PDA

View Full Version : VTEC sound?


Venom5
28th December 2005, 14:25
I don't know if this already excists, but it would be cool to have a VTEC sound above 4800 or so revs in every car, or a car at your choice...
I've maid a Civic Type R EK9 with Mecanic S2, but I'm missing the VTEC sound that should be kicking in at 5800 revs (correct me if I'm wrong) :(
Can somebody make something so we can hear a VTEC sound, that we can adjust to revs?
THnx

tristancliffe
28th December 2005, 15:45
As the LFS sounds are created on the fly, all we would need is the two cam profiles, then LFS will make the correct engine sounds.

So for the moment you'll have to wait to hear the slight change of pitch the change of cam profile will bring until Scawen puts something like this into LFS. But I see little reason to, as LFS doesn't have to worry about emissions or noise control.

wheel4hummer
28th December 2005, 21:06
As the LFS sounds are created on the fly, all we would need is the two cam profiles, then LFS will make the correct engine sounds.

I don't think Venom5 knows what a camshaft is... :scratchch

Although I would like to see variable valve timing implemented, and upgrading of cams

blkcliostu
28th December 2005, 23:10
The only sound that you will get with the vtec kicking in is with these settings

Cylinders 12 12
Displacement 1600 1600

Power 0.155
Power width 0.55
time2rev 0.4
Redline 1.00
Idle 104.710

Still needs some tweeking but you do get a sound differnce

Bob Smith
29th December 2005, 00:11
Although I would like to see variable valve timing implemented
Yeah, a more complex engine simulation in general would be very nice. I think that's on the cards for S3.

and upgrading of cams
Err, why?

wheel4hummer
29th December 2005, 01:21
Err, why?

Because the idle sounds cool with an agressive camshaft :D

Venom5
29th December 2005, 02:11
I don't think Venom5 knows what a camshaft is... :scratchch

Although I would like to see variable valve timing implemented, and upgrading of cams
I do know...

dave4002000
29th December 2005, 15:31
I do know.....no you don't....yes i do...do not...do to....i can see it happening already :D

wheel4hummer
29th December 2005, 15:52
Your'e no better, you spent ALL of that money getting an SRT-4, and all of these parts to force your 4banger to a 11.6 1/4 mi time. LOL, the fastest N/A Camaro has a 9sec 1/4mi time!

Blowtus
29th December 2005, 19:33
don't really see why they'd include the sound effects of a propriety engine management system, that has little use in racing, and produces stupid torque steps...
:)
Much rather they spent the time making the engines sound like engines.

wheel4hummer
30th December 2005, 13:35
I agree, but a VTEC/VVTi etc. system would be nice to have on the XFG because cars simular to that one IRL have VTEC/VVTi. I don't want the SOUND, I want the two different cam profiles implemented.

Mikkel Petersen
30th December 2005, 14:41
What is VTEC sound? :scratchch

wheel4hummer
30th December 2005, 15:18
Well, for some reason ricers have orgasms when their honda's VTEC swiches the camshaft profiles. Heres an example: http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=12B9E2F2-8597-4A4A-B5EC-C6C7C7EFB47E&kw=37&p=0

tristancliffe
30th December 2005, 16:48
What is VTEC sound? :scratchch

Basically some cars now have two cam lobes on the camshaft. At a certain rpm the lobe in use in changed, which also has different timing.

This means a car can be civilized, quite and economical at lower revs, but can make it a teeny bit more powerful at higher revs whilst also making it sound like a 5 year old bolted it together.

It's mostly a marketting ploy, although it does have a bit of real science underlying it. And chavs love it.

dave4002000
30th December 2005, 17:57
Your'e no better, you spent ALL of that money getting an SRT-4, and all of these parts to force your 4banger to a 11.6 1/4 mi time. LOL, the fastest N/A Camaro has a 9sec 1/4mi time!

1)that's great...i don't give a F$&#..basically because i can't stand chevy's...and remember(this might be difficult for you)...but...FRONT WHEEL DRIVE vs. REAR WHEEL DRIVE...and on top of that...i'd like to see a camaro that runs supposed 9's keep up with me on a road track

2)i don't believe i mentioned you in anything i said...so i have no clue how you have any reason to just chime in and start bashing me.

3)"I'm no better"?? WTF?? When did i EVER say i was better than anyone?? I've seen how people act on this forum and online arguing is what happens when topics like this come up(mainly because a lot of the people on this forum are still in high school)

wheel4hummer
30th December 2005, 19:29
i'd like to see a camaro that runs supposed 9's keep up with me on a road track

If the transmission and suspension was upgraded, then it would kick yer Neon's arse. :shrug:

And, why are you cursing at me? I was not 'yelling' at you.

tristancliffe
30th December 2005, 20:39
Camaro, Dodge, it makes little difference. American cars, tsssk.
You're okay til you get to a corner. You might think your car(s) are good at cornering, but thats probably because you don't know what good cornering is....

:D

Mikkel Petersen
30th December 2005, 22:00
Thanks for the explanation Tristan! :thumb:

wheel4hummer
30th December 2005, 23:19
Camaro, Dodge, it makes little difference. American cars, tsssk.
You're okay til you get to a corner. You might think your car(s) are good at cornering, but thats probably because you don't know what good cornering is....

:D

Is that so?
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3605/camaro8dp.jpg

TagForce
30th December 2005, 23:35
Is that so?
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3605/camaro8dp.jpg

Beamer just setting the Cam up for a bumpdraft there :P (kidding)

Venom5
31st December 2005, 00:32
Basically some cars now have two cam lobes on the camshaft. At a certain rpm the lobe in use in changed, which also has different timing.

This means a car can be civilized, quite and economical at lower revs, but can make it a teeny bit more powerful at higher revs whilst also making it sound like a 5 year old bolted it together.

It's mostly a marketting ploy, although it does have a bit of real science underlying it. And chavs love it.
Wellllll.... I don't think so...
It's a pice of engineering, that some folks like, like me...
But have you ever driven a Honda with VTEC?
http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=1E812E24-5A06-4BF4-A56D-8D2770A90758&term=loudest&p=0 :)

wheel4hummer
31st December 2005, 00:53
But have you ever driven a Honda with VTEC?

