What is V-TEC
DEZLBOY
to do with a Hondah engine.
Could anyone enlighten me?
thanks,
--
DEZLBOY
The diesel trend is born of engine envy
DEZLBOY
Dolimite79 <dolim...@aol.comTurbo16v> wrote in message
news:19990923230349...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> It stands for Valve Timing Electronicly Controlled. <SNIP>
Thanks Justin. I kinda picture what you are saying. Sounds like Honda is
able to put two engines (one for smooth low RPM and another for speed) into
one engine. kinda.
Hell, all I have to do is memorize your answer...and I will sound like an
expert at work tomorrow!
Eric Bateman
Eric Bateman
your question."
Variable Timing and lift Engine Control
Dolimite79
>A co-worker asked me what V-TEC was. All I knew was that it was something
>to do with a Hondah engine.
>
>Could anyone enlighten me?
>
It stands for "Valves Tick Engine Cracks"
No,Seriously,
It stands for Valve Timing Electronicly Controlled.
What happens is at a certain RPM a seloniod is activated to let oil run into a
galley which pushes a third lifter (that controls both intake valves via a
common arm ) up against a bigger cam lobe.What this allows is a smooth low rpm
cam and a wicked top end cam,all in the same "Cam".It is an awsome feat of
engineering to say the least.Other manufactures are starting to copy it.I hope
you understand what I wrote,As it's hard to imagine,But when you see one
apart,You're like,"I see,Damn! that's badd!"
Justin
Webrumors
writing? anyway, good reply.
DEZLBOY
Eric Bateman <ejef...@crl.com> wrote in message
news:37EB1498...@crl.com...
> Damn keyboard. Should have read "The Honda group would probably answer
> your question."
> Variable Timing and lift Engine Control
hehehe,,,,,, whew....for a second there I thought maybe there is some
mystical being known as "The Honda". If so, I guess you would build a
temple made of coffee cans to gain favor?
Dolimite79
I think this akronym is right,But I was accurate in how it works,
Justin
Marshall Willenholley
Its really a form of variable valve timing that many manufacturers
use. I don't know whether other manufacturers are "copying" it or
not, but many have been using it for many years. Ford (Ztech),
Toyota, BMW come to mind.
Also, Honda uses it for different purposes in different engines. The
one you described is the profile they use to extend torque to a higher
red line, used in the VTEC in the Civic Si, the Prelude, the Integra
GSR, etc. They also have VTEC engines that use different cam profiles
for other purposes, such as to increase mileage.
And for super nit-picky accuracy's sake, its VTEC, not V-TEC.
--
Marshall Willenholley
To reply, change yipee to yahoo.
Dolimite79 wrote in message
<19990923230349...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Henry C. Barta
: justin, that was a fairly cogent answer, indeed. maybe your calling is tech
: writing? anyway, good reply.
And now to bring this back on topic...
I understand that VW uses variable valve timing on the VR6
engines. Do they implement this the same way, or do they have a
different method.
Also, did all VR6 engines have variable valve timing, or if not,
when did that start?
I think this is correctly called VR6 and not VR-6 :)
--
Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
hba...@wwa.com Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
Stilian Elenkov
"Henry C. Barta" wrote:
>
> Webrumors <webr...@aol.com> wrote:
> : justin, that was a fairly cogent answer, indeed. maybe your calling is tech
> : writing? anyway, good reply.
>
> And now to bring this back on topic...
>
> I understand that VW uses variable valve timing on the VR6
> engines. Do they implement this the same way, or do they have a
> different method.
The US VR6 does not have VVT or variable length intake manifold. The 2.8
30v Aud V6 uses VVT on the intake valves and variable intake manifold
geometry. The VVT used is hydraulic controlled chain driven intake
camshaft that changes the timing +/- 15 deg.
>
> Also, did all VR6 engines have variable valve timing, or if not,
> when did that start?
The european VR6 uses VVT. see
http://www.vwvortex.com/news/4motion/page2.html
Stilian
Robbie Gieze
Andy Hobbs
honda's weak ass small displacement pieces of shit.
when, say, BMW or toyota takes this technique and puts it on larger
displacement engines, it kicks ass, but, hey...
andy
----------
In article <7sen0g$o83$1...@news1.Radix.Net>, "DEZLBOY"
<DEZLBOY*spam*@radix.net> wrote:
> A co-worker asked me what V-TEC was. All I knew was that it was something
> to do with a Hondah engine.
