (ESP Yaw control, ABS etc.) Honda?
VTEC?
Which, IMHO is better than all of the above put together.
>Ryan
It's immaterial whether MB and BMW see the Japanese as their competition,
rather whether the Japanese see MB and BMW as *their* competition. I don't
think that *any* front-drive Honda is comparable to a rear-drive BMW, but the
prices are much lower and the compromises made (except for the front-drive)
are not that great. Now put Honda up against VW... and the comparison is a
lot more fair.
(I know Ryan, I know-- your Passat can kick NSX butt any day of the week)
Honda's got some damn good engine technology-- good enough so that people
feel compelled to compare it to BMW and MB. That should speak volumes. Now
an R-Type sure as hell ain't an E36 M3, and I don't know for sure that It'd
even be a good comparo against an E30 M3, but you *can* buy 2 R-Types for the
price of one E36 M3 and double your fun ;-)
Ron O'Neill
Your Bud Wes
Ron O'Neill (ron...@eden.com) wrote:
: >the amount of technolgy that BMW and Mercedes have innovated, that has
: VTEC?
: Which, IMHO is better than all of the above put together.
Opinions aside. Nissan came out with variable cam technology before
it's japanese brethren Honda did).
The BMW's version of cam/valve timing and engine control system is
far more sophisticated than VTEC is.
IMO, btw, ABS is far more important than VTEC is.
: >Ryan
: an R-Type sure as hell ain't an E36 M3, and I don't know for sure that It'd
: even be a good comparo against an E30 M3, but you *can* buy 2 R-Types for the
: price of one E36 M3 and double your fun ;-)
I can afford 2 GS-r types. I decided to get an M3 instead. You can only
drive one car at a time.
: Ron O'Neill
--
| / / Wes Y. Keller (5277191) |
| /// /// Engineering (ES) |
| .//////////. San Jose, CA, USA |
| ciscoSystems wyk/chupa...@cisco.com |
Please do not send me unsolicited mail.
Bill Bechtold
In article <5evs8m$21...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mas...@frontiernet.net
(David Masten) wrote:
> C'mon Bill. Give others some credit.
Don't take me too seriously. 8^)
>I did think of top-fuel dragsters
> when I posted the above. There are some obvious differences between them,
> mid/rear engine exotics, and the more typical front-engine/rear drive of
> more normal cars. What is the static weight bias of your examples? Is it
> like the 52/48 or so of a typica BMW, or the, what, 55-58% front bias of a
> camaro or corvette? I have no idea what the M3's whas/is.
50/50.
>Again, I'm not
> saying that the advantage doesn't go to the RWD, even for your typical
> street RWD. But just simply saying it "always gives" doesn't make it so.
> So, if anyone has the numbers for the dynamic weight transfer, rather than
> just logical/hypothetical constructs, I'd like to see them. Thanks.
I cannot think of a single car where FWD has a performance advantage other
than for poor weather with a poor driver. Camaros adn Vetees are RWD for
a reason, they perform better that way (in acceleration.) If they were
FWD I can only imagine the tire spin when you hit second and third gears!
Weight transfer much too quickly to give a FWD car any weight advantage by
having the majority of the weight over the front wheels. In a RWD car
set-up for the QM, the driver will loosen the front end suspension
compontents to speed this weight transfer even more.
Can we name a VERY fast FWD car? I'd say the quickest I know of is a
Eclipse or Talon, which aren't too quick....
Geoff Ortiz
David Manning wrote:
> Remember, the Type R is lowered and substantially stiffened from a GS-R,
> and on lower profile tires. Nice for handling, but you're losing the
> forgiving quality that lets people drive Hondas hard and get away with
> it.. Sure, FWD is safe when driven safely, but remember to stay off the
> brakes in a hard turn or that Integra's a groundbound frisbee, and
> unlike the M3, once that baby's sliding, you can't just squeeze the
> throttle and pull out. (I just 360'd my Legend, different story
> altogether, but with FWD sliding is just NO FUN).
I'm sorry David, but you are mistaken. The Type-R has the same size
tires as the GS-R (195/55/15). The only difference is that they are
summer performance tires instead of all season. The car has a stiffer
suspension, but the more neutral nature is really aided by a larger rear
swaybar. Any car (even my stock suspended GS-R) will come around when
you hit the brakes in a hard corner. Personally, I'd love to make my car
more neutral. Oh, and you can recover from a slide in FWD. Squeezing on
the throttle transfers weight to the rear and helps regain grip - try it
sometime. The Type-R is not, unfortunately RWD, but it is one of the
better handling FWD cars sold in the U.S. (this is an estimation based
upon the handling of the GS-R and the comments of test drivers).
> Power-wise, the Type R has, what, 190 hp and 170 ft-lb; but that's at
> 8000 RPM!! Pulling 6.6 second 0-60s means DESTROYING clutches and tires
> to get to that power. Oh, and I think a '97 Prelude can swing 0-60 in
> either 6.5 or 6.7 and has a higher top-end; plus whatever ungodly system
> (ATTS??) they've devised for the front-drive system almost lets you
> forget it's front-drive. The Type-R is, IMHO, a last-ditch effort to
> keep people buying Integras when they've outdone themselves with the
What? A 6.6 second 0-60 time doesn't mean destroying clutches.
Personally, I think CD got a horrible time. I have a GS-R with headers,
intake and exhaust. With a 200 lb driver, 30 lb toolbox, 1/4 tank of
gas, street tires, no burn out, easy launch (2.4 sec 60ft time) and no
powershifting I ran a corrected 15.05 (uncorrected 15.14) at 92.5 mph.
Considering that the R should have more power, less weight (lots less)
and a LSD, the car should have been easily into the 14's (Japanese mags
have tested it as low as 14.7 - I have the video).
The Integra-R is a completely different and more race oriented car than
the Prelude. I wouldn't begin to compare the two. As for these
comparisons with the E30 M3, I'm not sure why they started (and I don't
want to know - probably some overzealous person excited by the
introduction of the Type-R). However, the Type-R is not the same type of
car, would not compete in the same class of racing and is 10 years apart.
There are lots of used cars that are better performers than new cars (88
Mustang vs. 97 Mustang anyone), but the fact is, the E30 M3 isn't made
anymore. If someone were to offer me a used M3 or a new Type-R, I'd
probably lean towards the M3, but I'd sure be leery of the maintainence
costs of the car if it was daily driver (anyone see the CAR article last
year about buying a used E30 M3? Very scary).
> superior Prelude. But either car still doesn't compete with the 4 cyl
> German competition of a few years back.
Aside from the now defunct E30 M3, which cars would you be talking about
and would any of them be even close in price to either car in today's
dollars?
Shawn
Bill Bechtold
In article <5f06ea$m...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, toml...@ix.netcom.com
(Chuck Tomlinson) wrote:
I agree! It kinda reminds me of some of the current car magazine "Best of
199X" articles. The have best sports car under $20K, best sports car for
over $80K, best red sports car, best sports car with 4-cylinders and an
automatic tranny in the $10K-$11K range.........
Who cares, if they have enough catagories, every car can be a winner!
Bill Bechtold
In article <5f0dge$f51$1...@boris.eden.com>, Ron O'Neill wrote:
>
> >other systems the M3 has which Type-R lacks. You also fail to realize
> >the amount of technolgy that BMW and Mercedes have innovated, that has
> >been implemented by many other marques (ESP Yaw control, ABS etc.) Honda?
>
> VTEC?
>
> Which, IMHO is better than all of the above put together.
Better than ABS, are you kidding? Besides, many car makers have their own
version of VTEC, including BMW (VANOS).
Bentley
Ryan Rahim (rah...@unixg.ubc.ca) said something like:
: Uhm no. The M3 is certainly much faster than the 325i. The E30 M3 (with
: earlier than the Integra Type R.
Assuming you're talking NA models, it was actually 1988.
It started life as a 2.3L with 212 hp
: (169.6 lb/ft torque, nice and low at 4600 rpm), and later developed into the
: Evolution II 2.5L with 235 hp and 177 lb/ft at 4750 rpm.
Close. The 2.3L in the 88 model did 192bhp (at 6750rpm!) and 170lbs-ft at
4750.
Those are
: serious hp, and torque numbers for a normally aspirated 4 cyl motor with
: a 10.5:1 compression ratio.
I'm impressed -- you got a figure right. 10.5 is in fact the correct
comp ratio.
--
> B E N T L E Y < ben...@access.digex.net
Bentley
Bill Bechtold (bbec...@cisco.com) said something like:
: I still put money on the M3 any day of the week on a track. It is there
: where the M3 shines, can the Integra say the same?
I think "money" is the key term here, Bill: The first year (in the US) for
M3 was 1988, and the model started at $34,000. Adjusted for 9 years
inflation, that's about double the cost of a 97 Type R. I'd put my money
on an M3 as well, but I'd probably put my money IN a Type R.
Gary Kercheck
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
< E30 M3 / Integra R debate snipped; my soon to be Wolf/Skyline enhanced 300ZX
will leave them both wondering what hit them :-) >
>: The 800 series has about the same tech as the NSX (drive-by-wire),
>
>I am rather troubled by the way you worded that statement. What you mean
>to say is that "the NSX has about the same tech as the 800 series BMW
>(drive-by-wire)." While the two cars are certainly not comparable - the
>NSX being a dedicated sports car while the 8-er is designed as a luxury,
>touring coupe, (don't let the styling fool you), I would have to
>seriously disagree with your notion that the 8-er and NSX are on the same
>technology-plane.
Oh I gotta see this...
>Firstly, BMW's V12 had drive-by-wire since its introduction in the late
>80's, while throttle-by-wire was a recent addition to the NSX.
BFD. What benefits does the driver get from "throttle-by-wire"? It's high
tech for high tech's sake.
>Furthermore, the NSX is nowhere as complex a car electronically as the
>850i (multiplexed wiring etc).
Electronically complex is not a good thing in my book. Electronically
complex does nothing for me as a driver. Why not list the wonderful
driving characteristics of the BMWs you've driven lately and compare
them against the driving traits of the many NSXs you've piloted.
>The 8-er was BMW's technological leader and served as a statement to the
>world that they intended to beat Mercedes Benz from a technology standpoint.
Wonderful. How did it rate as a driving maching? It was overweight and
underpowered. Only the 850Csi of late would be of interest to an enthusiast.
>There is a lot of rivalry between these two premium automakers - Honda fits
>nowhere in this equation.
And conversely neither BMW or Mercedes have a car that can match the NSX
in terms of styling and performance. The M3 Evo comes close, Mercedes
and Audi have nothing.
<BMW vs. Mercedes>
>So please, do not try to bring in Honda, Acura or Lexus when we discuss
>state-of-the-art technology from the premium German marques.
So when we mention bloated, high tech land barges we shouldn't mention
Honda, Acura and Lexus. Fine with me.
>If I ever see a Honda rated as most advanced production car in the world, I
>just might drive into a concrete barrier at 100 mph.
My what a frail ego you have. What do you do when a GS-R or Prelude
blows your Passat into the weeds? Wash down a few valium with a glass
of scotch and convince yourself it never happened?
>That's only factor. BMW technology absolutely blows away Honda.
Nice flame bait. Now list the BMWs that feature titanium pistons,
aluminum construction and mid-engined design. How many can keep
up with an NSX or Supra Turbo on a racetrack? The M3 Evo is the
only one that stands a chance and it's still slower.
<more ranting>
>At this point, the Honda fans usually dig up something about their F1 and
>Cart victories, as if it has a carrier-effect on their production cars.
>To that, I have just one word: "Renault."
I don't consider myself a Honda fan, but rather a fan of beautiful, well
engineered cars. The NSX is one of them. It's merits are self evident.
It requires no mention of F1/Cart racing to give it credibility.
Bow before this car, Ryan, you are not worthy.
Gary.
Bryan Chow
In article <5f05op$hfo$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Firstly, BMW's V12 had drive-by-wire since its introduction in the late
>80's, while throttle-by-wire was a recent addition to the NSX.
>Furthermore, the NSX is nowhere as complex a car electronically as the
>850i (multiplexed wiring etc).
Tsk, tsk, tsk Ryan. You know better than to make such stupid
statements. The complicated electronics of the BMW 8 series is one of
the main sources of its poor reliability. Whereas the NSX's
technology are far more useful to the driving enthusiast - aluminum
monocoque construction, titanium connecting rods. Hell, the 850i had
an SOHC 24-valve engine! 5.0L V12 and you get only 296 hp. Are you
saying you'd rather have multiplexed wiring than a lightweight body?
>The 8-er was BMW's technological leader and served as a statement to
>the world that they intended to beat Mercedes Benz from a technology
>standpoint.
And it was such a mistake that its replacement will be based on the
much smaller 5-series platform.