Ive riden in one, and it was slow as ****.

wheel4hummer
31st December 2005, 01:07
Oh, and diesel fo' life!
http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=283BE603-A412-42FE-81BF-B726A709B1E0&term=diesel&p=0&pl=wm

dave4002000
31st December 2005, 03:47
[quote=wheel4hummer]If the transmission and suspension was upgraded, then it would kick yer Neon's arse. :shrug:
[quote]

there ya go right there....IF the tranny and suspension was upgraded......mines not...both are factory on my car....and i can almost guarantee you that if a camaro is set up to run 9's in the 1/4 it's not the same as it would be to run a road course....my car's suspension doesn't change...whether i'm running at the strip, on a road course, or using it as my daily driver(which it is)

last summer i was racing at the LimeRock road course here in CT almost every weekend and was up at New England Dragway in NH almost every Wednesday night...so yes...i do race my car quite often :thumb:

Venom5
31st December 2005, 11:24
[quote=wheel4hummer]If the transmission and suspension was upgraded, then it would kick yer Neon's arse. :shrug:
[quote]

there ya go right there....IF the tranny and suspension was upgraded......mines not...both are factory on my car....and i can almost guarantee you that if a camaro is set up to run 9's in the 1/4 it's not the same as it would be to run a road course....my car's suspension doesn't change...whether i'm running at the strip, on a road course, or using it as my daily driver(which it is)

last summer i was racing at the LimeRock road course here in CT almost every weekend and was up at New England Dragway in NH almost every Wednesday night...so yes...i do race my car quite often :thumb:
What does this have to do with the thread? :pillepall

wheel4hummer
31st December 2005, 15:21
I drove this thread off topic! YEAAAAAAAAAAAA! :x

KajiFox
31st December 2005, 17:22
I prefer the Nissan VVT sound myself, an already menacing SR20 just turns mean with the VVT opening up the exhaust further. Then again I'd much prefer a built SR20DET with Tomei cams and pistons, maybe a nice T51R hanging off the side, slotted into an S12 RS-X --

Oh, wait.

*goes for a drive*

Oh, and ...
Is that so?
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3605/camaro8dp.jpg

It's so. That's a BMW 3-series, the German equivalent of the Ford Taurus, and I'd love to see a Taurus having a go at a 3-Series. Even a 300 with a 2.7 would be a much fairer fight.

.. besides, 'sif that Camaro's stock.

ATHome
31st December 2005, 17:49
A picture doesn't show the capabilities of the drivers, nor does it show how much they're pushing...

I mean, I can take a photo where a Fiat Panda is on the inside line and a Porsche 911 on the outside. Does this show anything ? No.

wheel4hummer
31st December 2005, 18:05
.. besides, 'sif that Camaro's stock.
All it has is a ported throttle body. And, that bmw isnt a 3 series. Its a M3 CSL. No where did I say who was overtaking who. I just was proving my point. Why would someone drive a car on the ring if it handled badly?:pillepall

KajiFox
31st December 2005, 18:15
Hm. It's diving a bit oddly then, he must be braking. And sorry, but you can't really tell from a photo. The amount of people that kit up a standard coupe (even here in oz where parts are scarce) is insane.

And it might be crazy but it happens a lot more than you might think. Look up some ring-taxi footage if you can find it. Even Top Gear has it's share of naff on the Ring. A diesel Jaguar for instance! And a van!

tristancliffe
31st December 2005, 18:30
Lots of people drive rubbish cars on the 'ring.

Vans
Diesels
Small hatchbacks
American cars

Doesn't mean any of them are worth 5 seconds of your time.

And isn't a M3CSL a 3-Series. It's the 3 in the name thats the giveaway.

_Rob_
31st December 2005, 18:51
Tristan, I'll probably be driving a hatchback based diesel van, when (if :)) we go to 'ring :p

ajp71
31st December 2005, 19:33
Where did this fight about FWD vs. gas guzzling American barge come from?

Neither are designed to lap around tracks quickly, the concept of using FWD is to save space and weight, they can't handle excessive amounts of power, but can still be quick in comparison to their rivals (think Mini vs. Morris Minor ;)).

The concept of shoehorning a massive V8 into an extremely heavy bodyshell with the structural rigidity of a potato is to act as a catalyst for global warming.

It may suprise some people to know that an M3 CSL isn't really a light weight, at I'd guess still over 1400 kg it may be a few tons lighter than the heap of American junk you drive but it is still a big car.

The fact that todays baby supercars can only manage around 10 mpg is pathetic, they all weigh at least 1500 kg, and they really needen't. Maybe we should actually ask ourselfs do we really need to drive around in a 15 miles to the gallon Range Rover or a 15 gallons to the mile Hummer? It isn't needed on the road, modern cars can't be driven fast on B-Roads, simply because pushing an everyday sporty hatch back down a B-Road means driving it at dangerous speeds.

Something like a Mazda MX5 or a Mk1 Toyota MR2 is a good example of what sports cars should be about, well setup for good handling at road speeds, tiny amounts of power in comparison to todays average diesel hatch back, and economical.

Bluntly I think the current trend for very powerful cars should be kept for racing use only, there's no point in driving around in a 240 bhp hatch back that weighs 1500 kg when one could have just as much fun in a 150 bhp, 900 kg hatchback.

Back to the question of handling, anything weighing more than the average HGV is not going to handle well, or be fast round the 'ring. It may suprise you to know that a standard fast hatchback would thrash your heap of scrap iron round the 'ring. Even older lower power cars would out handle your monstrosity of a car, think of an old Escort, Mini, MG and there'd be no comparison to your car in terms of fun. Your junk metal is probably so overly power assissted that you'd get no feel of the car at all, and if not then you'd find that it'll be extremely heavy and probably more prone to simply gliding straight on in a mass of understeer when it met a corner rather than a nice controlable oversteer, which is what a sensibly sized front engined RWD car should do.

I could keep going explaining to you about terms like 'structural rigidity' but you probably wouldn't understand enough about how a car handles to have a sensible debate with.

Bluntly you're a ****ing idiot IMO for flaming someone for no reason for tuning a FWD car, who it would seem to me has more of a clue about going round corners as well as in a straight line. You obviously also couldn't give a shit about the environment, which isn't a good thing, obviously when you go racing it's not a consideration you make, in the end of the day motorsport isn't going to make a difference to the environment or oil supplies, millions of gas guzzling road cars will. Do you really need 6.0 litres of cast iron to propel your 5 ton shed at 55 mph or would 1.5 litres of sensibly proportioned car do instead, would also save a load on fuel.

tristancliffe
31st December 2005, 19:45
Tristan, I'll probably be driving a hatchback based diesel van, when (if :)) we go to 'ring :p

gulp

Where did this fight about FWD vs. gas guzzling American barge come from?

Neither are designed to lap around tracks quickly, the concept of using FWD is to save space and weight, they can't handle excessive amounts of power, but can still be quick in comparison to their rivals (think Mini vs. Morris Minor ).

The concept of shoehorning a massive V8 into an extremely heavy bodyshell with the structural rigidity of a potato is to act as a catalyst for global warming.