>
> Could anyone enlighten me?
>
> thanks,
>
Alekzandr Benedict
>honda's weak ass small displacement pieces of shit.
>
>when, say, BMW or toyota takes this technique and puts it on larger
>displacement engines, it kicks ass, but, hey...
A little bitter, are we?
Alek Benedict (al...@earthling.net)
http://www.evansville.net/~sdragon
44n...@my-deja.com
Acura's. (tubos, pistons, rods, NOS, etc)Some v-Tec and some not. The v-
tec ones always seem to be throwing rods, the heads of valves falling
into the combustion chamber and slamming it into the cyl head,(haha)
and spinning crank bearings. My one friend has a 1.8 honda non-vtec
with turbo and nos and has no problems. Are these vtec engines putting
more abuse on the engines or to much technology before its time or
what. Thanks
mike
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gre...@my-deja.com
"Andy Hobbs" <ach...@home.com> wrote:
> it's a bullshit timing advance/cam profile selection system to
capitalize on
> honda's weak ass small displacement pieces of shit.
>
> when, say, BMW or toyota takes this technique and puts it on larger
> displacement engines, it kicks ass, but, hey...
By the way Honda offers some 3.0-3.2L VTECS. Does this qualify
as 'large displacement'?
Also, VTEC varies cam timing AND lift in 2 modes (economy/performance),
while VVT from Porsche/VW/Lexus/BMW varies timing alone infinitely.
Greg
>
> andy
>
> ----------
> In article <7sen0g$o83$1...@news1.Radix.Net>, "DEZLBOY"
> <DEZLBOY*spam*@radix.net> wrote:
>
> > A co-worker asked me what V-TEC was. All I knew was that it was
something
> > to do with a Hondah engine.
> >
> > Could anyone enlighten me?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > --
> >
> > DEZLBOY
> > The diesel trend is born of engine envy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Dolimite79
enough technology/aftermarket support that there is no excuse for someone to
have a slow or crappy running one.
Justin
VWMikeLVW
>as 'large displacement'?
>
>Also, VTEC varies cam timing AND lift in 2 modes (economy/performance),
>while VVT from Porsche/VW/Lexus/BMW varies timing alone infinitely.
>
>Greg
>
Let's face it, Hondas VTEC system is for economy. Nothing more. We never see
these larger displacement engines in anything worth a damn so the whole
technology is worthless to us (the consumer). Those VTEC Civics suck ass. They
are extremely slow, I can eat them all day long in my Rabbit. The sad part
about these motors is that when they actually do make power it's way up at like
8k rpm which renders them useless on the street. What happened to low end
torque? Sometimes, no amount of technology can make up for the "mine is bigger
than yours" way of doing things....
mike
Saintor
not a Si (7.4)
Low end trust? 5-60 is still excellent at 8.4s.
Yes these little Honda need to rev_AND_love it!
VWMikeLVW
eurosport exhaust....mike
john_wi...@my-deja.com
"Marshall Willenholley" <mwille...@yipee.com> wrote:
> A couple of points.
>
> Its really a form of variable valve timing that many manufacturers
> use. I don't know whether other manufacturers are "copying" it or
> not, but many have been using it for many years. Ford (Ztech),
> Toyota, BMW come to mind.
The thing that makes VTEC different is that it doesn't just vary valve
timing, but also varies valve *lift*. Variable valve timing (VVT)
alone provides only marginal benefits. In some applications (like
Ford's 2L Zetec and Audi's 2.8L V6), benefits are so marginal, you
wouldn't even know VVT was there! (Ford and Audi don't advertise their
VVT systems too heavily either, probably because they know they
wouldn't be able to claim much benefit from them.) OTOH, VTEC (which
isn't really an acronym -- according to Honda, it stands for Variable
valve Timing and lift Electronic Control) makes a marked improvement in
specific output in some of Honda's more sports-oriented cars, with many
hovering around the 100 hp/liter mark, but it's still "no replacement
for displacement."