>So please, do not try to bring in Honda, Acura or Lexus when we discuss
>state-of-the-art technology from the premium German marques. If I ever
>see a Honda rated as most advanced production car in the world, I
>just might drive into a concrete barrier at 100 mph.
How about "best sports car in the world?" Or "best handling car in
the world?" Would those be enough to make you drive into a concrete
barrier in your little econobox?
--
Bryan Chow | California Institute of Technology
br...@cco.caltech.edu | Home : www.cco.caltech.edu/~bryan
br...@translogic.com OREGON | Roxy Music: www.cco.caltech.edu/~bryan/roxy
Translogic Technology Inc | Driving : NSX.vtec.net
Bryan Chow
In article <bbechtol-260...@dhcp-j11-12-234.cisco.com>,
Bill Bechtold <bbec...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>Better than ABS, are you kidding? Besides, many car makers have their own
>version of VTEC, including BMW (VANOS).
Sigh...if I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times. VANOS, etc
only modify the duration. VTEC is the only one that allows both
duration and lift to be changed.
Bryan Chow
In article <5f0dge$f51$1...@boris.eden.com>, Ron O'Neill <Ron O'Neill> wrote:
>
>(I know Ryan, I know-- your Passat can kick NSX butt any day of the week)
:)
>Honda's got some damn good engine technology-- good enough so that people
>feel compelled to compare it to BMW and MB. That should speak volumes. Now
>an R-Type sure as hell ain't an E36 M3, and I don't know for sure that It'd
>even be a good comparo against an E30 M3, but you *can* buy 2 R-Types for the
>price of one E36 M3 and double your fun ;-)
Exactly. I'd rather have an Integra GSR instead of a BMW 318ti, and I'd
rather have a Prelude VTEC than a 318i, but I'd rather have an E36 M3
than any Honda except the NSX.
And Ryan comparing the E30 M3 and the Type R is simply pointless and
stupid. The E30 M3 was almost $30,000 more than half a decade ago.
So what if their prices now are "similar" according to Ryan (and
they're not - E30 M3s can be bought for low 10s). When comparing a new
and a used car, the used one always seems like the better value.
Marc
Gary Kercheck <ga...@adicon0.adicon.com> wrote:
>rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
>>Firstly, BMW's V12 had drive-by-wire since its introduction in the late
>>80's, while throttle-by-wire was a recent addition to the NSX.
>BFD. What benefits does the driver get from "throttle-by-wire"? It's high
>tech for high tech's sake.
Less weight. Easier for the onbord computer to control (for traction
control, or whatever).
>>The 8-er was BMW's technological leader and served as a statement to the
>>world that they intended to beat Mercedes Benz from a technology standpoint.
>Wonderful. How did it rate as a driving maching? It was overweight and
>underpowered. Only the 850Csi of late would be of interest to an enthusiast.
I've not had a chance to play with the 8-series, but I've heard that
the 840 is actually more of an enthusiast car because the lower weight
over the front wheels makes a noticable difference in handling. Just
slap a twin-turbo on the 4.4l V8 to make up the lost power...
>>That's only factor. BMW technology absolutely blows away Honda.
>Nice flame bait. Now list the BMWs that feature titanium pistons,
>aluminum construction and mid-engined design. How many can keep
>up with an NSX or Supra Turbo on a racetrack? The M3 Evo is the
>only one that stands a chance and it's still slower.
I'm really glad I took the time to hunt down the Car with the 20 car
track comparison. The fastest car? The NSX. Second? Supra. Their
second favorite? The Impreza. BMW? M3 was 7th fastest, with the 528
and 318ti in 14th and 16th. None of the BMWs were in the top 10
favorites. The highest BMW was 15th.
Marc
Your Bud Wes
: : I still put money on the M3 any day of the week on a track. It is there
: : where the M3 shines, can the Integra say the same?
: I think "money" is the key term here, Bill: The first year (in the US) for
: M3 was 1988, and the model started at $34,000. Adjusted for 9 years
: inflation, that's about double the cost of a 97 Type R. I'd put my money
: on an M3 as well, but I'd probably put my money IN a Type R.
Exactly! If you can afford an M3. Please get one! Great car. If you only got
a budget for the type R - get that. Great car for the money.
: --
: > B E N T L E Y < ben...@access.digex.net
Ryan Rahim
Ron O'Neill (ron...@eden.com) wrote:
:
: >other systems the M3 has which Type-R lacks. You also fail to realize
: >the amount of technolgy that BMW and Mercedes have innovated, that has
: >been implemented by many other marques (ESP Yaw control, ABS etc.) Honda?
: VTEC?
Actually, vvt, was not invented by Honda, and Honda's specific design
application (avec lift) isn't used by other marques. As pointed out by many
other
posters, there are many other marques which have one form of vvt or
another. (VANOS) etc. In fact C/D tested Mitsubishi's MIVEC and concluded
that it was better than VTEC.
Currently, the trend is toward 5 valve/cyl technology. Ferrari engineers
implemented it with their F355 and claimed that they looked at VVT, but
5v/cyl turned out to be the superior alternative. The F355, does have
from all perspectives a wicked powerplant, which IMO is superior to the
NSXs. A number of other
automakers have moved into 5v/cyl technology. Notably, Audi/VW, which
also uses variable intake manifold, which if I'm not mistaken is like
Porsche's Varioram for more low and midrange torque.
The idea here, is that these technologies in other marques are not hyped
as much as the buzz-terms that Honda plasters all over their cars - VTEC,
PGM-FI etc...
: Which, IMHO is better than all of the above put together.
VTEC better than ABS and ESP "put together"???? How can you say such a
thing. ABS and ESP are safety technologies that are beneficial to
society in general by reducing accidents, injuries and perhaps even
saving lives. VTEC in Integras is a cheap thrill that's experienced only
by those willing to revv the motor. Most of the GSRs I've seen in my
neighbourhood are driven by 30+ yr old women who drive like they would a
Camry. The 2nd cam lobe is just rusting away in their engines....
: It's immaterial whether MB and BMW see the Japanese as their competition,
: rather whether the Japanese see MB and BMW as *their* competition.
Seeing that lots of stuff has been copied, I'd say so.
I don't
: think that *any* front-drive Honda is comparable to a rear-drive BMW, but the
: prices are much lower and the compromises made (except for the front-drive)
: are not that great. Now put Honda up against VW... and the comparison is a
: lot more fair.
That's a fair statement. Honda does build their cars for the masses, but
their products feel that way. BMWs, MBs, and Audis feel like quality,
precision engineered cars.
: (I know Ryan, I know-- your Passat can kick NSX butt any day of the week)
Only the days that snow. :-)
: Honda's got some damn good engine technology-- good enough so that people
: feel compelled to compare it to BMW and MB.
No, no, no. I see Honda fans feeling compelled to compare Honda
pwrplants to BMW
and MB not vice versa. (BTW, MB pwrplants don't have a reputation for
sportiness or playfulness, just very durable motors.) Honda makes rather
good performance 4 cyl powerplants in their mainstream sports cars, Civic,
Integra, Prelude, Accord. Besides, the BMW M-sport 4 cyl in the E30 M3
(which I don't think even had vvt), the Europeans don't concentrate on building
high hp, low displacement 4 cyl the way Honda does. I don't think
there's any comparison. I will say that the Type R motor is the highest
performance naturally aspirated 4 cyl 1.8L pwrplant. No real competition
here, but other manufacturers have chosen larger displacement pwrplants
as competition.
That should speak volumes. Now
: an R-Type sure as hell ain't an E36 M3, and I don't know for sure that It'd
: even be a good comparo against an E30 M3, but you *can* buy 2 R-Types for the
: price of one E36 M3 and double your fun ;-)
It still won't be double the fun. Buying two Type-Rs would be like
having two refrigerators side by side. :-P
<Ducking and hiding>
Ryan
: Ron O'Neill
Geoff Ortiz
Ryan Rahim wrote:
>
> om>
> :Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
> Distribution:
>
> Tuan M. Nguyen (tmng...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
> If that wing was needed to increase stability in a car that travels less
> than 150 mph, I'd say it has a serious problem. Let's face it, it's for
> show, just like Soichiro Honda's son, founder of Mugen, creating those
> ridiculous tall spoilers for Civics and Preludes. Perhaps it wouldn't be as
> ridiculous if it was motorized to activate above a certain speed.
_You'd_ say it has a serious problem? Considering that aerodynamics can come
into play far before 150 mph, I'll have to take the engineer's word first
Ryan. Honda changed the front spoiler and the rear wing to affect the balance
of the car at higher speeds. I suppose they could have motorized it like,
hmm, the Corrado? But what's the point? It would just add weight. I don't
like the looks either, but if it works...
> : > a 10.5:1 compression ratio. The engines are still open to modifications
> : > unlike Honda's Type-R's modify-n-lose performance policy.
>
> : And you state this as fact? Please state the source of this opinion/
> : statement etc...
>
> Honda's own powertrain engineer. See the Integra web page for details.
Well considering that Tuan is the _founder_ of the Integra web page and I've
been an editor for some time, could you point out the particular URL you are
referring to so we may see what you're talking about? Was it from our rumors
section? The Type-R is certainly in a high state of tune, but considering
that simply optimizing cam timing and ignition timing can net more power, it
certainly isn't tweaked. Put in a better cold air intake system and ignition
and you'll gain more power. Additional combustion chamber shaping also
appears to help power production (do a net search on DPR or Dan Paramore
Racing - very impressive shop).
> I see no mention of AWD cars like the DTM, or the Quattros. In good race
> conditions, the M3 will be a better performer than the Type R. Mustangs
> and Camaros have always sucked in the rain.
Geez Ryan, if you could actually buy a new M3 for anything near the price of a
new Type-R you might have actually had a point. The Type-R is an impressive
performer regardless of whether it is FWD, RWD, AWD and it still maintains
Honda reliability at a good cost. It's no LT1 when it comes to a straight
line, but it has other advantages which make it a worthy car in the real
world.
Rgds,
Shawn
Shawn P. Church
Bentley wrote:
> Assuming you're talking NA models, it was actually 1988.
Ryan is probably considering Euro intros. The Japan Type-R was first
intro'd, AFAIK, in 1994, so the difference is about the same either way.
> It started life as a 2.3L with 212 hp
> : (169.6 lb/ft torque, nice and low at 4600 rpm), and later developed into the
> : Evolution II 2.5L with 235 hp and 177 lb/ft at 4750 rpm.
>
> Close. The 2.3L in the 88 model did 192bhp (at 6750rpm!) and 170lbs-ft at
> 4750.
Figures which are close to the numbers for the Prelude VTEC
1996 1997
2.157 L 2.157 L
190 hp@6800 158 lb-ft@5500
195 hp@7000 156 lb-ft@5250
The Japan version produces up to 220 hp
I believe in 1997 Honda has tried to flatten the curve a bit to extract
more high end power. Is it impressive that BMW was producing the power
they did out of the M3 in 1988? Yes. Honda didn't intro the Prelude
VTEC till 1992 in the U.S. Of course, the Honda was much cheaper and I'd
wager the torque curve is flatter than the M3's. The Prelude VTEC has a
nice torque curve that I've heard few complaints about because of the
larger engine and inherently higher torque.
Rgds,
Shawn
Your Bud Wes
Gary Kercheck (ga...@adicon0.adicon.com) wrote:
: >Firstly, BMW's V12 had drive-by-wire since its introduction in the late
: >80's, while throttle-by-wire was a recent addition to the NSX.
: complex does nothing for me as a driver. Why not list the wonderful
: driving characteristics of the BMWs you've driven lately and compare
: them against the driving traits of the many NSXs you've piloted.
BMW doesn't make anything that is in the sports car class the NSX is in.
You two are wasting your time.
BMW shifted towards more profitable markets.
: Wonderful. How did it rate as a driving maching? It was overweight and
: underpowered. Only the 850Csi of late would be of interest to an enthusiast.
It was a sport tourer. Not the same class. It was smooth and luxurious. The
NSX isn't. Different class again.
: And conversely neither BMW or Mercedes have a car that can match the NSX
: in terms of styling and performance. The M3 Evo comes close, Mercedes
: and Audi have nothing.
Brabus and AMG(mercedes equivalent of Motorsport
or Fords equivalent of SVT) make several cars that come close, yet still have
their luxury intact, not to mention a price that's competitive with the NSX.
That's technology: sport and luxury. Anyone can strip a car and make it go
fast.
Both of these makers produce about the same amount vehicles as Honda
produces NSX's.
The Brabus EV12 is FASTER than the NSX, yet built on the new E Series
chassis with all the luxury(except a firm ride) intact. This car will pull
away from an F40 from 140 to it's top speed of 206 MPH at half the cost.
Brabus used a larger displacement Benz V12 without the need for anything
as drastic as titanium pistons. Titanium pistons in a $80k car is just
carelessness. That's an incredibly expensive piston to replace. BMW and
Benz just use good engine design instead of resorting to such an extreme
measure.