It may suprise some people to know that an M3 CSL isn't really a light weight, at I'd guess still over 1400 kg it may be a few tons lighter than the heap of American junk you drive but it is still a big car.

The fact that todays baby supercars can only manage around 10 mpg is pathetic, they all weigh at least 1500 kg, and they really needen't. Maybe we should actually ask ourselfs do we really need to drive around in a 15 miles to the gallon Range Rover or a 15 gallons to the mile Hummer? It isn't needed on the road, modern cars can't be driven fast on B-Roads, simply because pushing an everyday sporty hatch back down a B-Road means driving it at dangerous speeds.

Something like a Mazda MX5 or a Mk1 Toyota MR2 is a good example of what sports cars should be about, well setup for good handling at road speeds, tiny amounts of power in comparison to todays average diesel hatch back, and economical.

Bluntly I think the current trend for very powerful cars should be kept for racing use only, there's no point in driving around in a 240 bhp hatch back that weighs 1500 kg when one could have just as much fun in a 150 bhp, 900 kg hatchback.

Back to the question of handling, anything weighing more than the average HGV is not going to handle well, or be fast round the 'ring. It may suprise you to know that a standard fast hatchback would thrash your heap of scrap iron round the 'ring. Even older lower power cars would out handle your monstrosity of a car, think of an old Escort, Mini, MG and there'd be no comparison to your car in terms of fun. Your junk metal is probably so overly power assissted that you'd get no feel of the car at all, and if not then you'd find that it'll be extremely heavy and probably more prone to simply gliding straight on in a mass of understeer when it met a corner rather than a nice controlable oversteer, which is what a sensibly sized front engined RWD car should do.

I could keep going explaining to you about terms like 'structural rigidity' but you probably wouldn't understand enough about how a car handles to have a sensible debate with.

Bluntly you're a ****ing idiot IMO for flaming someone for no reason for tuning a FWD car, who it would seem to me has more of a clue about going round corners as well as in a straight line. You obviously also couldn't give a shit about the environment, which isn't a good thing, obviously when you go racing it's not a consideration you make, in the end of the day motorsport isn't going to make a difference to the environment or oil supplies, millions of gas guzzling road cars will. Do you really need 6.0 litres of cast iron to propel your 5 ton shed at 55 mph or would 1.5 litres of sensibly proportioned car do instead, would also save a load on fuel.

Agreed :up:

Ill_eagle94
31st December 2005, 20:42
[quote=wheel4hummer]
last summer i was racing at the LimeRock road course here in CT almost every weekend and was up at New England Dragway in NH almost every Wednesday night...so yes...i do race my car quite often :thumb:

What color is your Neon? Is it blue?

I go to NED quite often, although mostly for sport compact events and with my DSM club on the second Wednesday of every month. I don't race with my current car, but I will hopefully be picking up something to race with in the near future.

Michel 4AGE
31st December 2005, 20:49
Lots of people drive rubbish cars on the 'ring.

Vans
Diesels
Small hatchbacks
American cars

Doesn't mean any of them are worth 5 seconds of your time.

And isn't a M3CSL a 3-Series. It's the 3 in the name thats the giveaway.

You'll see more rubbish drivers in fast cars.

ajp71
31st December 2005, 21:19
You'll see more rubbish drivers in fast cars.

Very true, if you look at the lap of the Transit she is actually passing some seriously fast machinery in the bends. It's not about driving a fast car, more about driving a car fast.

wheel4hummer
31st December 2005, 22:05
Bluntly you're a ****ing idiot IMO for flaming someone for no reason for tuning a FWD car, who it would seem to me has more of a clue about going round corners as well as in a straight line. You obviously also couldn't give a shit about the environment, which isn't a good thing, obviously when you go racing it's not a consideration you make, in the end of the day motorsport isn't going to make a difference to the environment or oil supplies, millions of gas guzzling road cars will. Do you really need 6.0 litres of cast iron to propel your 5 ton shed at 55 mph or would 1.5 litres of sensibly proportioned car do instead, would also save a load on fuel.

Bluntly you're a ****ing idiot IMO for flaming someone who likes american/V8 cars. You obviously don't know that a Camaro is roughly the same length and wheelbase as a honda accord. The camaro is, however, heavier than a honda accord by 300lbs. SO, a camaro IS sensibly proportioned. And, I am not talking about fuel savings. Theres no way a 450HP neon will get 25MPG.

ajp71
31st December 2005, 23:03
Bluntly you're a ****ing idiot IMO for flaming someone who likes american/V8 cars. You obviously don't know that a Camaro is roughly the same length and wheelbase as a honda accord. The camaro is, however, heavier than a honda accord by 300lbs. SO, a camaro IS sensibly proportioned. And, I am not talking about fuel savings. Theres no way a 450HP neon will get 25MPG.

I wouldn't have had a go at you if you didn't have a go at someone else for no reason :pillepall

The fact remains that the current Camaro is still a big car, it's often critisied in the press here for being too big to be practical on UK roads.

A 450 bhp turbo 4 will still be more economical than a big V8 when it's not having its nuts revved off, but that's hardly an everday example, sadly for our planet big V8s are. Anyway your a demo racer, so maybe if you drove a slightly smaller car you could afford S2?

Michel 4AGE
31st December 2005, 23:32
Anyway your a demo racer, so maybe if you drove a slightly smaller car you could afford S2?

That's low dude :shrug:
Let's stop this crap ok ?








Toyota rulezz anyway :D
Happy 2006 & good night

ajp71
31st December 2005, 23:36
Lets drop this now, personally I still feel that it's pretty rich that you decided to make a rather random and completely misinformed rant just because another member drives a particular car.

Happy New Year anyway :)

KajiFox
1st January 2006, 03:03
I'm just waiting for it to be a little easier to take my car on the 'ring.

But, with EU import regulations, if I moved to Europe, my car might well have to stay where it is. Unless I lived in Britain and that's fairly expensive.

.. then again, living in a country town ..

Okay, so the whole continent's expensive...

How about we just end this by expressing an interest in the Nurburgring in LFS? Maybe it's possible...

*sees if the company responsible for the Nurburgring would be expecting reparations..*

wheel4hummer
1st January 2006, 15:56
Happy new year!