Stilian Elenkov
>
> Since when your Rabbit can do 0-60 in 7.9s, as recorded by C&D? And this is
> not a Si (7.4)
Why does it have to RECORDED BY C&D. Are they the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on
everything automotive?
The US Rabbit GTI with 90 hp did 8.1sec 0-60 in 1979 !!!
The euro Rabbit with the 116hp engine did it in 7.3 in 1977 !!!
Even the A2 85 - 86 8v 102hp GTIs managed to do it ~ 7.5sec. What is
more interesting it that they still do it after 14 - 15 years and 200 -
300 k miles. When the Si does that, please post it here... and we can
continue the discussion.
> Low end trust? 5-60 is still excellent at 8.4s.
>
> Yes these little Honda need to rev_AND_love it!
> Stilian
Stilian Elenkov
john_wi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <e_KG3.45$VK5.5...@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net>,
> "Marshall Willenholley" <mwille...@yipee.com> wrote:
> > A couple of points.
> >
> > Its really a form of variable valve timing that many manufacturers
> > use. I don't know whether other manufacturers are "copying" it or
> > not, but many have been using it for many years. Ford (Ztech),
> > Toyota, BMW come to mind.
>
> The thing that makes VTEC different is that it doesn't just vary valve
> timing, but also varies valve *lift*. Variable valve timing (VVT)
> alone provides only marginal benefits.
> In some applications (like
> Ford's 2L Zetec and Audi's 2.8L V6), benefits are so marginal, you
> wouldn't even know VVT was there!
You mean the extra 20 - 25 lbft @ 3200 of the 2.8 Audi vs Honda VTEC 3.0
V6 are marginal?
These translate into 15hp more in the 2500 - 4000 range. EVERYONE WILL
notice that.
This applies to the BMW and MB 2.8 I6 engines which both have ~ 206lbft
~ 3200 - 3500 vs the 195lbft @ 4700 of the bigger 3.0 Honda.
> (Ford and Audi don't advertise their
> VVT systems too heavily either, probably because they know they
> wouldn't be able to claim much benefit from them.) OTOH, VTEC (which
> isn't really an acronym -- according to Honda, it stands for Variable
> valve Timing and lift Electronic Control) makes a marked improvement in
> specific output in some of Honda's more sports-oriented cars,
They vary the lift pretty well as for the timing apparently they don't
do such a good job.
> with many
> hovering around the 100 hp/liter mark, but it's still "no replacement
> for displacement."
So is that why the bigger 3.0 V6 with VTEC "marvel of technology" has ~
15lbft less for most of the rpm range than the smaller 2.8 Audi, BMW and
MB engines with plain old "inferior" VVT?
Dolimite79
>do such a good job.
>
Maybe not in stock form,But they have lots of potential.Like the one on
www.sdsefi.com that went 11.42@117mph on 1.6l of motor,No Boostor N2o.Must mean
something.I'm not trying to rekindle a flame war,But don't be so blind to the
potential of other manufacturers vehicles.Alot of their technology can be
applied to our cars,I am NOT implying that the VTEC can be,But lots of other
things have proven to be very useful in my quest for more HP.
Justin
Marshall Willenholley
Dolimite79 wrote in message
<19990928175259...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>>They vary the lift pretty well as for the timing apparently they
don't
>>do such a good job.
>>
>
>Maybe not in stock form,But they have lots of potential.Like the one
on
>www.sdsefi.com that went 11.42@117mph on 1.6l of motor,No Boostor
N2o.
What is wrong with that picture? There has got to be something they
are not telling us.
Dolimite79
>don't
>>>do such a good job.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe not in stock form,But they have lots of potential.Like the one
>on
>>www.sdsefi.com that went 11.42@117mph on 1.6l of motor,No Boostor
>N2o.
>
>What is wrong with that picture? There has got to be something they
>are not telling us.
>
>--
>Marshall Willenholley
honest guy.