I ramble though. The two makers do not compete(Honda and BMW/Benz)
: <BMW vs. Mercedes>
: >So please, do not try to bring in Honda, Acura or Lexus when we discuss
: >state-of-the-art technology from the premium German marques.
: So when we mention bloated, high tech land barges we shouldn't mention
: Honda, Acura and Lexus. Fine with me.
Exactly. Let us enjoy our luxury cars while you enjoy your sports cars.
: My what a frail ego you have. What do you do when a GS-R or Prelude
: blows your Passat into the weeds? Wash down a few valium with a glass
: of scotch and convince yourself it never happened?
His ego may be frail, but he was able to withold from degrading to personal
attacks.
: >That's only factor. BMW technology absolutely blows away Honda.
: Nice flame bait. Now list the BMWs that feature titanium
Titanium pistons only weight slightly less than their forged aluminum
counterparts, yet cost 5-10X as much. They may be technologically
advanced, but like you said earlier, it does nothing for the driver.
The M3 has sodium filled valves that do not cost terribly more than
their normal racing valves, yet make a big difference. BMW and Benz
are a bit too practical for titanium pistons.
: aluminum construction and mid-engined design. How many can keep
: up with an NSX or Supra Turbo on a racetrack? The M3 Evo is the
: only one that stands a chance and it's still slower.
The Evo M3 is only slightly slower than the NSX. Very impressive for
a luxury sports sedan that cost half as much and rides so civilly.
BMW is able to get a 50/50 weight bias without having to resort to
expensive mid-engine designs.
Otherwise the sports car market is yours.
: I don't consider myself a Honda fan, but rather a fan of beautiful, well
: engineered cars. The NSX is one of them. It's merits are self evident.
: It requires no mention of F1/Cart racing to give it credibility.
I agree. I also agree that the Mercedes Benz and BMW marques are in a
different class. This started out as a technology arguement; which was a
bit silly. All these makers have more than their share of technology.
Can't compare the cars much because they have totally different markets.
Like many other arguements here, it's turned into insults with people
defending their cars for defense sake.
: Gary.
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>> How used is used? A used Porsche 911 can cost less than a Type R, shall
>> we compare those two? A US Type-R will probably appreciate in value
>> rather than depreciate, since only 500 exist, and only 600 or 700 next
>> year.
Ha HA Ha. That is like those people who bought the first ZR1s thinking it would
be agreat investment, only to find that their investment had dericiated after
a couple of years by a huge amount. If it is in big enough demand, they will
bring larger numbers. If not, then it will stay at the low numbers. I dont
think that it wuld be a "good" investment, as far as investments go. It may
depriciate slower than the average car, but I doubt that you will make a profit
on it.
/\ /\/\
/ ^\/^\ /\ //\ \ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Dept of Electrical Engr.
/ \___/^\// \ ^\_______________________________________________________
Paul O'Gorman - | 93 Explorer 4x4 / 86 Cougar GS 5.0
______________________________________|________________________________________
It is too late for the pebbles to vote, as the avelanche has already started.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ryan Rahim
Bryan Chow (br...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: In article <5f05op$hfo$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
: Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
: >Firstly, BMW's V12 had drive-by-wire since its introduction in the late
: >80's, while throttle-by-wire was a recent addition to the NSX.
: >Furthermore, the NSX is nowhere as complex a car electronically as the
: >850i (multiplexed wiring etc).
: Tsk, tsk, tsk Ryan. You know better than to make such stupid
: statements. The complicated electronics of the BMW 8 series is one of
: the main sources of its poor reliability. Whereas the NSX's
: technology are far more useful to the driving enthusiast - aluminum
: monocoque construction, titanium connecting rods. Hell, the 850i had
: an SOHC 24-valve engine! 5.0L V12 and you get only 296 hp. Are you
: saying you'd rather have multiplexed wiring than a lightweight body?
No, I'm saying that the 8-Series is way, way more *high-tech* than the NSX.
You disagree? And please mention the torque numbers of the V12 when you
belittle it's hp.
: >The 8-er was BMW's technological leader and served as a statement to
: >the world that they intended to beat Mercedes Benz from a technology
: >standpoint.
: And it was such a mistake that its replacement will be based on the
: much smaller 5-series platform.
Nobody said, loss leaders were supposed to make money. From a pure
Economics perspective the NSX is a sales disaster as well. Some cars are
built for other purposes than profit.
: >So please, do not try to bring in Honda, Acura or Lexus when we discuss
: >state-of-the-art technology from the premium German marques. If I ever
: >see a Honda rated as most advanced production car in the world, I
: >just might drive into a concrete barrier at 100 mph.
: How about "best sports car in the world?" Or "best handling car in
: the world?" Would those be enough to make you drive into a concrete
: barrier in your little econobox?
Little econobox? Excuse me? Driving a glorified Trooper might add a
little to your initial deficiency, but the answer is no. I doubt Honda
would ever go into a technology race. That would mean, they'd have to
create a R&D dept. :-P
Ryan
: Bryan Chow | California Institute of Technology
Ryan Rahim
: < E30 M3 / Integra R debate snipped; my soon to be Wolf/Skyline enhanced 300ZX
: will leave them both wondering what hit them :-) >
What does the package do?
: >: The 800 series has about the same tech as the NSX (drive-by-wire),
: >I am rather troubled by the way you worded that statement. What you mean
: >to say is that "the NSX has about the same tech as the 800 series BMW
: >(drive-by-wire)." While the two cars are certainly not comparable - the
: >NSX being a dedicated sports car while the 8-er is designed as a luxury,
: >touring coupe, (don't let the styling fool you), I would have to
: >seriously disagree with your notion that the 8-er and NSX are on the same
: >technology-plane.
: Oh I gotta see this...
: >Firstly, BMW's V12 had drive-by-wire since its introduction in the late
: >80's, while throttle-by-wire was a recent addition to the NSX.
: BFD. What benefits does the driver get from "throttle-by-wire"? It's high
: tech for high tech's sake.
More precise and predictable computer control of air-fuel mixture under
varying throttle load. With a tiptronic style tranny like the M-shift,
this _is_ the way to go. Better throttle feel. ETC. I listed these in a
thread in the Honda newsgroup a couple of mts ago, you might want to go
to Dejanews and check it out.
: >Furthermore, the NSX is nowhere as complex a car electronically as the
: >850i (multiplexed wiring etc).
: Electronically complex is not a good thing in my book. Electronically
: complex does nothing for me as a driver.
ESP and ABS allow you to drive closer to the limits and increases your
safety threshold. Regardless, the point of this particular argument is
that the original poster seemed unaware that the
the 850i is WAY more high-tech than the NSX.
Why not list the wonderful
: driving characteristics of the BMWs you've driven lately and compare
: them against the driving traits of the many NSXs you've piloted.
Which brings up another very interesting point. The driving traits of
the NSX is poorly correlated with other Honda/Acuras and more highly
correlated with European sports cars. For eg. how many other Honda motor
cars are RWD, aluminum body, mid-engine, sports cars with a V6 engine
developing close to 100 hp/L. Furthermore, the steering feel is notably
better and heavier (no pwr assist in the manual) than the light, rather
overboosted steering of other Hondas. Therefore, when speaking of the
NSX it is almost like talking about a car of a different marque, due to
its large deviant characterists, and shouldn't be used to prove that
Hondas are up to premium world class-level cars that can compete with the
best automakers from Europe. Almost like arguing that the McLaren F1
qualifies as a BMW. In reality, they are lower-line than Lexus
and Infiniti.
: >The 8-er was BMW's technological leader and served as a statement to the
: >world that they intended to beat Mercedes Benz from a technology standpoint.
: Wonderful. How did it rate as a driving maching? It was overweight and
: underpowered. Only the 850Csi of late would be of interest to an enthusiast.
It's build purpose wasn't to be a sports car, but a luxury high tech coupe
for quick comfortable blasts down the autobahn at high-speed. It is
meant to convey a sense of premium BMW ownership. It serves that purpose
marvelously. BMW was considering making an M-version of the car, called
the M8 with a lightened carbon fibre body, but the project was scrapped,
because they didn't need another loss-leader.
: >There is a lot of rivalry between these two premium automakers - Honda fits
: >nowhere in this equation.
: And conversely neither BMW or Mercedes have a car that can match the NSX
: in terms of styling and performance. The M3 Evo comes close, Mercedes
: and Audi have nothing.
BMW, MB, and Audi cater to the practical crowd looking for sedan/coupe
style vehicles offering luxury with a performance twist. They leave the
market of sports cars to Porsche. And the 911 Turbo is a NSX-killer.
: <BMW vs. Mercedes>
: >So please, do not try to bring in Honda, Acura or Lexus when we discuss
: >state-of-the-art technology from the premium German marques.
: So when we mention bloated, high tech land barges we shouldn't mention
: Honda, Acura and Lexus. Fine with me.
Sure, when we mention the triumph of the anti-car - the appliance of
driving isolation we can talk about the Japanese luxury marques.
: >If I ever see a Honda rated as most advanced production car in the world, I
: >just might drive into a concrete barrier at 100 mph.
: My what a frail ego you have.
Not a frail ego. I'm just betting heavily, that Hondas are not designed
or built to be the most advanced production cars and never will be (in my
lifetime.) What do you think my probability is of losing?
: What do you do when a GS-R or Prelude
: blows your Passat into the weeds? Wash down a few valium with a glass
: of scotch and convince yourself it never happened?
<Sigh>. Not many GSRs or newer Preludes where I live, and they all seem
to be driven *normally.* B.C. drivers are more show than go.
: >That's only one factor. BMW technology absolutely blows away Honda.
: Nice flame bait.
Flame bait? I'm just stating facts.
: Now list the BMWs that feature titanium pistons,
: aluminum construction and mid-engined design.
I could incl. a long, long, list of BMW technological features that are
n/a in Hondas. But that would be overkill. Name me how many Honda models
have titanium pistons, (surely to match that titanium key), alum const. and mid
engines. Exceptions don't prove the rule, Gary. Besides the NSX still
doesn't get >100 hp/L a feat accomplished by other sports cars with
similar-sized engines (M3, F355) So how come Honda is only able to do this
with low displacement 4 bangers?
How many can keep
: up with an NSX or Supra Turbo on a racetrack? The M3 Evo is the
: only one that stands a chance and it's still slower.
How many Japanese cars of any make can keep up with a Porsche 911 Turbo?
Deutschland uber alles!
: >At this point, the Honda fans usually dig up something about their F1 and
: >Cart victories, as if it has a carrier-effect on their production cars.
: >To that, I have just one word: "Renault."
: I don't consider myself a Honda fan, but rather a fan of beautiful, well
: engineered cars. The NSX is one of them. It's merits are self evident.
: It requires no mention of F1/Cart racing to give it credibility.
Yeah, yeah. But remember, it's a rather large exception in a lineup made
of low-cost cars, a lineup that's arguably less significant than
VW/Audi. The NSX is of course, the best Japanese sports car.
Incidentally, are you a fan of any _other_ Hondas?
: Bow before this car, Ryan, you are not worthy.
Ha! :-)
Ryan
: Gary.
Ryan Rahim
Bryan Chow (br...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: In article <bbechtol-260...@dhcp-j11-12-234.cisco.com>,
: Bill Bechtold <bbec...@cisco.com> wrote:
: >
: >Better than ABS, are you kidding? Besides, many car makers have their own
: >version of VTEC, including BMW (VANOS).
: Sigh...if I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times. VANOS, etc
: only modify the duration. VTEC is the only one that allows both
: duration and lift to be changed.
Yeah, so? VANOS is variable-stage, while VTEC is 2
stage.
Ryan
: --
Gary Kercheck
w...@netcom.com (Your Bud Wes) wrote:
>Gary Kercheck (ga...@adicon0.adicon.com) wrote:
>: complex does nothing for me as a driver. Why not list the wonderful
>: driving characteristics of the BMWs you've driven lately and compare
>: them against the driving traits of the many NSXs you've piloted.
>
>You two are wasting your time.
Achhh! That's what usenet is all about! :-)
>BMW shifted towards more profitable markets.
And they make the best sedans on the planet - I happen to be quite
fond of BMWs. Saying they blow Honda away in technology is going
too far, though.
>: And conversely neither BMW or Mercedes have a car that can match the NSX
>: in terms of styling and performance. The M3 Evo comes close, Mercedes
>: and Audi have nothing.
>
>Brabus and AMG(mercedes equivalent of Motorsport
>or Fords equivalent of SVT) make several cars that come close, yet still have
>their luxury intact, not to mention a price that's competitive with the NSX.
I was comparing stock to stock. An NSX can be modified as well. Bryan?
>That's technology: sport and luxury. Anyone can strip a car and make it go
>fast.
Few cars on the planet are as fast or as pretty as the NSX. It is hardly
a "stripper" car.