Venom5
1st January 2006, 16:01
Happy new year!
Happy New Year!:thumb:

The Proctologist
6th February 2006, 03:20
http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=4EAFFB17-F817-47FF-B952-0F237452C6B7&term=matrix&p=0

My little toyota makes that sound too ;)

Would be pretty cool, especially if it came with the surge of power I get too.

ramtech
6th February 2006, 10:04
Well, for some reason ricers have orgasms when their honda's VTEC swiches the camshaft profiles. Heres an example: http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=12B9E2F2-8597-4A4A-B5EC-C6C7C7EFB47E&kw=37&p=0

i have orgasms when i hear the turbo go fshhhhhhhhhh before the honda VTEC sounds while racing against them :D

http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=F23276C0-18BA-489D-B2E0-C14080AC5437&term=matrix&p=0 <--- listen to that whistle :)

ramtech
8th February 2006, 20:09
if we could only have sounds like this...
http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1139395622/Aston_Martin_DBR9_

TagForce
8th February 2006, 21:38
i have orgasms when i hear the turbo go fshhhhhhhhhh before the honda VTEC sounds while racing against them :D

http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=F23276C0-18BA-489D-B2E0-C14080AC5437&term=matrix&p=0 <--- listen to that whistle :)

I'll have an orgasm when your turbo goes fshhhhhhh and it gets totally drowned out because this smart passes you:

ramtech
8th February 2006, 23:08
I'll have an orgasm when your turbo goes fshhhhhhh and it gets totally drowned out because this smart passes you:

loooool
thats ridiculous!!!
crazy little thing :)

george_tsiros
14th February 2006, 07:23
guys, guys, guys... quit fooling around with those vtec lamers... to make them quiet down a bit you gotta talk their own language:

...vtec?

pah!
yamaha r6 2k6

you want ridiculous?
110bhp @15K rpm. (that's 185hp per litre. at the wheel. without ram-air.)
+
you want sound?
17.5K rpm redline (car engines wimp out @9K? puh-leez...)
==
you and your vtec's sound -> pwnt :x

And, besides, even if we stick to car engines, there is nothing... NOTHING like a V6/8/10/12 whizzing

you and your four-bangers...

(forgot the jpg)

FPVaaron
14th February 2006, 07:35
Camaro, Dodge, it makes little difference. American cars, tsssk.
You're okay til you get to a corner. You might think your car(s) are good at cornering, but thats probably because you don't know what good cornering is....

:D

That's not true, they know high banked left corners that don't require braking.

Phill
14th February 2006, 08:41
That's not true, they know high banked left corners that don't require braking.

that was an obvious point at nascar? right?

Blowtus
14th February 2006, 08:47
can't have been that obvious, right? :) :)

Jakg
14th February 2006, 09:28
Camaro, Dodge, it makes little difference. American cars, tsssk.
You're okay til you get to a corner. You might think your car(s) are good at cornering, but thats probably because you don't know what good cornering is....

:Dno, theyve just never met a proper corner... <img>All it has is a ported throttle body. And, that bmw isnt a 3 series. Its a M3 CSL. No where did I say who was overtaking who. I just was proving my point. Why would someone drive a car on the ring if it handled badly?but we whre talking about a car that had been set up for the quater mile!Hm. It's diving a bit oddly then, he must be braking. And sorry, but you can't really tell from a photo. The amount of people that kit up a standard coupe (even here in oz where parts are scarce) is insane.
And it might be crazy but it happens a lot more than you might think. Look up some ring-taxi footage if you can find it. Even Top Gear has it's share of naff on the Ring. A diesel Jaguar for instance! And a van!on a vid of sabine in the m5 taxi, she overtakes a coach!The concept of shoehorning a massive V8 into an extremely heavy bodyshell with the structural rigidity of a potato is to act as a catalyst for global warming.lol!

Eddyg61
14th February 2006, 22:58
guys, guys, guys... quit fooling around with those vtec lamers... to make them quiet down a bit you gotta talk their own language:

...vtec?

pah!
yamaha r6 2k6

you want ridiculous?
110bhp @15K rpm. (that's 185hp per litre. at the wheel. without ram-air.)
+
you want sound?
17.5K rpm redline (car engines wimp out @9K? puh-leez...)
==
you and your vtec's sound -> pwnt :x

And, besides, even if we stick to car engines, there is nothing... NOTHING like a V6/8/10/12 whizzing

you and your four-bangers...

(forgot the jpg)

ooo i beg to differ my friend Mr. Dennis down at woking surrey will also agree. i know a nice v10 car which will rev to 19,000.....sure just because its a mclarens f1 racer don't stop it being a car!!! lol

Phill
15th February 2006, 12:17
can't have been that obvious, right? :) :)

hahahaha.. :thumb:

Mini_ron_82
11th March 2006, 01:31
guys, guys, guys... quit fooling around with those vtec lamers... to make them quiet down a bit you gotta talk their own language:

...vtec?

pah!
yamaha r6 2k6

you want ridiculous?
110bhp @15K rpm. (that's 185hp per litre. at the wheel. without ram-air.)
+
you want sound?
17.5K rpm redline (car engines wimp out @9K? puh-leez...)
==
you and your vtec's sound -> pwnt :x

And, besides, even if we stick to car engines, there is nothing... NOTHING like a V6/8/10/12 whizzing

you and your four-bangers...

(forgot the jpg)

i love the VTEC, but you do have a point!

Lord_Verminaard
11th March 2006, 12:52
Hmm, my Camaro is a V6, so it's a bit lighter than most, but it still handles like crap. :P On the other hand, my girlfriend's Civic is slow as balls, (yes, with VTec) and also handles like crap. My VW could blow them both away on a road course, and it's damn near as fast as my Camaro in a straight line. But hey, I'm selling my Camaro p.o.s., and my girlfriend's Civic has 385,000 miles and still gets her 35 mpg and that's all she cares about. Although my VW is 22 years old with original engine, it gets me 40 mpg. :D I had a redneck in a beat up 5.0 mustang scratching his head the other day, just couldnt get past me from stoplight to stoplight. :D And I'm just starting on the crazyness with my VW- it will soon have roughly 250 ft-lbs of torque and get 50 mpg. :banana:

Brendan
84 VW Scirocco 8v
00 Camaro L36 M49

Mini_ron_82
11th March 2006, 21:50
well i have the luxury of ahving her Civic Type R for the weekend

had the brakes smoking today, glad she has red stuffs and grooved discs!

VW are good at building solid, run for miles engines, but honda are the best at gettin the most out of N/A engines IMO!

nicksinclair
14th March 2006, 22:49
lol, you yanks crack me up. try putting your big barges on a track with some of our uk hot hatches. clio 182 cup, RS focus, civic type-r, 106 gti etc etc then they'll show you a thing or two about handling

nicksinclair
14th March 2006, 22:50
well i have the luxury of ahving her Civic Type R for the weekend

had the brakes smoking today, glad she has red stuffs and grooved discs!

VW are good at building solid, run for miles engines, but honda are the best at gettin the most out of N/A engines IMO!

agreed, although my 106 gti has the magical n/a 100bhp per litre aswell :thumb:

neRu
15th March 2006, 19:53
And yours isn't standard.