Justin
kevin crone
rpm is only comparable to the old turbo cars because when it kicks in it
takes off like a jet and with sport-shift you run it up to redline
(7200) and shift it you never drop out of the vtech range AND IS VERY
USABLE! I'm not a honda person because lets face it there the mustang
assholes of the 90's..An air filter and there the fastest thing on the
block(yeh-right).... Most people I've come into contact with in VW's
have been very nice helpful people....But let's face it people the
rabbit GTI was the first Sport Compact Car ...
Ziggy
kl...@webtv.net says...
> Try 5200 rpm on my 97 prelude 2.2 ...... This change in lobes at this
> rpm is only comparable to the old turbo cars because when it kicks in it
> takes off like a jet
You exaggerate. On the econobox-Hondas (all Hondas except the S2000),
the only change you can perceive when the cam lobe changes to the high-
rpm height is the exhaust note. There is no "kick" in the pants, as you
young punks like to claim. I used to own a 97 GSR and have driven the
current Preludes quite a few times, so I know exactly what I'm talking
about.
fozz
wrote:
The jump of torque from the switch over on the H22A in a Prelude is
very noticeable, at least to me and everybody else I've talked to.
Maybe not so(obviously) in 4th and 5th gear, but than you barely hear
the change in exhaust note as well in these gears.
Actually, for performance reasons, the switch over occurs a bit later
than it should. Optimally it should switch over around 4800, which is
one reason people get the SFC controllers. You want to make the torque
curve as flat as possible.
Take a look at the dyno plots at http://prelude.vtec.net/gen5/
Notice the jump in torque on the plot around the 5000 mark? Are you
telling me you can't feel that?
I haven't driven a GSR, but I do feel the jump in torque in the Civic
SI as well, just not to as great of a degree as the Prelude.
Ah shit, I just realized I wasted time trying to argue with a troll.
You get five points for that.
zuc...@chime.org
>
> In article <29850-37F...@newsd-141.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> kl...@webtv.net says...
> > Try 5200 rpm on my 97 prelude 2.2 ...... This change in lobes at this
> > rpm is only comparable to the old turbo cars because when it kicks in it
> > takes off like a jet
>
> You exaggerate. On the econobox-Hondas (all Hondas except the S2000),
> the only change you can perceive when the cam lobe changes to the high-
> rpm height is the exhaust note. There is no "kick" in the pants, as you
> young punks like to claim. I used to own a 97 GSR and have driven the
> current Preludes quite a few times, so I know exactly what I'm talking
> about.
RPM too high and you're losing acceleration. The car will be fastest if
it changes over where the torque on the low rpm cam = the torque on the
high rpm cam. Like picking a shift point.
Recker
has anyone Gteched or Run their car at the track to see
how much faster it runs? Id be interested in getting a Field VTEC
controller for my 99 prelude if they improved acceleration .
zuc...@chime.org wrote in message <37F1CC...@chime.org>...
Dolimite79
>everything I know about cars. A 1.6 liter fwd car doing 11.42? How
>many HP must that little engine be making. Is it running gasoline?
>There has got to be something else going on besides engine management.
>
>--
>Marshall Willenholley
The car is making 250 some hp I think.
It's in "Turbo Magazine" this month.The 16v head on that motor is very simaler
to our 16v head.The B16a motor is over square and has a good rod ratio.Which
combined with the VTEC technology allows that car to make the hp most of our
cars can only make with boost or N2o.And yes it runs on Gasoline.
Justin
Marshall Willenholley
Dolimite79 wrote in message
<19990928185236...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
I'm not doubting him or you, necessarily. Its just that just destroys
everything I know about cars. A 1.6 liter fwd car doing 11.42? How
many HP must that little engine be making. Is it running gasoline?
There has got to be something else going on besides engine management.
--
Marshall Willenholley
gre...@my-deja.com
vwmi...@aol.com (VWMikeLVW) wrote:
> >By the way Honda offers some 3.0-3.2L VTECS. Does this qualify
> >as 'large displacement'?
> >
> >Also, VTEC varies cam timing AND lift in 2 modes
(economy/performance),
> >while VVT from Porsche/VW/Lexus/BMW varies timing alone infinitely.
> >
> >Greg
> >
>
Wrong, the VTEC system makes the Honda engines perform as good or
better than any other engine of similar displacement.
> We never see
> these larger displacement engines in anything worth a damn so the
whole
> technology is worthless to us (the consumer).