>Both of these makers produce about the same amount vehicles as Honda
>produces NSX's.
>The Brabus EV12 is FASTER than the NSX, yet built on the new E Series
>chassis with all the luxury(except a firm ride) intact.
And costs well over 200 thousand American dollars. Is it legal here? I
know the RennTech Mercedes is.
>This car will pull away from an F40 from 140 to it's top speed of 206 MPH
>at half the cost.
And would get eaten alive by either the F40 or NSX on a racetrack.
>Brabus used a larger displacement Benz V12 without the need for anything
>as drastic as titanium pistons. Titanium pistons in a $80k car is just
>carelessness.
Carelessness? It allows for a higher redline. If it was such a silly
idea why did Ferrari bother to copy it?
>That's an incredibly expensive piston to replace.
The NSX is also one of the most reliable cars on the planet. I doubt
its owners lose sleep over replacing pistons.
>: My what a frail ego you have. What do you do when a GS-R or Prelude
>: blows your Passat into the weeds? Wash down a few valium with a glass
>: of scotch and convince yourself it never happened?
>
>His ego may be frail, but he was able to withold from degrading to personal
>attacks.
Ha! You must be a newbie. He can dish it out pretty heavy himself. Just
wait to read the response he types me.
>: >That's only factor. BMW technology absolutely blows away Honda.
>: Nice flame bait. Now list the BMWs that feature titanium
>
>Titanium pistons only weight slightly less than their forged aluminum
>counterparts, yet cost 5-10X as much. They may be technologically
>advanced, but like you said earlier, it does nothing for the driver.
Many drivers consider a high redline a definite advantage.
>The M3 has sodium filled valves that do not cost terribly more than
>their normal racing valves, yet make a big difference.
And that would be?
>BMW and Benz are a bit too practical for titanium pistons.
But a button to electronically raise and lower a cloth rear sunscreen,
or pop up parking markers (S600) are "practical" additions to a sedan?
>: aluminum construction and mid-engined design. How many can keep
>: up with an NSX or Supra Turbo on a racetrack? The M3 Evo is the
>: only one that stands a chance and it's still slower.
>
>The Evo M3 is only slightly slower than the NSX. Very impressive for
>a luxury sports sedan that cost half as much and rides so civilly.
What is the price difference between the cars in Europe? We don't
get the Evo in the U.S. and it isn't fair to use the price of the U.S. M3.
>BMW is able to get a 50/50 weight bias without having to resort to
>expensive mid-engine designs.
Mid-engine also allows more styling freedom. The NSX and Ferrari 355
are two of the most goreous cars on the planet. That has to count for
something! Also, I consider it an impressive acheivement to execute
a mid engine design as well as Honda did.
>: I don't consider myself a Honda fan, but rather a fan of beautiful, well
>: engineered cars. The NSX is one of them. It's merits are self evident.
>: It requires no mention of F1/Cart racing to give it credibility.
>
> This started out as a technology arguement; which was a
>bit silly.
I don't think it's silly at all to discuss different manufacturer's
technology.
>Can't compare the cars much because they have totally different markets.
>Like many other arguements here, it's turned into insults with people
>defending their cars for defense sake.
I like getting into debates with Ryan because it's a challenge
and once and a while I learn something new. I would hardly
classify my reply as insult ridden, sorry if you interpreted it
that way.
Ty Klein
In article <331456...@mail.idt.net>, Geoff Ortiz
<spchu...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> David Manning wrote:
> The Type-R is not, unfortunately RWD, but it is one of the
> better handling FWD cars sold in the U.S.
To qoute Chuck T.,"Isn't that kinda like the "tallest midget" award?"
;-)
--
Ty Klein
'87 RX-7
"$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterly for 200 years will increase to more than $100,000,000, by which time it will be worth nothing." - Lazarus Long
Ryan Rahim
Geoff Ortiz (spchu...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: Ryan Rahim wrote:
: > Tuan M. Nguyen (tmng...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
: > If that wing was needed to increase stability in a car that travels less
: > than 150 mph, I'd say it has a serious problem. Let's face it, it's for
: > show, just like Soichiro Honda's son, founder of Mugen, creating those
: > ridiculous tall spoilers for Civics and Preludes. Perhaps it wouldn't be as
: > ridiculous if it was motorized to activate above a certain speed.
: _You'd_ say it has a serious problem? Considering that aerodynamics can come
: into play far before 150 mph, I'll have to take the engineer's word first
: Ryan.
Alright. We'll believe the engineer. Perhaps, I was a little too hard
on the Integra's body-kit. I take it back.
: Honda changed the front spoiler and the rear wing to affect the balance
: of the car at higher speeds. I suppose they could have motorized it like,
: hmm, the Corrado? But what's the point? It would just add weight. I don't
: like the looks either, but if it works...
Hey, I didn't think it suited the styling either, while I think the E30
M3's body-kit is both tasteful and functional.
: > : > a 10.5:1 compression ratio. The engines are still open to modifications
: > : > unlike Honda's Type-R's modify-n-lose performance policy.
: >
: > : And you state this as fact? Please state the source of this opinion/
: > : statement etc...
: >
: > Honda's own powertrain engineer. See the Integra web page for details.
: Well considering that Tuan is the _founder_ of the Integra web page and I've
: been an editor for some time, could you point out the particular URL you are
: referring to so we may see what you're talking about?
It is a translation of a Japanese article at
www.integra.vtec.net.carboy.html. But I've taken the liberty to quote,
if you don't mind:
"...Fumiyasu Suga,
Type R's assistant chief engineer, was kind enough to sit down with us.
Why does Honda choose to tune the R by hand?
Japan's automobile makers are famous for using their experience and
knowledge gained in the racing
field and making use of it in their production lines for street cars.
Well, the sad truth is that most of
the time, such things are thrown around as hype -- most automobile makers
will make a car
"inspired" by racing, but they don't actually employ racing technology,
and automobile makers never
really "fully tune" their cars. However the Integra Type R is not so. Its
racing spirit is not that of
image, but is in its generous use of racing technology. The Type R is a
car that comes fully tuned straight from the manufacturer....
...In overview, over 60 engine-related parts were changed or entirely
re-designed for the Type R. We
asked Mr. Suga for any other advice on tuning the Type R any further. He
replied, "I would prefer
that people don't try to further tune the Type R. No, actually, they
shouldn't try. Each upgraded part
works in perfect harmony, and fiddling with the factory setting will only
lead to a decrease in
performance." It's probably safe to say that the Type R is a rare, "fully
tuned" and "stock"
automobile."
Was it from our rumors
: section? The Type-R is certainly in a high state of tune, but considering
: that simply optimizing cam timing and ignition timing can net more power, it
: certainly isn't tweaked. Put in a better cold air intake system and ignition
: and you'll gain more power. Additional combustion chamber shaping also
: appears to help power production (do a net search on DPR or Dan Paramore
: Racing - very impressive shop).
Shawn, let's take the engineer's word first. Correction, "assistant
Chief-engineer of Type-R." Yeah, 120 hp/l is a great accomplishment, but
let's just say that's about as close to the full potential of that normally
aspirated motor
you're going to get (prisoner of displacement theory) A modified normally
aspirated VR6, a motor quite often compared to the Honda's 1.8L VTEC
'round here, will yield >200 hp and more torque....
: > I see no mention of AWD cars like the DTM, or the Quattros. In good race
: > conditions, the M3 will be a better performer than the Type R. Mustangs
: > and Camaros have always sucked in the rain.
: Geez Ryan, if you could actually buy a new M3 for anything near the price of a
: new Type-R you might have actually had a point.
I've always been referring to the E30 M3 in this entire thread, because I
feel that the Type R is as close as Honda has come to building an M3.
Since the subject limits the discussion to 4 cyl, well, you can see why.
The Type-R is an impressive
: performer regardless of whether it is FWD, RWD, AWD and it still maintains
: Honda reliability at a good cost.
Agreed. Although, I would have to add that only time will tell if that
motor is able to hold up to racing abuse, considering that it is
displacing a lot of power for its displacement. Typically, such race
engine get rebuilt often.
It's no LT1 when it comes to a straight
: line, but it has other advantages which make it a worthy car in the real
: world.
Honda-style bang for buck.
Ryan
: Rgds,
: Shawn
Road Runner
Your Bud Wes wrote:
>
> : an R-Type sure as hell ain't an E36 M3, and I don't know for sure that It'd
> : even be a good comparo against an E30 M3, but you *can* buy 2 R-Types for the
> : price of one E36 M3 and double your fun ;-)
>
> I can afford 2 GS-r types. I decided to get an M3 instead. You can only
> drive one car at a time.
>
> : Ron O'Neill
>
> --
> | / / Wes Y. Keller (5277191) |
> | /// /// Engineering (ES) |
> | .//////////. San Jose, CA, USA |
> | ciscoSystems wyk/chupa...@cisco.com |
> Please do not send me unsolicited mail.
Yup, and two cars doesn't double your fun. It only doubles your car.
Shawn P. Church
Ty Klein wrote:
>
> In article <331456...@mail.idt.net>, Geoff Ortiz
> <spchu...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
> > David Manning wrote:
> > The Type-R is not, unfortunately RWD, but it is one of the
> > better handling FWD cars sold in the U.S.
>
> To qoute Chuck T.,"Isn't that kinda like the "tallest midget" award?"
> ;-)
>
:-)
Perhaps Ty, but in this case, the tallest midget would stand noticably
taller than a few of the "normal" people. FWD is _not_ the ideal race
setup, but it's shocking what a good front driver can do (witness the CRX
domination of ITA racing).
Rgds,
Shawn
Shawn P. Church
Ryan Rahim wrote:
>
> Geoff Ortiz (spchu...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
> : Well considering that Tuan is the _founder_ of the Integra web page and I've
> : been an editor for some time, could you point out the particular URL you are
> : referring to so we may see what you're talking about?
>
> It is a translation of a Japanese article at
> www.integra.vtec.net.carboy.html. But I've taken the liberty to quote,
> if you don't mind:
>
> "...Fumiyasu Suga,
> Type R's assistant chief engineer, was kind enough to sit down with us.
> ...In overview, over 60 engine-related parts were changed or entirely
> re-designed for the Type R. We
> asked Mr. Suga for any other advice on tuning the Type R any further. He
> replied, "I would prefer
> that people don't try to further tune the Type R. No, actually, they
> shouldn't try. Each upgraded part
> works in perfect harmony, and fiddling with the factory setting will only
> lead to a decrease in
> performance." It's probably safe to say that the Type R is a rare, "fully
> tuned" and "stock"
> automobile."
>
> Shawn, let's take the engineer's word first. Correction, "assistant
> Chief-engineer of Type-R." Yeah, 120 hp/l is a great accomplishment, but
> let's just say that's about as close to the full potential of that normally
> aspirated motor
> you're going to get (prisoner of displacement theory) A modified normally
Touche! But in this case, real world evidence would tend to disprove the
engineer, at least in the case of GS-R motors (not sure if any Type-R's have
been modified). There are several GS-R motors which, with stock internals,
are running around 190 hp at the wheels, or substantially more than 195 at
the crank. Note also that the Type-R lost 5 hp moving from Japan to the
U.S. Also remember that with more revs you gain more power - but with
VTEC, you don't have to give up the low end that you have. The ultimate
conversion for a VTEC motor is to go to reshaped combustion chambers,
individual throttle bodies, opened up exhaust and intake, new cams,
adjustable sprockets, new ignition, etc. 230 to 250 hp at the wheels is
reachable (Hell, if the NATCC cars can get 300+ hp out of 2 liters with an
8500 rpm rev limiter, 230 is certainly possible with a 1.8)
Finally, remember that any production car sold is unlikely to be at the peak
of its potential. To hard to be consistent at the bleeding edge and
performance is more fleeting as is reliability.
> aspirated VR6, a motor quite often compared to the Honda's 1.8L VTEC
> 'round here, will yield >200 hp and more torque....
Ditto (see Shawn's GS-R equipped with about $700 (actual cost $450) of
header, intake, exhaust and adjusted to stock max timing - 163 hp, 127 lb-ft
at the wheels - figure a 17%-20% loss to the crank and do the math - $150 TB
upgrade to boost over 200 crank on the way ;-).
> I've always been referring to the E30 M3 in this entire thread, because I
> feel that the Type R is as close as Honda has come to building an M3.
> Since the subject limits the discussion to 4 cyl, well, you can see why.
Yeah, but the M3 is no longer sold, was not in the same price range, etc.,
etc. The original topic, intended or not, was flame bait, but at least it
was in the Honda group.
> Agreed. Although, I would have to add that only time will tell if that
> motor is able to hold up to racing abuse, considering that it is
> displacing a lot of power for its displacement. Typically, such race
> engine get rebuilt often.