Honda's can be N/A tuned to over 200hp's. And thats not a big effort, just some cam's, manifolds and a good chip.
There is your peugeot starting to fall behind, by miles.

wheel4hummer
15th March 2006, 21:01
Renault's are one of the few non-american cars I would buy.

Phill
15th March 2006, 21:11
renualt? what the heck is that?

neRu
16th March 2006, 10:24
Oh my. I'd never touch a renault, there's tonnes of other european cars that i'd much rather would buy. Saab (Oh, that 9-3 SportCombi Aero, 2,8 V6 Turbo, 250 hp standard), Mercedes, Audi, Lamborghini, Ferrari for instance.

The two cars lowest on my european car list is Renault and Fiat.

Matrixi
16th March 2006, 11:12
Renault? Why in the earth would you buy one of them? :pillepall They haven't really done anything special for uhm, 20 years? They make cheap family cars or small shopping bags for grandmas.

Only thing I personally respect from Renault are the FR2000 class formula cars (aka. FOX in lfs) ;)

tristancliffe
16th March 2006, 11:35
Some people think that the pre-riced clios are good. For some reason.

punkboy80
16th March 2006, 13:53
:pillepall Renault? Why in the earth would you buy one of them? :pillepall They haven't really done anything special for uhm, 20 years? They make cheap family cars or small shopping bags for grandmas.

Only thing I personally respect from Renault are the FR2000 class formula cars (aka. FOX in lfs) ;):pillepall


Yes you have right, the cheap family cars are maybe the ESPACE or VEL SATIS, for grandmas they have the megane cuope-cabriolet or the clio v6. :D

Yes renault done nothing special:) :
Laguna was the first car, wich received a five-star rating in Euro NCAP crash tests . Scenic II, megane II, modus was the first cars in his classes, whichis received a five-star rating in Euro NCAP crash tests. Renault has 8 car with 5 star rating.
The new Clio is the car oft year 2006.
.
.
.

Matrixi
16th March 2006, 19:00
Well they need high NCAP safety ratings, because all they are good for is being crashed and trashed in to bits :D

Car of the year you say.. you know, they selected Toyota Yaris (iirc) as car of the year over here last year, and does that make me think Toyota Yaris is any better car now? No.

Renault is a boring brand, and unless they make something special in the next 10 years, I'm not changing my opinion. Family cars are for family drivers, I'm not one of them.. yet. :)

neRu
16th March 2006, 20:32
Toyota Yaris is a great car, if you need a shopping bag. Maybe even THE best shoppingbag. The second best is the toyota aygo 1,0 3cyl petrol 68 hp. Drives very well for a car of that price

hinirags
17th March 2006, 09:03
Do you know the Clio RS 2.0 16v? I guess not, this is not really a kind of boring car. Maybe that is why it is so much used in rally?? héhé

Matrixi
17th March 2006, 11:12
It's front wheel drive isn't it? That makes it automatically boring, aka. grannies shopping bag. :)

punkboy80
17th March 2006, 14:51
It's front wheel drive isn't it? That makes it automatically boring, aka. grannies shopping bag. :)

This topic is about vtec honda. Honda civic is also a front wheel drive car , so what are you doing in this topic???
The worst Renault grammy car is the dacia logan (renault logan), but you have to see this booring video: :)
http://www.a5.hu/video/logans2000.wmv
Yes i know only front whell drive, but i can bee realy happy with this car.

The renault isn't so bad. But i like better the japanes cars.

Matrixi
17th March 2006, 15:04
This topic is about vtec honda. Honda civic is also a front wheel drive car , so what are you doing in this topic???

You should look in the mirror. YOU are the one that started babbling about renault's NCAP ratings :D I don't like french cars, and I'm ending this arguing on my behalf. Sry for offtopic. ;)

shima
25th March 2006, 23:42
ok just for some people who think vtec sucks.... if you have been in a vtec car it may not have been a vtec but a vtec E wich is the economy version. this does not even set the standards for real vtec. but in my opinon yes there will be nothing like the power coming from a supercharged V6 but a 4 cilinder pushing 160bhp (based on VTI) standard aint bad aspecially with the reving allowed. take for instance a 2.0 litre vauxhall cx20 engine thats only giving out 140 bhp (correct me if i am wrong) so i think its amazing.. natrually i love honda's so as i say thats just my opinion.

but i agree in time i think they should add vtec into lfs also superchargers on some cars.

wheel4hummer
26th March 2006, 02:24
Why the hell would you want to switch from a small-lope camshaft to a very lopey camshaft at a certain RPM? Why not just constantly use that lopey camshaft? It would sound nicer!

lrdbsi
26th March 2006, 04:41
variable valve timing and lift electronic control (vtec) or valve technology as u wish, run off your oil pressure sensor regulator, and adjusts lift in ur cam timing to make a car go from 100% --- > 110%

i made a similar engine on lfs
emulating a b16a2 @ 170bhp,, 1600cc change over at 5200rpms redlining @ 8000rpm, okay i bet some sausage is guna bust out all this information saying ur wrong this blah blah, and my luck will be him being a 13yr over weight geek that sucks at drifting in lfs and begs everyone for sets , okay that was a bit much peace

bal00
26th March 2006, 07:07
Actually you're going from 90% to 100%. Just look at it this way: The cars in LFS are running on the 100% cam profile all the time.

Why would you want a smaller cam profile for <5000rpm if you're not even using that rev range while driving?

tristancliffe
26th March 2006, 12:00
Because in a road car you want emissions, economy to be good and a relatively slow throttle response. Therefore you use less lift, which tends to mean less duration, when tends to mean you will use less overlap - less overlap is good for emissions and economy.

But when you want the most performance (WOT at high rpm) you don't care so much about economy or emissions, so you can higher lift and more overlap to give more scavenging and theoretically greater volumetric efficiency.

Thus, vtec isn't great for racing becuase in racing you want the large cam profile (and the most performance) all the time, else you will lose out to somone who does everytime you revs drop below the vtec range.

On the flip side I suspect that 99% of people who like vtec do so for the wrong reason. They either like the sound (subjective, personally the thought of a car changing from 4 cylinder plodder to 4 cylinder awake plodder doesn't really thrill me), or they think (as stated above) that you engine goes from 100% to 110% performance without realising it's probably more like 80% to 100%. Thus, if you do a time average of the actual performance vs the theoretical maximum performance (i.e. normal driving vs WOT all the time) you will find you engine is running at about 85% of it's ability (but also 85% of the emissions, and using just 85% of the fuel [actually less because the ECU will attempt a lean burn mode depening on the catalyst state, position etc]).