Wrong again, the Accord V6 (auto) with the 3.0L VTEC V6 is 1.0s faster
than the V6 Passat (auto) 0-60, and also offers a better perceived low
end according to C&D.
> Those VTEC Civics suck ass. They
> are extremely slow,
Not as slow as the Golf GTi 2.0L (0-60 in 10s +). The Civic Si was
tested at 7.2s and 7.4s 0-60 (C&D). How is this slow?
> I can eat them all day long in my Rabbit. The sad part
> about these motors is that when they actually do make power it's way
up at like
> 8k rpm which renders them useless on the street.
Since when is it impossible to rev your engine to 7-8k on the street?
Just because the VTEC powerband comes alive when your Rabbit's is
running out of steam doesn't make it a poor engine. In fact, the
powerband of the VTEC motor is similar to the VW 16V motor.
> What happened to low end
> torque?
It has good low end torque compared to other engines of similar
displacment. What happened to the high end HP of your engine?
>Sometimes, no amount of technology can make up for the "mine is bigger
> than yours" way of doing things....
The numbers indicate that the VTEC technology works well.
Greg
> mike
gre...@my-deja.com
Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
> > The thing that makes VTEC different is that it doesn't just vary
valve
> > timing, but also varies valve *lift*. Variable valve timing (VVT)
> > alone provides only marginal benefits.
> > In some applications (like
> > Ford's 2L Zetec and Audi's 2.8L V6), benefits are so marginal, you
> > wouldn't even know VVT was there!
>
> You mean the extra 20 - 25 lbft @ 3200 of the 2.8 Audi vs Honda VTEC
3.0
> V6 are marginal?
> These translate into 15hp more in the 2500 - 4000 range. EVERYONE WILL
> notice that.
Apparently the editors of Car & Driver noticed this difference as well
when the Passat V6 was compared to the Accord V6 (VTEC). Both cars
were equipped with automatics, and the editors felt that the VW had
less "low end" than the Honda.
Greg
Stilian Elenkov
What they perceived and what the Dyno says ARE 2 different things.
Butt-o-meters (especially C&D ones) are not as accurate as the numbers.
C&D also said for the S2k - ".. could not get enough grip... because the
track was too sticky..." WTF? And before you say it the 5sp Auto Passat
took 1 sec more in the 0-60 because of the extra shift (2->3), see the
0-30, 0-40, 0-50, 0-70, 0-100, 0-120 numbers though and COMPREHEND the
difference. Numbers DO NOT LIE as you stated in your previous post.
Perception and reality are 2 different things... Some people just do not
have the right perception of the reality....
Stilian
VWMikeLVW
craponese car, blah, blah, blah
kevin crone
Or figure out how to find the power band ....Next time when the blonde
light on the dash points up hold out.....
Funj
HICAM enggages... Just look my dyno graph on my website if you do not
believe. Setting HICAM to come in later will yield a bigger kick as the HP
climb is steeper when HICAM enggages at a higher rpm. However, if you're
looking for best power curve characteristics, there is better curve
characteristics enggaging HICAM sooner - e.g approx 5k rpms. MOst tuners
such as Spoon and Mugen have their ECU's to enggage HICAM at 5k rpms for the
B16A.
My dyno charts on my website clearly shows this. You can see the power
curve characteristic difference with HICAMs coming in sooner v.s later. My
Vtec controller was set at 5400rpms for HICAM enggagement approx 350rpms
before stock enggagement. When I switched off the SFC vtec controller, the
stock ECU settings took over... as shown by the dyno chart.
--
Funj
96 JDM Civic SiR EK4
Pearl Black, sunroof, go fast mods...
http://www.escalix.com/freepage/funj
Ziggy <zi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.125b362ab...@netnews.att.net...
Guest
Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> The US Rabbit GTI with 90 hp did 8.1sec 0-60 in 1979 !!!
'79 US Rabbit GTI? Those must be REALLY fast, because no one has ever seen one.
I guess they had to throttle back the 83-84's in order to convince people that
they actually existed, because no numbers I've ever seen suggest anything like
8.1 0-60 stock.