Aww hell, I can't speak for road racing, but the tweaked GS-R motors hold up
just fine in drag racing and auto-x and the Prelude guys do great in SCCA
World Challenge. The Type-R gets a better balanced motor, stronger valve
train, pistons and connecting rods. I bet it'll do fine.
Rgds,
Shawn
Brandon Sommerville
On 26 Feb 1997 18:15:59 GMT, Gary Kercheck
<ga...@adicon0.adicon.com> is accused of saying:
>rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
>
>< E30 M3 / Integra R debate snipped; my soon to be Wolf/Skyline enhanced 300ZX
> will leave them both wondering what hit them :-) >
>
Gary, Gary, Gary. You can't bring in a V6 to this
discussion. We do have rules, you know...
:)
Brandon
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Ty Klein
In article <01bc245b$961ae4a0$187660cf@aptiva>, "nmistry"
<nmi...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >I would guess that the Honda would get the award for the fastest NA
> > >production 4-cylinder that's currently sold in the US.
> >
> > Isn't that kinda like the "tallest midget" award?
> >
> > --
> > Chuck Tomlinson
> > '94 Corvette :-)
>
> Just because a vehicle doesn't have the largest displacement or # of
> cylinders
> doesn't mean it's not quick and exciting. A 1990s (or even 1980s for that
> matter)
> Lotus Esprit Turbo had only 4 Cylinders..and yet it could out-accelerate,
> out-handle,
> and basically easily beat your Corvette in anything (stock car vs. stock
> car). The
> Supra Turbo has but a mere 6.
Notice that it was "fastest NA 4 cylinder". NA= Naturally aspirated,no
turbo's,superchargers,Nitrous etc.
Lee H
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
>Geoff Ortiz (spchu...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
>: Ryan Rahim wrote:
>: > Tuan M. Nguyen (tmng...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
>: > If that wing was needed to increase stability in a car that travels less
>: > than 150 mph, I'd say it has a serious problem. Let's face it, it's for
>: > show, just like Soichiro Honda's son, founder of Mugen, creating those
>: > ridiculous tall spoilers for Civics and Preludes. Perhaps it wouldn't be as
>: > ridiculous if it was motorized to activate above a certain speed.
Am I the only one who thinks those spoilers mentioned above look like
push handles on shopping carts? Just a thought....
My $0.02 (and worth every penny)
-Lee
nmistry
> >
> >I would guess that the Honda would get the award for the fastest NA
> >production 4-cylinder that's currently sold in the US.
>
> Isn't that kinda like the "tallest midget" award?
>
> --
> Chuck Tomlinson
> '94 Corvette :-)
Just because a vehicle doesn't have the largest displacement or # of
cylinders
doesn't mean it's not quick and exciting. A 1990s (or even 1980s for that
matter)
Lotus Esprit Turbo had only 4 Cylinders..and yet it could out-accelerate,
out-handle,
and basically easily beat your Corvette in anything (stock car vs. stock
car). The
Supra Turbo has but a mere 6...but it will beat ANY car in its class in ANY
competition. So while you're sitting in your 5.7L pushrod V8 (which is a
great
engine in ways), a Supra will absolutely blow you off the line with only 3L
and 6
cylinders. Hope you like seeing tail lights.
SoLo
My guess is that the numbers and actual feel of the car would be alot
worse. Those Michelins bite the big one.
John Frost <fro...@maplecity.com> wrote in article
<5et5au$n...@news.outfitters.com>...
> In article <5eqhjd$s...@node2.frontiernet.net>, mas...@frontiernet.net
(David Masten) wrote:
> >In article <01bc21b2$200dc580$1279c697@server>, "Dan Lopez"
> > <virg...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >> If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car
in
> >>the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again
that is
> >>turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated
car in
> >>the US. If it doesnt hold the title for that, iot sure will for
handling.
> >>(.92g)
> >
> >Old argument, but I wouldn't go around equating skidpad G numbers with
> >"handling". As to G's, it depends a hell of a lot on tires, and
apparently
> >who is doing the testing and when/where. MT reported a 0.93 for the
4-cyl
> >Z3.
>
> That is an excellent point about the tires. I received my Type-R mini
> brochure in the mail last week an it is obvious that Acura is trying to
avoid
> another tire problem like they had with the NSX. In the cover letter that
come
> with the brochure Acura touts the "Bridgestone Potenza RE010 summer-use
> tires".
>
> The following is a quote from the small print on the back of the
brochure:
>
> "The unique high performance tires on this vehicle will wear more
rapidly
> than normal passenger car tires. Tire life may be significantly less
than
> 10,000 miles depending upon driving conditions. This tire's high
performance
> tread pattern is also not designed for winter driving. Driving in snow
and
> ice should be avoided."
>
> While the Type-R will no doubt be a great handling car, most any car can
be
> improved with a set of autocross or road racing tires. It would be
> interesting to see some performance specs for the Type-R with the
Michelin's
> that come on the GS-R.
>
> John F
>
Bentley
Chao I (Bobby) Wu (ec...@mcw.edu) said something like:
: > Were the pre V8 Lotus Esprits normally aspirated? They were turbocharged
: > if I remember correctly.
:
: Yes they were. But the original post was claiming that the DSM turbos
: were the fastest 4 cylendars, turbo or otherwise.
Actually, Lotus sold both turbo and normally aspirated 4's for most of the
80's. The base ones were fast, the turbos were REALLY fast. Academic now,
however.
Chuck Tomlinson
"nmistry" <nmi...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >I would guess that the Honda would get the award for the fastest NA
>> >production 4-cylinder that's currently sold in the US.
>>
>> Isn't that kinda like the "tallest midget" award?
>> --
>> Chuck Tomlinson
>> '94 Corvette :-)
>
>Just because a vehicle doesn't have the largest displacement or # of
>cylinders
>doesn't mean it's not quick and exciting. A 1990s (or even 1980s for that
>matter)
>Lotus Esprit Turbo had only 4 Cylinders..and yet it could out-accelerate,
>out-handle,
>and basically easily beat your Corvette in anything (stock car vs. stock
>car).
Relax :-) AFAIK, the letters "NA" in the post I responded to means
"naturally aspirated". The Esprit Turbo is... not NA.
>The
>Supra Turbo has but a mere 6...but it will beat ANY car in its class in ANY
>competition. So while you're sitting in your 5.7L pushrod V8 (which is a
>great
>engine in ways), a Supra will absolutely blow you off the line with only 3L
>and 6 cylinders.
Do the terms "NA" or "4-cylinder" look familiar (hint: check the
top of the post)? The Supra Turbo is neither. BTW, a Supra Turbo
will not "absolutely blow [me] off the line". The outcome of the
race will come down mostly to driver skill, with the Supra pilot
enjoying a slight *potential* advantage.
>Hope you like seeing tail lights.
Not particularly. But see the smiley face at the end of my post?
I was just pokin' a little fun at the VTEC-4 crew.
I have driven a Caterham Super 7 HPC (very light, very powerful NA
four). It could easily take my Vette off the line. In a matter of
seconds the Caterham's ass would be mine, of course...
--
Chuck Tomlinson
nmistry
> Old argument, but I wouldn't go around equating skidpad G numbers with
> "handling". As to G's, it depends a hell of a lot on tires, and
apparently
> who is doing the testing and when/where. MT reported a 0.93 for the
4-cyl
> Z3.
>
effects
upon skidpad results. Honda cars, which usually ship with high-economy but
low
performance tires, get much better skidpad ratings with better tires.
Richard Fay
Ron O'Neill wrote:
>
>
> >other systems the M3 has which Type-R lacks. You also fail to realize
> >the amount of technolgy that BMW and Mercedes have innovated, that has
> >been implemented by many other marques (ESP Yaw control, ABS etc.) Honda?
>
> VTEC?
>
Unfortunately Rover has a better version on it's K series engine seen on
the MGF and Rover 200. It's fully variable unlike the 2 position Honda
VTEC.
Honda has a bad case of "Not invented here" syndrome. It designed it's
own ABS, fuel injection etc etc. None of which worked any better than
those available from Bosch etc. What a waste of development time and
money.
They design wishbone suspension to give low bonnet lines (early 80's
Prelude) rather than good suspension geometry. Their design driven
mentality means that the suspension has such short travel that any decent
mid corner bump throws the car of line.
They seem to design cars with one shining design feature but some other
design horror (eg Civic split hatch).
Richard
--
To e-mail me, remove the * from the address
David Manning
> Am I the only one who thinks those spoilers mentioned above look like
> push handles on shopping carts? Just a thought....
>
> My $0.02 (and worth every penny)
>
> -Lee
How else are they supposed to get them out of the road when their
supercharged, nitrous injected Civic detonates on the highway?
David Manning
Dan Lopez wrote:
>
> If im not mistaken i believe the Type-R will be the fastest 4 cyl car in
> the us. The only standup would be the mitsu eclipse. But than again that is
> turbo charged for sure, the type r is the fastest normally aspirated car in
> the US. If it doesnt hold the title for that, iot sure will for handling.
> (.92g)
>
> release date!
>
This is why people with no self-control shouldn't be allowed to read car
magazines.
Pete Wilson
Gary Kercheck wrote:
> >
<snipped heated debate>
> >The Evo M3 is only slightly slower than the NSX. Very impressive for
> >a luxury sports sedan that cost half as much and rides so civilly.
>
> What is the price difference between the cars in Europe? We don't
> get the Evo in the U.S. and it isn't fair to use the price of the U.S. M3.
UK prices : M3 Evo ~UKP37000, NSX ~UKP70000, but IMHO the NSX is
a better car, but probably not UKP33000 better.
--Pete--
'96 M3 Evolution Coupe
and others...
--------
mikelee
> ESP and ABS allow you to drive closer to the limits and increases your
> safety threshold. Regardless, the point of this particular argument is
> that the original poster seemed unaware that the
> the 850i is WAY more high-tech than the NSX.
You're using ABS to convince me the 850i is more 'high-tech' than an
NSX?
I may still believe you, but ABS?
> Which brings up another very interesting point. The driving traits of
> the NSX is poorly correlated with other Honda/Acuras and more highly
> correlated with European sports cars. For eg. how many other Honda motor
> cars are RWD, aluminum body, mid-engine, sports cars with a V6 engine
> developing close to 100 hp/L.
Del Sol VTEC: 160hp/1.6L. Integra GSR: 170hp/1.7L. Integra R:
195hp/1.8L.
That's only American. No, the NSX isn't in the same class as the Civics
or
Integras, but the 800 series are close siblings to the 300 series?
> BMW, MB, and Audi cater to the practical crowd looking for sedan/coupe
> style vehicles offering luxury with a performance twist. They leave the
How can you have a 'practical' luxury coupe? 90k for a coupe is
practical?
We must be using different terms, i consider practical and luxurious to
be
antonyms.
> market of sports cars to Porsche. And the 911 Turbo is a NSX-killer.
And about 105k in the US. The 282 hp 911 is about 70k, and very close
in
comparison to the NSX in terms of engine output. In 97 the NSX should
exceed the 911 in hp, even though its engine is .6L smaller.
> I could incl. a long, long, list of BMW technological features that are
> n/a in Hondas. But that would be overkill. Name me how many Honda models
> have titanium pistons, (surely to match that titanium key), alum const. and mid
> engines. Exceptions don't prove the rule, Gary.
Titanium pistons? The 318 doesn't even have ABS brakes and your
faulting Honda
for not making titanium pistons standard?
> Besides the NSX still
> doesn't get >100 hp/L a feat accomplished by other sports cars with
> similar-sized engines (M3, F355) So how come Honda is only able to do this
> with low displacement 4 bangers?
Wait til 97. How come BMW can't do it in their $40,000 U.S. M3?
> How many Japanese cars of any make can keep up with a Porsche 911 Turbo?
> Deutschland uber alles!
How many factory BMWs, Audis, or VWs can keep up with a 911 Turbo?
mikelee
> saving lives. VTEC in Integras is a cheap thrill that's experienced only
> by those willing to revv the motor. Most of the GSRs I've seen in my
> neighbourhood are driven by 30+ yr old women who drive like they would a
> Camry. The 2nd cam lobe is just rusting away in their engines....
Yeah, and the typical driver for a 528 is a 19 year old autocrossing
fanatic.
Most BMW sedans are hauling families or being traded in for SUVs.
Bill Bechtold
In article <5f22b8$k...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, br...@cco.caltech.edu (Bryan
Chow) wrote:
han any Honda except the NSX.
>
> And Ryan comparing the E30 M3 and the Type R is simply pointless and
> stupid. The E30 M3 was almost $30,000 more than half a decade ago.
> So what if their prices now are "similar" according to Ryan (and
> they're not - E30 M3s can be bought for low 10s). When comparing a new
> and a used car, the used one always seems like the better value.
>
YEs, but if you want a nice E30 M3, it will cost you about the same as the
Integra. A perfect E30 M3 can cost over $25K. Of course, you could get a
REALLY rough E30 M3 for under $10K...