In other words vtec is a fancy way of bypassing emissions and ecomoncy regulations rather than suddenly making engines 'better'.

Michel 4AGE
26th March 2006, 13:38
Good points Tristan but don't forget the other methods like TVIS/VVT(l)i. These systems are basically the same but provide a lot more smoother torque band. TVIS is the older system and basically it's a set of butterflys in the inlet manifold which can be closed or open, depending on vacuüm in the inlet manifold. If closed, only 4 inlet ports are open and that creates higher air speed for more torque. At 4400rpm a vacuüm solenoid sends a signal to the ecu and then the butterflys will open the remaining 4 inlet ports. Cylinderhead will have to do it's work up from here. This systeem feels much like VTEC, but it operates very different.

VVT(Li) is much much more complicated and it uses way more signals from the ecu such as
- engine rpm
- TPS signal
- Inlet vacuüm
- Coolant temp.
Based on these signals it can operate from 0rpm upto the revlimiter and so it changes constantly. Toyota has mapped these ecu's in such way that it operates much like a VTEC, you also get that agressive switch @ 6000rpm but of course with a standalone ecu there is not much a man can't do :)
I have to say I really respect these engines and their systems. Let's not forget systems like the first VTEC and especially TVIS are very old (1984) and they developed both systems in a great way providing fun, high rpm's and torque at the same time.

tristancliffe
26th March 2006, 14:32
I'd be interested to see a torque curve (or a power curve before you all start) of the engine using the different cam profiles and timings, because I expect the 'mid range torque boost' with the different timing won't be as great as some people think. The huge main reason of Variable Valve Timing (including or not variable lift) is emissions and economy. It's highly likely (but impossible to say without more data than the engine departments are going to divulge) that the racier cam profiles and timings are better throughout the rev range in terms of performance, but seriously lack in terms of economy and emissions, whereas the less racey profiles/lifts/timings sacrifice a bit of torque for cleaner and more complete burning.

As I say it's almost, if not totally impossible to say this with a great deal of accuracy without all the data, which we ain't likely to see. Ever.

wheel4hummer
27th March 2006, 01:48
HEHE!
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/ricer/0/7CEFE4B4-1A77-4CC7-A48A-EA37A5195C2F.htm

I like nissan's, so I am not completely anti-import!

Hatemaker
27th March 2006, 15:12
Huh? What's this about slow 4-bangers?

*Looks down at sig*
Not mine...

Well, just to be fair, I drive a 1994 Civic V-Tec as well as the subaru(subie = my fun car, civic = my get to work car). I've opened up the civic, and I'll tell you, vtec or not, that thing is SO slow. i do like the handleing though, but none-the-less, I still think it's a slow car and nothing special. I've blown too many of them away on road coarses in the subie.

Blowtus
27th March 2006, 20:57
I'd be interested to see a torque curve (or a power curve before you all start) of the engine using the different cam profiles and timings, because I expect the 'mid range torque boost' with the different timing won't be as great as some people think. The huge main reason of Variable Valve Timing (including or not variable lift) is emissions and economy. It's highly likely (but impossible to say without more data than the engine departments are going to divulge) that the racier cam profiles and timings are better throughout the rev range in terms of performance, but seriously lack in terms of economy and emissions, whereas the less racey profiles/lifts/timings sacrifice a bit of torque for cleaner and more complete burning.

As I say it's almost, if not totally impossible to say this with a great deal of accuracy without all the data, which we ain't likely to see. Ever.

Have you driven other cars with small capacity engines tuned to produce peak power at high rpm? They're not real fun to drive around town etc, pretty grumpy down at low rpm. Much as I think vtec is a bit wrong and silly, (much better, smoother, ways of producing higher peak power imho) it's signifigantly better than the same peak engine tune without it...
if you look at a vtec engines torque plot, it's a bunch of fairly flat steps, (the steps are one of the main reasons I don't like vtec) as opposed to a 'normal' high rpm tuned small capacity engine, which usually rises pretty steeply.

wheel4hummer
27th March 2006, 21:47
Huh? What's this about slow 4-bangers?

*Looks down at sig*
Not mine...

Well, just to be fair, I drive a 1994 Civic V-Tec as well as the subaru(subie = my fun car, civic = my get to work car). I've opened up the civic, and I'll tell you, vtec or not, that thing is SO slow. i do like the handleing though, but none-the-less, I still think it's a slow car and nothing special. I've blown too many of them away on road coarses in the subie.

VTEC is mostly BS because nissan, chevy, ford, all of the car companies use variable valve timing in their four bangers. I like Flat-fours are though!

EDIT: These people are such dumbasses! http://videos.streetfire.net/search/ricer/0/2D5FAA0C-2208-436D-9D0D-13398146AF32.htm

tristancliffe
27th March 2006, 22:08
Have you driven other cars with small capacity engines tuned to produce peak power at high rpm? They're not real fun to drive around town etc, pretty grumpy down at low rpm. Much as I think vtec is a bit wrong and silly, (much better, smoother, ways of producing higher peak power imho) it's signifigantly better than the same peak engine tune without it...
if you look at a vtec engines torque plot, it's a bunch of fairly flat steps, (the steps are one of the main reasons I don't like vtec) as opposed to a 'normal' high rpm tuned small capacity engine, which usually rises pretty steeply.

Thats a good point too - low down drivability.

So, reasons for vtec/vvt/etc are:

Emissions - save the whales
Economy - make the arabs poor
Drivability - allow grannies to cope with it (not actual grannies, just people who don't want a high powered car, but want the high powered badge)

Thus, anyone who claimes to like vtecs and driving probably can't drive :p

That'll stir the conversation up a bit

ratindahat
27th March 2006, 23:22
I read the first few posts and scanned throught he rest. I hope this was not already mentioned.

The sound you hear in most hondas at around 5500 rpm is not VTEC. It is the sound of the secondary intake runners opening up. Alot of cars use this method. Short runners for one band and long runners for the other.

I know that Nissan and honda use it on alot of their highend(read that loosely) economy cars. More torque down low and more hp up high. It does work.

I would say 99% of the time you cannot hear VTEC kick in.

Oh and on the Nissans, we don't have VTEC or equivelant. It is continously variable. There is no set crossover point.

-Dusty-

Mini_ron_82
4th April 2006, 20:47
Why the hell would you want to switch from a small-lope camshaft to a very lopey camshaft at a certain RPM? Why not just constantly use that lopey camshaft? It would sound nicer!

well the engine uses less fuel at low revs and has ok torque b4 the cam switch, then at the cam switch over it uses LOTS of fuel and lots of air and for non forced induction its a very clever system that has had very little "f*ck ups" in the whole time honda have used VTEC in production cars!

any ways, all this is available to ppl if they wanna read it on the net....

and every one wants somat differnt from an engine... for me, Honda is the future!!!