Stilian Elenkov
Guest wrote:
>
> Stilian Elenkov wrote:
>
> > The US Rabbit GTI with 90 hp did 8.1sec 0-60 in 1979 !!!
>
> '79 US Rabbit GTI? Those must be REALLY fast, because no one has ever seen one.
You mean nobody out of ~ 290 mil americans? Who did the survey?
> I guess they had to throttle back the 83-84's in order to convince people that
> they actually existed, because no numbers I've ever seen suggest anything like
> 8.1 0-60 stock.
The GTI (US MADE one) was here in 1982.
http://underworld.fortunecity.com/snowboard/736/history.htm
There were euro GTIs with the 1.8 (detuned) engine as a 80 model in
1979.
Technically there was never a 84 735i 5sp in the US, but I have been
driving one around for some time and 100k miles.
There ware never E 21 323i, or E 12 520i etc. yet some people see them
around.
So what are the 0-60 times for the 1.8 90hp GTI?
Stilian
john_wi...@my-deja.com
> >
> > In article <e_KG3.45$VK5.5...@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net>,
> > "Marshall Willenholley" <mwille...@yipee.com> wrote:
> > > A couple of points.
> > >
> > > Its really a form of variable valve timing that many manufacturers
> > > use. I don't know whether other manufacturers are "copying" it or
> > > not, but many have been using it for many years. Ford (Ztech),
> > > Toyota, BMW come to mind.
> >
valve
> > timing, but also varies valve *lift*. Variable valve timing (VVT)
> > alone provides only marginal benefits.
> > In some applications (like
> > Ford's 2L Zetec and Audi's 2.8L V6), benefits are so marginal, you
> > wouldn't even know VVT was there!
>
> You mean the extra 20 - 25 lbft @ 3200 of the 2.8 Audi vs Honda VTEC
3.0
> V6 are marginal?
> These translate into 15hp more in the 2500 - 4000 range. EVERYONE WILL
> notice that.
206lbft
> ~ 3200 - 3500 vs the 195lbft @ 4700 of the bigger 3.0 Honda.
I didn't say that VTEC was better than VVT for making low-end torque.
> > (Ford and Audi don't advertise their
> > VVT systems too heavily either, probably because they know they
> > wouldn't be able to claim much benefit from them.) OTOH, VTEC
(which
> > isn't really an acronym -- according to Honda, it stands for
Variable
> > valve Timing and lift Electronic Control) makes a marked
improvement in
> > specific output in some of Honda's more sports-oriented cars,
>
> They vary the lift pretty well as for the timing apparently they don't
> do such a good job.
VTEC's timing control isn't infinite, like the Audi, BMW, and Lexus
systems, but as I said before, the varibale lift is where VTEC is
different and really shines.
> > with many
> > hovering around the 100 hp/liter mark, but it's still "no
replacement
> > for displacement."
>
> So is that why the bigger 3.0 V6 with VTEC "marvel of technology" has
~
> 15lbft less for most of the rpm range than the smaller 2.8 Audi, BMW
and
> MB engines with plain old "inferior" VVT?
Simple, because the Audi, BMW, and MB engines have higher-compression
ratios, and are tuned for premium gasoline, while the Honda 3L is tuned
for regular. The Accord 3L V6 is also not one of Honda's sportier
engines, where I indicated that VTEC made the biggest difference.
Saintor
this is
> > not a Si (7.4)
>
> Why does it have to RECORDED BY C&D. Are they the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on
> everything automotive?
Because it keeps uninformed people like you saying silly things.
>
> The US Rabbit GTI with 90 hp did 8.1sec 0-60 in 1979 !!!
Never saw a 0-60 under 9s from US GTI A1 that existed from 1982 to 1984.
> The euro Rabbit with the 116hp engine did it in 7.3 in 1977 !!!
Over my dead body. It was about the same as the 90HP US version. And the
euro Golf was 110HP, not 116.
> Even the A2 85 - 86 8v 102hp GTIs managed to do it ~ 7.5sec. What is
> more interesting it that they still do it after 14 - 15 years and 200 -
> 300 k miles. When the Si does that, please post it here... and we can
> continue the discussion.
Come ON. Stop saying idiot things. A2 102HP 0-60 at 7.5. More in
9-9.5s.