--
-Bill Bechtold
bbec...@cisco.com
bbec...@batnet.com
For my cars and more goto my homepage:
http://www.batnet.com/bbechtol/
'89 BMW ///M3- Modified Also can be seen at:
http://www.psnw.com/~primenet/rides.html
'67 Firebird 400- Stock and for sale - Winner MCOTW 1/4/97:
http://www.psnw.com/~primenet/mcotw.html
See my web page for details on my cars and my Firebird 400 For Sale.
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>> : an R-Type sure as hell ain't an E36 M3, and I don't know for sure that It'd
>> : even be a good comparo against an E30 M3, but you *can* buy 2 R-Types for the
>> : price of one E36 M3 and double your fun ;-)
Thats almost 2 R-types. An E36 M3 costs $39k (sticker), while the R-Type is $24k.
And it is technically not double the fun....you just have two of the same thing, with
twice the insurance, twice the taxes, .... :)
mikelee
> Ha HA Ha. That is like those people who bought the first ZR1s thinking it would
> be agreat investment, only to find that their investment had dericiated after
> a couple of years by a huge amount. If it is in big enough demand, they will
> bring larger numbers. If not, then it will stay at the low numbers. I dont
> think that it wuld be a "good" investment, as far as investments go. It may
> depriciate slower than the average car, but I doubt that you will make a profit
> on it.
You're comparing the longevity of an Honda vs a Chevrolet? Considering
Type-Rs
are being sold now for 32k-42k i think you'd still make money on the 23k
MSRP.
Bill Bechtold
In article <heku.85...@snafu.muncca.fi>, he...@snafu.muncca.fi (Henri
Helanto) wrote:
>
> Hold it right there, Bill...
> What about Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500 (nearly unbeatable just
> about everywhere, with the possible exception of: ) and Nissan
> Skyline GT-R (highest percentage of victories per races
> participated in, well over 95% ) ?
>
> Admittedly, both of them were banned from racing, by changing
> the rules after a couple of dominating seasons or outright,
> which probably gives E30 M3 that title.
Must be.... I know that I've seen that stat more than once (that the E30
is the winningest car in touring class racing ever.) I guess it was the
best car to never get banned! 8^)
doug h.
In article <5f06ea$m...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Chuck Tomlinson <toml...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>do...@netcom.com (doug h.) wrote:
>> I would guess that the Honda would get the award for the fastest NA
>> production 4-cylinder that's currently sold in the US.
> Isn't that kinda like the "tallest midget" award?
Sure. But I was adding one more descriptive category ("currently
sold") to the original poster's list which would make the Honda
fastest in its class.
I think it'd more natural to use engine displacement as a descriptive
category (ala racing classes), rather than the number of cylinders.
Then you could drop the qualifiers of "currently sold", and perhaps
"available in the US," and add "under 2.0L", and then it'd sound a
little more impressive. If it weren't for the Honda's silly extras
that add weight (like passenger seats :), then you might even be able
to drop the "production" qualifier.
One thing I don't understand -- if they can drop the rear window
wiper and the A/C to save weight, then why didn't they drop the
power windows/locks and radio too?
Mike Travis
I own a Honda. Any chance for rec.auto.makers.ACURA news group?
This threads is getting as big as the racially biased threads.
Not a flame just a thought.
Mike
Shawn P. Church
doug h. wrote:
> One thing I don't understand -- if they can drop the rear window
> wiper and the A/C to save weight, then why didn't they drop the
> power windows/locks and radio too?
Concessions to the perceived tastes of U.S. consumers. The Japanese
version is lighter still. Oh well.
Shawn
Greg Husemeier
Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
<5f068j$hfo$2...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
>
> I see no mention of AWD cars like the DTM, or the Quattros. In good race
> conditions, the M3 will be a better performer than the Type R. Mustangs
> and Camaros have always sucked in the rain.
It's quite entertaining to see you try to compare the Type R Integra with
the BMW M3. Where are your beloved VW's, which fall in the same price
range?
Greg Husemeier
Marc
do...@netcom.com (doug h.) wrote:
>In article <5f06ea$m...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Chuck Tomlinson <toml...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>One thing I don't understand -- if they can drop the rear window
>wiper and the A/C to save weight, then why didn't they drop the
>power windows/locks and radio too?
I believe that power windows potentially weigh less than a manual one.
And, a couple ounces of servos and wires in a power lock isn't much
compared to an A/C unit or wiper assembly. Don't know why they still
put the radio in, though... Shoulda left it to the dealer/customer to
decide that one.
Marc
Greg Husemeier
Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
<5f29hf$5nv$2...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
>
> Little econobox? Excuse me? Driving a glorified Trooper might add a
> little to your initial deficiency, but the answer is no. I doubt Honda
> would ever go into a technology race. That would mean, they'd have to
> create a R&D dept. :-P
Honda must be doing something right. Their cars are far more
sophisticated/reliable/refined than your beloved VW's in my opinion.
Greg Husemeier
Joseph Koral
mikelee wrote:
> The 318 doesn't even have ABS brakes...
Huh? This is not true. Maybe the mid-80s 318s didn't have ABS...
- joseph
Greg Husemeier
Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
<5f25n8$37g$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> : VTEC?
>
> Actually, vvt, was not invented by Honda, and Honda's specific design
> application (avec lift) isn't used by other marques. As pointed out by
many
> other
> posters, there are many other marques which have one form of vvt or
> another. (VANOS) etc. In fact C/D tested Mitsubishi's MIVEC and
concluded
> that it was better than VTEC.
Is it available in North America?
>
> Currently, the trend is toward 5 valve/cyl technology. Ferrari engineers
> implemented it with their F355 and claimed that they looked at VVT, but
> 5v/cyl turned out to be the superior alternative. The F355, does have
> from all perspectives a wicked powerplant, which IMO is superior to the
> NSXs. A number of other
> automakers have moved into 5v/cyl technology. Notably, Audi/VW, which
> also uses variable intake manifold, which if I'm not mistaken is like
> Porsche's Varioram for more low and midrange torque.
But, VTEC is able to get more HP/L than any normally aspirated 5valve/cyl
engine I know of. This makes VTEC superior in my book. The VW/Audi 5v
motor needs a turbo to be competitive.
>
> The idea here, is that these technologies in other marques are not hyped
> as much as the buzz-terms that Honda plasters all over their cars - VTEC,
> PGM-FI etc...
Which other cars can you buy in North America in the same price range as
Honda/Acura that offer variable valve timing?
> the Europeans don't concentrate on building
> high hp, low displacement 4 cyl the way Honda does. I don't think
> there's any comparison. I will say that the Type R motor is the highest
> performance naturally aspirated 4 cyl 1.8L pwrplant. No real competition
> here, but other manufacturers have chosen larger displacement pwrplants
> as competition.
Yeah, and at higher costs, and lower economy.
>
> That should speak volumes. Now
> : an R-Type sure as hell ain't an E36 M3, and I don't know for sure that
It'd
> : even be a good comparo against an E30 M3, but you *can* buy 2 R-Types
for the
> : price of one E36 M3 and double your fun ;-)
>
> It still won't be double the fun. Buying two Type-Rs would be like
> having two refrigerators side by side. :-P
Or, 1 Type R and $24,000 of spending money (or $24,000 less debt).
Greg Husemeier
Wolph
In article <01bc24ce$438b3230$bc32369d@greghu2>, "Greg Husemeier"
<gre...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
> <5f25n8$37g$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
>
> > : VTEC?
> >
> > Actually, vvt, was not invented by Honda, and Honda's specific design
> > application (avec lift) isn't used by other marques. As pointed out by
> many
> > other
> > posters, there are many other marques which have one form of vvt or
> > another. (VANOS) etc. In fact C/D tested Mitsubishi's MIVEC and
> concluded
> > that it was better than VTEC.
>
> Is it available in North America?
>
> >
> > Currently, the trend is toward 5 valve/cyl technology. Ferrari engineers
> > implemented it with their F355 and claimed that they looked at VVT, but
> > 5v/cyl turned out to be the superior alternative. The F355, does have
> > from all perspectives a wicked powerplant, which IMO is superior to the
> > NSXs. A number of other
> > automakers have moved into 5v/cyl technology. Notably, Audi/VW, which
> > also uses variable intake manifold, which if I'm not mistaken is like
> > Porsche's Varioram for more low and midrange torque.
>
> But, VTEC is able to get more HP/L than any normally aspirated 5valve/cyl
> engine I know of. This makes VTEC superior in my book. The VW/Audi 5v
> motor needs a turbo to be competitive.
Yes, but VTEC is rather poor in terms of torque, as well as its ability to
deliver the total amount of power. In terms of price, the Honda Vtech's are
very expensive, compared to other competing products. For example, the
Nissan 3.0l V6 makes significantly more torque, has alot more power from
1 to 6krpm, etc. I've alwasy felt that if you put the Nissan 3.0L V6, in the
GSR, you'ld have a real world class car.
hp/litre is great, but hp and ft-lbs win races..
--
Please remove the "*" infront of my account name, for any coorespondance.
Gary Kercheck
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
>Gary Kercheck (ga...@adicon0.adicon.com) wrote:
>: rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
>
>: < E30 M3 / Integra R debate snipped; my soon to be Wolf/Skyline enhanced 300ZX
>: will leave them both wondering what hit them :-) >
>
>What does the package do?
Bigger intake, different computer. Boost goes from 9psi to 13psi. Wolf
claims 78hp for these mods. I'll find out tomorrow if that figure seems
beleivable. Brake upgrade consists of cross drilled rotors from the Skyline,
Skyline calipers, steel lines, and carbon fiber pads. That goes on in a couple
weeks.
>: BFD. What benefits does the driver get from "throttle-by-wire"? It's high
>: tech for high tech's sake.
>
>More precise and predictable computer control of air-fuel mixture under
>varying throttle load. With a tiptronic style tranny like the M-shift,
>this _is_ the way to go. Better throttle feel.
Isn't throttle feel more a product of the spring mechanism in the pedal?
How many drivers could tell the difference between a car with throttle
by wire and one with a cable, everything else being equal? Few, IMO.
Furthermore, the 325i I test drove had excellent, instantaneous throttle
response. I don't know how BMW could improve on that.
>ETC.
True. But who the hell wants traction control anyways. Half the fun
of driving a powerful RWD is steering with the throttle.
>I listed these in a thread in the Honda newsgroup a couple of mts ago,
>you might want to go o Dejanews and check it out.
Yeah, I'll get right on it. :-)
>: Electronically complex is not a good thing in my book. Electronically
>: complex does nothing for me as a driver.
>
>ESP and ABS allow you to drive closer to the limits and increases your
>safety threshold. Regardless, the point of this particular argument is
>that the original poster seemed unaware that the the 850i is WAY more
>high-tech than the NSX.
And I disagree. You praise Audi for building the A8 out of aluminum
yet when Honda does the same thing (five years earlier in fact) it's no
big deal. High-tech doesn't just mean high tech electronics, it also
includes materials, construction, packaging, etc. In these areas the
NSX buries the bloated 8 series.
>The driving traits of the NSX is poorly correlated with other Honda/Acuras
>and more highly correlated with European sports cars.
GS-R/Prelude owners are going to disagree with that. VTEC, and shifter/clutch
feel are common in these cars.
>For eg. how many other Honda motor cars are RWD, aluminum body,
>mid-engine, sports cars with a V6 engine developing close to 100 hp/L.
Doesn't matter. When you make a statement like "BMW technology
blows Honda away" you must account for the NSX.
>Furthermore, the steering feel is notably better and heavier (no pwr assist
>in the manual) than the light, rather overboosted steering of other Hondas.
>Therefore, when speaking of the NSX it is almost like talking about a car
>of a different marque,
But it isn't. Honda built it. It's Honda technology.
>due to its large deviant characterists, and shouldn't be used to prove that
>Hondas are up to premium world class-level cars that can compete with the
>best automakers from Europe.
I think it shows a great deal of engineering prowess to execute a design
as perfect as the NSX. It's world class and then some.
>Almost like arguing that the McLaren F1 qualifies as a BMW.
Something you yourself are guilty of.
>In reality, they are lower-line than Lexus and Infiniti.
Bentley/Rolls Royce is a higher line than either BMW or Mercedes.
Does that make their technology superior?
>: >The 8-er was BMW's technological leader and served as a statement to the
>: >world that they intended to beat Mercedes Benz from a technology standpoint.
>
>: Wonderful. How did it rate as a driving maching? It was overweight and
>: underpowered. Only the 850Csi of late would be of interest to an enthusiast.
>
>It's build purpose wasn't to be a sports car, but a luxury high tech coupe
>for quick comfortable blasts down the autobahn at high-speed. It is
>meant to convey a sense of premium BMW ownership. It serves that purpose
>marvelously.