Mini_ron_82
4th April 2006, 20:53
I read the first few posts and scanned throught he rest. I hope this was not already mentioned.

The sound you hear in most hondas at around 5500 rpm is not VTEC. It is the sound of the secondary intake runners opening up. Alot of cars use this method. Short runners for one band and long runners for the other.

I know that Nissan and honda use it on alot of their highend(read that loosely) economy cars. More torque down low and more hp up high. It does work.

I would say 99% of the time you cannot hear VTEC kick in.

Oh and on the Nissans, we don't have VTEC or equivelant. It is continously variable. There is no set crossover point.

-Dusty-
dusty, ur right, apart from one point....

in honda engines, when the cam profile changes over in the girlies civic type r, you can ALWAYS hear it, and even in my mums 1.8 SOHC accord you can hear and feel it, just has less of a kick

to prove this.. i have some videos...

http://www.zen83630.zen.co.uk/videos.html webpage with links..
or directly...

http://www.zen83630.zen.co.uk/vids/cnivcniv.wmv combo of in-car and outside vids from the Civic, large file so dial up beware!

http://www.zen83630.zen.co.uk/vids/abbydriving!004.avi (http://www.zen83630.zen.co.uk/vids/abbydriving%21004.avi) VTEC bridge effect

http://www.zen83630.zen.co.uk/vids/2_civic_fly_by.mpg 2 CTRs on a fly by

M1tch
6th April 2006, 13:28
Camaro, Dodge, it makes little difference. American cars, tsssk.
You're okay til you get to a corner. You might think your car(s) are good at cornering, but thats probably because you don't know what good cornering is....

:D

Really pisses me off when you guys rip on American cars. How about a Corvette z06? Or the Corvette C6R?

tristancliffe
6th April 2006, 14:59
Corvette. Apparently the latest corvette was rumoured to be able to do corners, but alas it was just hype...

e-dwarf
6th April 2006, 16:55
Huh? What's this about slow 4-bangers?

*Looks down at sig*
Not mine...

Well, just to be fair, I drive a 1994 Civic V-Tec as well as the subaru(subie = my fun car, civic = my get to work car). I've opened up the civic, and I'll tell you, vtec or not, that thing is SO slow. i do like the handleing though, but none-the-less, I still think it's a slow car and nothing special. I've blown too many of them away on road coarses in the subie.

Well, you are still driving a fourbanger, doesnt change that, what have you done with your impreza?, over 600bhp is not that common to get out of their boxer ;)

Gabkicks
6th April 2006, 18:15
Corvette. Apparently the latest corvette was rumoured to be able to do corners, but alas it was just hype...

you are wrong and you cant prove you're right:scratchch

tristancliffe
6th April 2006, 18:33
I don't need to prove anything - it's a well known fact that America can't make good cars, just that America doesn't know it yet. Keep trying though, it's nice to see the amusing attempts :D

dave4002000
6th April 2006, 19:00
I don't need to prove anything - it's a well known fact that America can't make good cars, just that America doesn't know it yet. Keep trying though, it's nice to see the amusing attempts :D

lol...tristan, i always look forward to your comments....they always make me laugh. i agree with you, american sports cars still leave something to be desired. I think we have everything we need, it's just the fact that no one can figure out how to put it all in one vehicle and make it all work together.

you are wrong and you cant prove you're right

Can you prove that the z06 DOES corner well?

Gabkicks
6th April 2006, 19:16
yeah if you compare stats of z06 to other cars or lap times you'll see it does corner well. But its cool to hate america so whatever bash the Z06 and be ignorant if you want.:thumb:

Hatemaker
6th April 2006, 20:14
Well, having driven a ZO6, I'd have to say that it isn't as bad as some think with the cornering... but at the same time, it also isn't as good as GM said it was. Try to outhandle a 911 Turbo S with that thing. I did, and it didn't work. Went wide on the turn at the end and half into the grass just trying to keep up with it in the turn. Oh, and both cars were completely factory. I do enjoy the feel of a good German/Japanese/British/Italian sports car. Now, before I'm called part of the problem about the bashing of American cars, I'd like to say that I do recognize that they have a lot of power and straight-line know-how. Later this fall, I'll have a Silvia shipped over and I'll be able to indulge in one of my favorite sports. *Gets ready for insta-hating*
Drift. Before people start hating, think of how many of you like Rally racing, then tell me that they don't drift at all, and that drifting never helped anyone. (I guess that was a little too pre-defensive :shrug: ) Anyways, back on track.

American cars: Straightline
Euro/Japanese cars: Handling with power :revs: :rally_dri

wheel4hummer
6th April 2006, 20:31
I kind of disagree. There is not one specific country that has better than another, they all have nice and bad cars.

Blowtus
6th April 2006, 23:19
no they don't! There are not many countries that make nice cars, many don't make any I believe. Taking the PC 'all countries make ok cars' line is just a cop out :)

Lord_Verminaard
7th April 2006, 12:56
Corvette. Apparently the latest corvette was rumoured to be able to do corners, but alas it was just hype...

Hmm, a lot of the design and testing on the C6 was done by some German engineers in ... er.. GERMANY. :P The C6 Z06 ran a lap at Nurburgring in 7:42.99. That's pretty damn fast. If a car cant handle, there is no way it can do a lap at the 'ring that quick.

I'll be the first to admit that most American cars are crap- I've owned two of them. My 20 year old Scirocco with blown shocks and Wal-Mart tires could out-handle my 00 Camaro with ease. There are always some exceptions to the rule though, the new Solstice and C6 being two of them. :)

Brendan
84 Scirocco 8v
00 Camaro L36 M49

tristancliffe
7th April 2006, 13:11
Hmm, a lot of the design and testing on the C6 was done by some German engineers in ... er.. GERMANY. :P The C6 Z06 ran a lap at Nurburgring in 7:42.99. That's pretty damn fast. If a car cant handle, there is no way it can do a lap at the 'ring that quick.