Saintor
> The GTI (US MADE one) was here in 1982.
> http://underworld.fortunecity.com/snowboard/736/history.htm
>
> There were euro GTIs with the 1.8 (detuned) engine as a 80 model in
> 1979.
In Canada, we had a 1979 (1.5L 71 HP) and 1980 GTI (1.6L 78HP). 0-60 near
11s.
Kevin Martin
beat a late '80s Honda Accord in a drag race once. I sure left 'em in the
smoke! I think they even honked at me (I heard "meeep meeeeep" behind me)
because they were so pissed that they got beat by a DIESEL.
Kevin M.
--
"Remember how they taught you / How much of it was fear
Refuse to hand it down / The legacy stops here."
-- Melissa Etheridge
VWMikeLVW
>beat a late '80s Honda Accord in a drag race once. I sure left 'em in the
>smoke! I think they even honked at me (I heard "meeep meeeeep" behind me)
>because they were so pissed that they got beat by a DIESEL.
I got revved on by a Civic when I was mowing the lawn once, I guess he felt
intimidated by my big "SNAPPER" logos and wished had some cool stickers like
that. It was pretty cool though, I put the pedal to the metal and raced down
the sidewalk,....I showed him!!! He won't dare show his face in my neighborhood
anymore!! Not after I dusted him with the mower...."POWERED BY SNAPPER!!!!"
....mike
Stilian Elenkov
Saintor wrote:
>
> > > Since when your Rabbit can do 0-60 in 7.9s, as recorded by C&D? And
> this is
> > > not a Si (7.4)
> >
> > Why does it have to RECORDED BY C&D. Are they the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on
> > everything automotive?
>
> Because it keeps uninformed people like you saying silly things.
>
> >
> > The US Rabbit GTI with 90 hp did 8.1sec 0-60 in 1979 !!!
>
> Never saw a 0-60 under 9s from US GTI A1 that existed from 1982 to 1984.
So because you never SAW ___________ means did not exist/did not
happen? What a big ego you have.
Talking about silly things.
>
> > The euro Rabbit with the 116hp engine did it in 7.3 in 1977 !!!
>
> Over my dead body. It was about the same as the 90HP US version. And the
> euro Golf was 110HP, not 116.
Actually it had 112, 116 and 118 hp engines depending on the country.
> > Even the A2 85 - 86 8v 102hp GTIs managed to do it ~ 7.5sec. What is
> > more interesting it that they still do it after 14 - 15 years and 200 -
> > 300 k miles. When the Si does that, please post it here... and we can
> > continue the discussion.
>
> Come ON. Stop saying idiot things. A2 102HP 0-60 at 7.5. More in
> 9-9.5s.
And you know this how? Measuring it maybe? Of course NOT - since that
would be an "idiot thing" to do.
Again talking about silly....
Stilian
gre...@my-deja.com
Stilian Elenkov <elen...@vtls.com> wrote:
>
>
> gre...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You mean the extra 20 - 25 lbft @ 3200 of the 2.8 Audi vs Honda
VTEC
> > 3.0
> > > V6 are marginal?
> > > These translate into 15hp more in the 2500 - 4000 range. EVERYONE
WILL
> > > notice that.
> >
> > Apparently the editors of Car & Driver noticed this difference as
well
> > when the Passat V6 was compared to the Accord V6 (VTEC). Both cars
> > were equipped with automatics, and the editors felt that the VW had
> > less "low end" than the Honda.
> >
>
> What they perceived and what the Dyno says ARE 2 different things.
> Butt-o-meters (especially C&D ones) are not as accurate as the
numbers.
> C&D also said for the S2k - ".. could not get enough grip... because
the
> track was too sticky..." WTF?
Do you have a reference to this? I don't recall reading this in the
10/99 issue. In any event, you seem to be bragging about the 225hp TT
a lot less lately ! <bg>
> And before you say it the 5sp Auto Passat
> took 1 sec more in the 0-60 because of the extra shift (2->3), see the
> 0-30, 0-40, 0-50, 0-70, 0-100, 0-120 numbers though and COMPREHEND the
> difference. Numbers DO NOT LIE as you stated in your previous post.