Is a sense of premium BMW ownership worth $90K when you can buy an
NSX for the same money? Given the choice would you choose a new 8-series
over an NSX targa?
>BMW was considering making an M-version of the car, called
>the M8 with a lightened carbon fibre body, but the project was scrapped,
>because they didn't need another loss-leader.
But they did follow through with the 850CSi and I give them credit
for that.
>: And conversely neither BMW or Mercedes have a car that can match the NSX
>: in terms of styling and performance. The M3 Evo comes close, Mercedes
>: and Audi have nothing.
>
>BMW, MB, and Audi cater to the practical crowd looking for sedan/coupe
>style vehicles offering luxury with a performance twist. They leave the
>market of sports cars to Porsche. And the 911 Turbo is a NSX-killer.
NSX-killer is pushing it. It's probably the only Porsche that can hang with
the NSX on a racetrack. Yes it's faster in a straight line, no question. But
then, a lot of cars are faster than your Passat and that doesn't seem to bother
you.
>: >If I ever see a Honda rated as most advanced production car in the world, I
>: >just might drive into a concrete barrier at 100 mph.
>
>: My what a frail ego you have.
>
>Not a frail ego.
You'd commit suicide if the Germans were de-throned as techno kings
and you're telling me you're ego isn't frail. Whatever.
>I'm just betting heavily, that Hondas are not designed or built to be the
>most advanced production cars and never will be (in my lifetime.) What
>do you think my probability is of losing?
Your definition of advanced seems to be "electronically complex". Honda's
philosophy has always been to build lighter, more efficient cars. By your
definition you'll probably never lose.
>: >That's only one factor. BMW technology absolutely blows away Honda.
>
>: Nice flame bait.
>
>Flame bait? I'm just stating facts.
More like opinions.
>: Now list the BMWs that feature titanium pistons,
>: aluminum construction and mid-engined design.
>
>I could incl. a long, long, list of BMW technological features that are
>n/a in Hondas. But that would be overkill.
Why not compare two cars of similar price instead. Like a 318ti versus
Inegra GSR? What makes a 318ti technologically superior to a GS-R?
And I don't mean to be confrontational because I happen to prefer the
318ti (RWD). I'd just like to know what it is about BMW technology that is
so much more impressive.
>Name me how many Honda models have titanium pistons, (surely to
>match that titanium key), alum const. and mid engines. Exceptions
>don't prove the rule, Gary.
Are you taking logic courses from Lloyd now or what? The NSX
isn't an exception. It was designed and manufactured by Honda.
It's an example of the best technology Honda has to offer. It's
fair game.
>Besides the NSX still doesn't get >100 hp/L a feat accomplished by other sports
>cars with similar-sized engines (M3, F355)
Which as you know is an arbitrary and meaningless yardstick. The new NSX
has more straight line speed than any N.A. M3 and is awfully close to the 355
now. hp/l is more for bragging rights than anythging else, IMO.
>So how come Honda is only able to do this with low displacement 4 bangers?
I beleive it's a function of displacement per cylinder, not total cylinders.
>: How many can keep up with an NSX or Supra Turbo on a racetrack? The M3
>: Evo is the only one that stands a chance and it's still slower.
>
>How many Japanese cars of any make can keep up with a Porsche 911 Turbo?
>Deutschland uber alles!
I think Henri drives one.
>The NSX is of course, the best Japanese sports car.
I'll go along with that.
>Incidentally, are you a fan of any _other_ Hondas?
I like the Accord EX for basic transportation, but otherwise, no.
Bing D. Su
In article <Wolph-27029...@cnc02025.concentric.net>,
VTEC is poor in terms of torque? I don't think you understand
how VTEC works. VTEC boosts high-rpm hp by varying valve timing, and at
the same time, does NOT sacrifice low-end torque. In other words,
without the VTEC a 1.7L
engine with the same displacement as a GS-R's engine would had absolutely no
power at lower end if it's tuned for high-rmp performance.
The NSX has a 3.0 (used to) VTEC V-6 and its low-end torque beats
that of the 3.0L Nissan V-6 anyday.
Dave
AMS
Ryan Rahim
: > I see no mention of AWD cars like the DTM, or the Quattros. In good race
: > conditions, the M3 will be a better performer than the Type R. Mustangs
: > and Camaros have always sucked in the rain.
: It's quite entertaining to see you try to compare the Type R Integra with
: the BMW M3. Where are your beloved VW's, which fall in the same price
: range?
It shouldn't be entertaining to you that I'm comparing an Integra to an
M3, it should be entertaining to me since the E30 M3 is a higher
performance driving machine.
I chose not to bring VW up because some people feel that VW vs. Honda has
been beaten to death. Yeah, I'll be happy to compare a Type-R to a VW,
if you remove the limitations of normally aspirated 4 cyl & stock.
Afterall, the Type R is arguably considered "highly tuned" by factory.
Almost nothing left for it in the aftermarket world. A VR6 VW - normally
aspirated power with mods can beat those engine numbers. In fact, I know
a local guy who used to have a B3 Passat GLX that was highly modified.
(Still naturally aspirated), but with an Oettinger/ABT 3.1L bump-kit.
And it had a faster speed thru the
quarter-mile than a GSR. (>100 mph). (The car was featured in a recent
issue of European Car) I'll get you the exact figures if
you like. Largest problem with the car, wheel spin, even with EDL and a
Quaife limited slip differential. Now that's a Passat, which puts power
to the road better than any other FWD VW, but is still the heaviest car
and this guy had a heavy $15,000+ soundsystem in it. He's since traded
in his Passat for a '96 Porsche 911 Turbo.
...if you think Honda/Acura blows away VW/Audi, I'm sorry but you're
delusional.
Ryan
: Greg Husemeier
Bentley
Wolph (*Wo...@emi.net) said something like:
: Oh big whoop. The NSX-T is listed at 210 ft-lbs @ 5300 rpm. The 3.0L V6
: in the Maxima ( e.g. non turbocharged ) makes 205 ft-lbs @ 3000 rpm
The NSX is 224, actually, but who's counting? A Camaro will give you much
more torque and cost less. Sounds perfect for you!
Wolph
In article <E6A19...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
bs...@sparc20-1.unixlab.Virginia.EDU (Bing D. Su) wrote:
> >Yes, but VTEC is rather poor in terms of torque, as well as its ability to
> >deliver the total amount of power. In terms of price, the Honda Vtech's are
> >very expensive, compared to other competing products. For example, the
> >Nissan 3.0l V6 makes significantly more torque, has alot more power from
> >1 to 6krpm, etc. I've alwasy felt that if you put the Nissan 3.0L V6, in the
> >GSR, you'ld have a real world class car.
> >
>
> VTEC is poor in terms of torque? I don't think you understand
> how VTEC works. VTEC boosts high-rpm hp by varying valve timing, and at
> the same time, does NOT sacrifice low-end torque. In other words,
> without the VTEC a 1.7L
> engine with the same displacement as a GS-R's engine would had absolutely no
> power at lower end if it's tuned for high-rmp performance.
Yes, the VTEC engines are low in torque compared to what the competition
is offering. Again, the only ratio which matters while driving is the
HP/weight, not the HP/litre. It could be two gerbils going at it, for all
I care; if they can pull, they can pull.
The GSR, in comparison to comparable engines in its class, is weak. Why
didn't I buy it? The Acura salesman didn't like me using only 2nd for
regular driving, and 3rd on the highway. 4th and 5th would never be
touched. That, and cruising at a steady 6krpm on the blvd gets very
annoying, very quickly.
> The NSX has a 3.0 (used to) VTEC V-6 and its low-end torque beats
> that of the 3.0L Nissan V-6 anyday.
Oh big whoop. The NSX-T is listed at 210 ft-lbs @ 5300 rpm. The 3.0L V6
in the Maxima ( e.g. non turbocharged ) makes 205 ft-lbs @ 3000 rpm
That may be 5 ft-lbs less, but its also at 2300 rpm less! Below ~5k,
the Nissan's also flatter, with "more area under the curve". Also, dont
forget the fact that the NSX-T costs about $65 grand more.. Why dont we
compare the NSX to the 300Z's 3.0L V6? Or to the Skyline GTR?
In fact, I think you hit the nail on the head. Yes, the Acura's engine is
very smooth, very refined, with a high rpm. It's also pretty weak, compared
to others in a comparable price class.. The NSX's engine should be in
the GSR, and sell for $24k to be a reasonable engine for the price class.
The NSX should be making well in excess of 300ft-lbs of torque...
Ryan Rahim
cs.ubc.ca> <01bc24ce$438b3230$bc32369d@greghu2>
:Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution:
Greg Husemeier (gre...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
: > : VTEC?
: >
: > Actually, vvt, was not invented by Honda, and Honda's specific design
: > application (avec lift) isn't used by other marques. As pointed out by
: many
: > other
: > posters, there are many other marques which have one form of vvt or
: > another. (VANOS) etc. In fact C/D tested Mitsubishi's MIVEC and
: concluded
: > that it was better than VTEC.
: Is it available in North America?
Is that a pathetic attempt at weaseling away the fact that VTEC is
nowhere near the most superior form of VVT available?
: > Currently, the trend is toward 5 valve/cyl technology. Ferrari engineers
: > implemented it with their F355 and claimed that they looked at VVT, but
: > 5v/cyl turned out to be the superior alternative. The F355, does have
: > from all perspectives a wicked powerplant, which IMO is superior to the
: > NSXs. A number of other
: > automakers have moved into 5v/cyl technology. Notably, Audi/VW, which
: > also uses variable intake manifold, which if I'm not mistaken is like
: > Porsche's Varioram for more low and midrange torque.
: But, VTEC is able to get more HP/L than any normally aspirated 5valve/cyl
: engine I know of.
Uh-uh. The F355 with 5v/cyl has >100 hp/L. And this is a large
displacement V8. Honda's best, and most technologically advanced V6
production pwrplant with a fair displacement residing in the NSX still is
not quite above >100 hp/L.
This makes VTEC superior in my book. The VW/Audi 5v
: motor needs a turbo to be competitive.
No it doesn't. It's a small turbo to increase driveability, a concept
apparently foreign to small displacement Hondas. BTW, you have heard of
VW's 193 hp 2.8L vvt, variable intake + 5v/cyl engine in the next Passat?
: > The idea here, is that these technologies in other marques are not hyped
: > as much as the buzz-terms that Honda plasters all over their cars - VTEC,
: > PGM-FI etc...
: Which other cars can you buy in North America in the same price range as
: Honda/Acura that offer variable valve timing?
Why always the damn limitations about N.A.? You make Honda/Acura out to be
competitive with the best of the best, and then when you discover this is
not the case. You whine about price range. Sure there's a difference in
price between a BMW and a Honda/Acura, but it's just not the difference
in technology. It's a level of quality and feel of driving a premium
automobile that permeates from quality German marques that is absent in
your bargain-basement VTEC Hondas.
: > the Europeans don't concentrate on building
: > high hp, low displacement 4 cyl the way Honda does. I don't think
: > there's any comparison. I will say that the Type R motor is the highest
: > performance naturally aspirated 4 cyl 1.8L pwrplant. No real competition
: > here, but other manufacturers have chosen larger displacement pwrplants
: > as competition.
: Yeah, and at higher costs, and lower economy.
Only a severely anal-retentive individual would care about the difference
those factors make.
: > It still won't be double the fun. Buying two Type-Rs would be like
: > having two refrigerators side by side. :-P
: Or, 1 Type R and $24,000 of spending money (or $24,000 less debt).
Or 1 used mint condition M3 to outperform the Type R, or 1 used Corrado
SLC with a couple of mods with more refinement, luxury and poise and a
competitive level of performance.
Ryan
: Greg Husemeier
--
Speeding never killed anyone. . .stopping did.
Ryan Rahim
Greg Husemeier (gre...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
: <5f29hf$5nv$2...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
: >
: > Little econobox? Excuse me? Driving a glorified Trooper might add a
: > little to your initial deficiency, but the answer is no. I doubt Honda
: > would ever go into a technology race. That would mean, they'd have to
: > create a R&D dept. :-P
: Honda must be doing something right. Their cars are far more
: sophisticated/reliable/refined than your beloved VW's in my opinion.
Substantiate those opinions please. Overall, I think VW/Audi is more
advanced, durable, refined and more substantial automaker than Honda/Acura.
Want me to prove it? Check Deja News!
That should keep you occupied for the next, oh, 2 mts.
Adam Meltzer
Mike Travis (m...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
: I own a Honda. Any chance for rec.auto.makers.ACURA news group?
:
: This threads is getting as big as the racially biased threads.
:
: Mike
Come now. Surely you know Acura and Honda are the same company.
--
___
))_) ___ _ _ __ ___ ___ __ :
((`\ ((_( ((`1( ((_)((_( ((_( ((' : a d a m @ n e t . c o m
)) ._)) .
.