See below.
> Perception and reality are 2 different things... Some people just do
not
> have the right perception of the reality....
Stilian, perhaps you can help me to COMPREHEND the test results from
that C&D comparison of the Passat and Accord V6 cars. Let's have a
look, shall we?
Car & Driver, "Salt of Earth Sedans" 6/98 p70-71
s.start top.g top.g
0-30 0-60 0-100 1/4mi 5-60 30-50 50-70
Accord 2.9 7.6 20.6 16@88 8.2 4.2 5.1
Passat 3.2 8.6 22.8 16.7@87 8.9 4.2 5.6
Now if the Passat V6 offers better performance than the Accord V6, I'm
not seeing it in the numbers.
Greg
> Stilian
Eric
VWMikeLVW wrote in message <19991001031409...@ng-cl1.aol.com>...
>I got revved on by a Civic when I was mowing the lawn once, I guess he felt
>intimidated by my big "SNAPPER" logos and wished had some cool stickers
like
>that. It was pretty cool though, I put the pedal to the metal and raced
down
>the sidewalk,....I showed him!!! He won't dare show his face in my
neighborhood
>anymore!! Not after I dusted him with the mower...."POWERED BY SNAPPER!!!!"
>....mike
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
That's good.
Still, good tech is no replacement for real torque. At least we have a
choice. If we want to rev, we can. If we don't, we don't. To make real
power, the VTEC buzzbombs have to rev up into the annoying range - the
answer to the non-sequitur argument that asks the question "What's wrong
with revving it?" It's harsh and tedious, that's why. That's why real cars
have torque.
Even the worshipped S2000 got dissed for not having much torque. One of the
mags said that the car would be tedious as an everyday driver. Amen. I had
my motorcyle phase, and now I want a car that can get out of it's own way
before hitting 5k on the tach.
Isn't it strange that Honda only makes one >3.0L car with a manual tranny
for the U.S.? I think only one V6 period. And a new one will set you back
80 large. Thanks, but I like to pick my own shift points - high, low,
wherever.
Stupid Honda trollers can't get their own NG cleaned of the domestic boys,
so they come in here and whine. Maybe they should find another group to
diss - like the Subaru group.
Eric
'78 Scirocco, et. al.
Recker
The Prelude has decent torque below 5250rpm.. hell it pulls along better
than my passat vr6 does
down in the low rpms. I know because my father has a 99 prelude and i
really enjoy driving it.
People keep saying it's tedious to get the revs up past 5k rpm, but they
dont consider how
fast the vtec motors wind up, they get up to the high rpms fairly quickly.
And once you're there they pull
very hard.
Eric
sports model) that somehow is a representation of the whole.
I HAVE driven a VTEC car (a Civic Si,) and it was relatively pleasant for
short periods, when I felt like revving it. Still, there is the problem -
high RPMs become annoying after a while. Not only that, rowing the gear
selector to find the go to get someplace is fun at times, but tedious over
the long haul. The motor may "get up to 5k fast," but torque is
instantaneous.
As an all-around auto nut, I like the Si for the things it does, but in the
balance, I would chose something that was more flexible in its power
delivery, and choose a company who would like to sell a V6/manual tranny
combo so that I can choose when to apply torque or horsepower. In addition,
VTEC is a fine technology, but I am more inclined to take a very refined
turbo-motor from VW over an under-sized rapped-out Honda motor. I got over
my motorcycle jones when I got married. :)
Eric
'78 Scirocco, et. al.
Recker wrote in message ...
Recker
I will admit that I have not driven the Civic SI nor the Integra GSR, but I
have driven the prelude
and it does have decent torque. maybe due to the fact that the prelude has a
2.2 liter engine vs the smaller
1.6 or 1.8 liter engines...
When Honda made the Civic SI, I believe they wanted a lightweight, agile
car. The heavy V6 engine might
upset some of the nimbleness (is that a word? heh)
anyways, good points, and I will try to get out and drive one of the smaller
vtecs, and I hope you will
try out the 2.2l vtec sometime too.
-Matt
Recker
to be making a S2000 Type R
with a 2.5 liter vtec engine pumping 280 hp. I would love to get a hold of
one of those.