Wolph
In article <5f4p8p$44l$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan
Rahim) wrote:
> Why always the damn limitations about N.A.? You make Honda/Acura out to be
> competitive with the best of the best, and then when you discover this is
> not the case. You whine about price range. Sure there's a difference in
> price between a BMW and a Honda/Acura, but it's just not the difference
> in technology. It's a level of quality and feel of driving a premium
> automobile that permeates from quality German marques that is absent in
> your bargain-basement VTEC Hondas.
That's okay, he needs to rely on a $85 grand NSX to beat a $21,000
Nissan ;)
Ryan Rahim
Shawn P. Church (spch...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: Ryan Rahim wrote:
: > "...Fumiyasu Suga,
: > Type R's assistant chief engineer, was kind enough to sit down with us.
: > ...In overview, over 60 engine-related parts were changed or entirely
: > re-designed for the Type R. We
: > asked Mr. Suga for any other advice on tuning the Type R any further. He
: > replied, "I would prefer
: > that people don't try to further tune the Type R. No, actually, they
: > shouldn't try. Each upgraded part
: > works in perfect harmony, and fiddling with the factory setting will only
: > lead to a decrease in
: > performance." It's probably safe to say that the Type R is a rare, "fully
: > tuned" and "stock"
: > automobile."
: >
: > Shawn, let's take the engineer's word first. Correction, "assistant
: > Chief-engineer of Type-R." Yeah, 120 hp/l is a great accomplishment, but
: > let's just say that's about as close to the full potential of that normally
: > aspirated motor
: > you're going to get (prisoner of displacement theory) A modified normally
: Touche! But in this case, real world evidence would tend to disprove the
: engineer, at least in the case of GS-R motors (not sure if any Type-R's have
: been modified).
Well, there you have it. Note that what you're saying doesn't actually
contradict the "assistant chief-engineer of Type R," since he refers to the
Type R
motor not the GSR motor. If you read the rest of the article, it'll
become pretty apparent that a lot of dedication, hand craftsmanship,
modifications, and most importantly engineering know-how went into squeezing
that extra bit of power out. I don't think these options are available
to the N.A. GSR owner. According to Mr.
Suga, that is as close to its full potential you're going to see from
those motors. (But of course, Mr Suga doesn't read "Performance Car"
where anything is possible!) I've
seen a few posts from GSR drivers who believe that their motors will
be able to attain that level of performance, naturally aspirated, but
based on the evidence (and parts supply limitations), I'd tend to
disagree. Of course, if one didn't mind compromising the durability of
the motor you could extract more gains, but it'll be an expensive, short
ride.
There are several GS-R motors which, with stock internals,
: are running around 190 hp at the wheels, or substantially more than 195 at
: the crank.
Would that be magazine horses? :-) Or SAE hp? You know as well as I do
the statistical method required to get a true balanced rating. Ideally,
it would be nice to see an automakers rate their products' mean hp, with a
95% confidence interval.
If this particular dyno measured a GSR with stock internals to have 190
hp at the wheels, I would be more prone to concluding the error lies
within the measuring equipment. Ideally, we should take numerous dyno
readings for that particular vehicle to ensure that we have an
accurate representation of the mean. A sample size of 1 does not cut it.
Furthermore, the best analogy I can give is that of engine compression
gauges. Different
gauges will give you quite a wide variance of readings for the same
engine. Unless it's a really well calibrated gauge, you will never know
for sure that you are recording the true parameter (state-of-world).
Thus, most gauges available at grease-shops are only good enough to tell
you that you have even compression across cylinders.
Similarly with Dynos, you never know what you're gonna get. Thus, I will
tentatively say that a dyno that displays such deviant data from
automakers' claims offer no more than an interval level of measurement -
that is, it's only useful to tell you that a treatment (eg performance
exhaust) has given you added hp over a baseline. As to how much hp, you
can't say for sure, and you certainly cannot compare the hp of cars that
have been measured across different dynos. Usually, the dynos available
to the public at large are crude in terms of accuracy, and test-retest
validity, while the more expensive dynos available to manufacturers and
racing engine builders provide estimates with long run error avg. out
to 0.
Note also that the Type-R lost 5 hp moving from Japan to the
: U.S.
Would that be a conversion from DIN (Japanese) HP, to SAE (N.A. scale) hp?
Also remember that with more revs you gain more power - but with
: VTEC, you don't have to give up the low end that you have. The ultimate
: conversion for a VTEC motor is to go to reshaped combustion chambers,
: individual throttle bodies, opened up exhaust and intake, new cams,
: adjustable sprockets, new ignition, etc.
I believe that and more has been done to Type R.
230 to 250 hp at the wheels is
: reachable (Hell, if the NATCC cars can get 300+ hp out of 2 liters with an
: 8500 rpm rev limiter, 230 is certainly possible with a 1.8)
Those NATCC engines aren't expected to live very long, whereas you'd
expect at least 100,000 miles from a street-motor.
: > aspirated VR6, a motor quite often compared to the Honda's 1.8L VTEC
: > 'round here, will yield >200 hp and more torque....
: Ditto (see Shawn's GS-R equipped with about $700 (actual cost $450) of
: header, intake, exhaust and adjusted to stock max timing - 163 hp, 127 lb-ft
: at the wheels - figure a 17%-20% loss to the crank and do the math - $150 TB
: upgrade to boost over 200 crank on the way ;-).
That would put it in Type-R territory. Which tells me that I'd rather do
the statistics as discussed prior. (Everyone must love that dyno! :-)
Seriously, I'm not sure if you have read the "car-boy" article, but it
seems like a fairly lengthy torturous process for the Type-R engineers to
have brought the motor up to 190 hp. To say that it's easily attainable
with the bolt-on mods (you listed) for "run-of-the-mill" GSR-motors is
fairly cavalier. That's like belittling Honda's engineering abilities
for Type R!
: > Agreed. Although, I would have to add that only time will tell if that
: > motor is able to hold up to racing abuse, considering that it is
: > displacing a lot of power for its displacement. Typically, such race
: > engine get rebuilt often.
: Aww hell, I can't speak for road racing, but the tweaked GS-R motors hold up
: just fine in drag racing and auto-x and the Prelude guys do great in SCCA
: World Challenge. The Type-R gets a better balanced motor, stronger valve
: train, pistons and connecting rods. I bet it'll do fine.
Those cars you mentioned aren't old enough, or haven't travelled far
enough to earn a durability
reputation. BTW, what do you consider a good mileage for such an engine?
Modern VW engines for instance are usually designed to run for 300,000 miles
before requiring rebuilds. (Source: European Car Technical section on
improvements to VW A3 powerplants.) I guess that's one reason they
offer such a long pwrtrain warranty!
Ryan
: Rgds,
: Shawn
Bryan Chow
In article <5f28u9$5nv$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
>
>...the 850i is WAY more high-tech than the NSX.
All the NSX's high-tech goodies are for performance and handling. What
are the 850i's high-tech for? And if it is so high-tech, why is it
powered by an SOHC 2-valve-per-cylinder engine producing a miserable
59 hp per liter?
>For eg. how many other Honda motor cars are RWD, aluminum body, mid-engine,
>sports cars with a V6 engine developing close to 100 hp/L.
How many other BMW motor cars are coupes with a V12 engine? WHAT'S YOUR
POINT??
And glad you mentioned hp/L. What other auto company can boast a lineup
like this:
NSX 90 hp/L
Type R 108 hp/L
GSR 94 hp/L
delSol VTEC 100 hp/L
Prelude 89 hp/L
>And the 911 Turbo is a NSX-killer.
So are the Ferrari F355 and McLaren F1. WHAT'S YOUR POINT??
>B.C. drivers are more show than go.
Unfortunately your Passat is NEITHER show nor go.
>I could incl. a long, long, list of BMW technological features that are
>n/a in Hondas.
I could include a long, long list of Honda technological feature that
are not available in BMW too. In fact, I could include a long, long
list of GM features that are not in BMW OR Honda. And I could include
a long, long list of Chrysler features that are not in BMW, Honda or GM.
WHAT'S YOUR POINT??
>Besides the NSX still doesn't get >100 hp/L a feat accomplished by other
>ports cars with similar-sized engines (M3, F355) So how come Honda is
>only able to do this with low displacement 4 bangers?
Porsche's 911, after 30 years of tuning, produces 76 hp/L. WHAT'S YOUR
POINT??
>: Bow before this car, Ryan, you are not worthy.
>
>Ha! :-)
Sigh...you even sign off with another pointless statement.
--
Bryan Chow | California Institute of Technology
br...@cco.caltech.edu | Home : www.cco.caltech.edu/~bryan
br...@translogic.com OREGON | Roxy Music: www.cco.caltech.edu/~bryan/roxy
Translogic Technology Inc | Driving : NSX.vtec.net
Marc
rah...@unixg.ubc.ca (Ryan Rahim) wrote:
>mikelee (mik...@icomsim.com) wrote:
>It's not a "normal" Chevrolet, it's a Corvette ZR-1 factory filled with
>Mobil 1, and it'll blow the Type R into the weeds. Given the choice
>between the two cars:
>...I'll be driving genuine Chevrolet.
And given the choice between that stock Chevy and any stock VW ever
sold in NA?
Marc
Bryan Chow
In article <5f4l13$f...@cis.clark.edu>,
Gary Kercheck <ga...@adicon0.adicon.com> wrote:
>
>You praise Audi for building the A8 out of aluminum
>yet when Honda does the same thing (five years earlier in fact) it's no
>big deal.
They're not the same thing. Audi uses an aluminum spaceframe, the NSX
uses an aluminum monocoque. The NSX's monocoque is more advanced, harder
to make and more rigid.
Interestingly, since the A8 Ryan has stopped calling my NSX an "aluminum
tin can" or make recycling jokes.
>hp/l is more for bragging rights than anythging else, IMO.
Gary, if Ryan wants to bring hp hp/L in a Honda discussion, why are you
stopping him!?
>I like the Accord EX for basic transportation, but otherwise, no.
I like the Prelude VTEC and CRX.
Bing D. Su
In article <*Wolph-27029...@cnc02077.concentric.net>,
Did you study their respective power curve before you jump to
conclusions about "2300 rmps less"? How do u know that the NSX-T
isn't making 205lbft at 3000 rpm?
Also about the GS-R, give me another car, *any* car that has
a 1.7L 4 engine (no turbo) and makes the same low-end torque and
high-end excistment as the Gs-R VTEC? There isn't any, mind you.
The reason any Honda/Acura car with VTEC engine
around $20k does not have as much torque as say, some American cars
in the same price range is that Honda wanted to limit engine displacemtn,
so that you get better gas mileage out of it. For those who are
on a budget and want to have some f-1 fantasy once in a while, the
high-end power of VTEC kicks in. Now that doesn't mean you'll have
to stay at 6000 rpm on the highway. :-)
Dave
AMS
Donald DiPaula
!How many other BMW motor cars are coupes with a V12 engine? WHAT'S YOUR
!POINT??
!
!And glad you mentioned hp/L. What other auto company can boast a lineup
!like this:
!
!NSX 90 hp/L
!Type R 108 hp/L
!GSR 94 hp/L
!delSol VTEC 100 hp/L
!Prelude 89 hp/L
1997 honda cbr600f3: 93 hp/599 cc = 155 hp/L
hey, it's the same company.
i love this game. :)
-D-
--
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meet the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
Bryan Chow
In article <5f29ma$5nv$3...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Ryan Rahim <rah...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>Yeah, so? VANOS is variable-stage, while VTEC is 2 stage.
*EVERY* DOHC VTEC-equipped Honda produces close to 100 hp/L. The *BEST*
VANOS BMW that passes US emissions produces 75 hp/L (M3).
Plus, it doesn't come with the Speed Racer soundtrack of VTEC! :)
Bryan Chow
In article <5f2cau$a...@netra.montana.edu>,
<gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
>
>Ha HA Ha. That is like those people who bought the first ZR1s thinking it would
>be agreat investment, only to find that their investment had dericiated after
>a couple of years by a huge amount. If it is in big enough demand, they will
>bring larger numbers. If not, then it will stay at the low numbers. I dont
>think that it wuld be a "good" investment, as far as investments go. It may
>depriciate slower than the average car, but I doubt that you will make a profit
>on it.
Agreed. And remember, it is only limited to 500 for the first year.
Next year Honda can bring in as many Type Rs as they want (assuming
those few guys polishing the heads can make them fast enough...).
Bryan Chow
In article <bbechtol-270...@dhcp-j11-12-234.cisco.com>,
Bill Bechtold <bbec...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>YEs, but if you want a nice E30 M3, it will cost you about the same as the
>Integra. A perfect E30 M3 can cost over $25K. Of course, you could get a
>REALLY rough E30 M3 for under $10K...
The point is, it is not fair to compare value and price between a new
and a used car. The used car will always come out ahead.
And who the hell would pay $25K for a used E30 M3.