I'll be the first to admit that most American cars are crap- I've owned two of them. My 20 year old Scirocco with blown shocks and Wal-Mart tires could out-handle my 00 Camaro with ease. There are always some exceptions to the rule though, the new Solstice and C6 being two of them. :)

Brendan
84 Scirocco 8v
00 Camaro L36 M49

But they used a stopwatch from Taiwan ;)

neRu
7th April 2006, 14:15
:something

I've seen topgear, where the female instructor Sabrina i think her name is, takes a Ford Transit around the ring in about 10 minutes. Don't tell me that gaining only 2 minutes and 18 seconds on somewhat 20+ km's from a DIESEL van is a good thing.

indo420
12th April 2006, 00:48
Variable Valve Timing Electronic Control.

at least spell it right. now i am not saying there is a replacement for displacement. most of the time there isnt. but you have to compare a car to another car in its own class. you cant bring a honda up to a Z28 and expect it to keep up with it.. it's not going to happen. the power to weight ratio among other things is so drasticly different that well of course the Z28 is going to smoke that cars arse.

what you compare is a honda to a Neon or a Z28 to a mustang. something with the same displacement.

The whole tuner scene started with 20 sumthin adults wanting more power for there little 1.8-2.0 L engines. and the whole honda civic started up in canda not in so-cal btw. Iv'e met some Dodge neon srt-4's and they are not anything to laugh at. for under 20,000$ they are fast. and what does a z28 start at 28k? 30k? your saving money.

The only problem with tuners this day in age is everyone and there mom goes out buys a big oversized muffler and a wing then calls it a import.

sorry my friend. it takes alot more then a pep boys racing muffler and a 200$ fiberglass wing to call your self a tuner.

it takes alot of time and alot of pride to craft a nice tuner.

For ME.. not you this is IMO.. a tuner isnt how flashy or how loud or how freggin clear your headlights are... it's the clean nice job of what you have under the hood.


I dont have a carbon fiber hood... i dont have a Fiberglass body kit. there isn't a wing... there arn't rims,there arn't racing seats... except for the HID system you wouldnt know it's been modified. The exhaust tip even looks the same. (ya unless your pullin 600+ HP that 6" exhaust is just slowing you down)


i dunno theres my rant...

Blowtus
12th April 2006, 01:25
Hmm, a lot of the design and testing on the C6 was done by some German engineers in ... er.. GERMANY. :P The C6 Z06 ran a lap at Nurburgring in 7:42.99. That's pretty damn fast. If a car cant handle, there is no way it can do a lap at the 'ring that quick.

One thing US-ians seem to have always struggled with is the differences between outright grip and handling. One need only look at the focus on skidpad numbers to see this :)
Outright grip will let a fast car get around a circuit in a good time, but that doesn't really tell you anything much about how hard the driver had to fight it to get it there. Whether or not the latest Corvette actually handles nicely as well as grips well I don't know, just bringing up an observation :shrug:

FC3S drifter
16th April 2006, 16:07
accually we can make cars that corner i picked up a stuperstreet mag last month and they held a time attack with all of japans top tuners and guess what won a 280hp fwd chevy cobalt thats right 280hp FWD killing 800hp 4WD monsters go GM performance divisions!!!

pekkaw
24th April 2006, 19:43
Great thread....
My car....

pockyisgod
27th April 2006, 06:45
accually we can make cars that corner i picked up a stuperstreet mag last month and they held a time attack with all of japans top tuners and guess what won a 280hp fwd chevy cobalt thats right 280hp FWD killing 800hp 4WD monsters go GM performance divisions!!!

Inbetween your horrific butchering of the english language and subsequent raping of it's grammar; would you care to provide some links or backup evidence of said claims? My BS meter just didn't go off and explode; It literally jumped out, called a cab and stated it was going to make life anew somewhere tropical.

Gabkicks
27th April 2006, 07:01
yeah its true but the cobalt was basicly a race car. :p. its not bs at all so you need to get your bs meter checked..
and all of japan's top tuners werent there.

keltern
27th April 2006, 10:54
so tristan, what DO you like?

english cars only? like rovers and mgs? oh, no, sorry, they're probably too rice for you! :razz:

i'm sorry to say this, but i don't find you amusing anymore... :really: but i guess i'm not alone on that.. well, doesn't really matter! :tilt:

american cars CAN do tracks, and not just straights, but i must admit there's alot of bodyroll and bad suspensions on american musclecars out there! :)

i prefer japanese and german muscle myself.. :)

tanktaylor2000
27th April 2006, 16:30
Sorry mate but the pic doesn't prove a thing, besides the BMW is probably overtaking it, and if the camero is good at cornering (never driven one so i don't know but i doubt it) i could safely say its not going to be as good as an M3, ESPECIALLY a CSL

wheel4hummer
27th April 2006, 19:30
BMW owners have their heads up their arses.

pockyisgod
28th April 2006, 05:20
yeah its true but the cobalt was basicly a race car. :p. its not bs at all so you need to get your bs meter checked..
and all of japan's top tuners werent there.

You do realize that a snippy retort of "It was basically a race car" with still no backup information or links means exactly bollocks? I'm still waiting on this "wundercar" of great racing prowess.

JTbo
28th April 2006, 06:30
I don't know if this already excists, but it would be cool to have a VTEC sound above 4800 or so revs in every car, or a car at your choice...
I've maid a Civic Type R EK9 with Mecanic S2, but I'm missing the VTEC sound that should be kicking in at 5800 revs (correct me if I'm wrong) :(
Can somebody make something so we can hear a VTEC sound, that we can adjust to revs?
THnx

What is this V-TAK (http://videos.streetfire.net/video/1C72E471-C49A-4421-8909-68D5C9BB11A9.htm) sound ???

As far as I know there is no such thing, or if there is engine is making so much noise that it can't be heard :scratchch

There is engine sound sure and that may change as valve timing changes so engine sound sounds different, but same thing you would get without V-TAK with proper cams, but then you would hear different engine sound in lower rpm and load too, maybe that is what you mean ?

Anyway getting what I think you are after, would require more complicated sound engine, you need intake and exhaust notes and also combustion sounds mixed together, it is basicly 3 sound engines running realtime and each one of them would need to be tuned very carefully. Maybe someday in future we will get this, I would like, even I don't like this r**** stuff :D

FC3S drifter
29th April 2006, 00:24
You do realize that a snippy retort of "It was basically a race car" with still no backup information or links means exactly bollocks? I'm still waiting on this "wundercar" of great racing prowess.
enough evidence? http://superstreetonline.com/eventcoverage/130_0511_timeattack/

lrdbsi
29th April 2006, 01:15
by the looks of things, hes overtaking on the inside, which means someones taken the long line, *suspension and transmissions upgraded?
sounds like you play too much NFSU, i done believe anyone here bout there cars unless they know wat there talking about, your prolly 14yrs old

bal00
1st May 2006, 09:40
enough evidence? http://superstreetonline.com/eventcoverage/130_0511_timeattack/

You're comparing a purpose-built, factory-backed, carbon fiber-bodied race car with an SCCA pro driver to a bunch of tuner cars driven by random people. If you're not bound by any rules (unlimited class) and can spend 50 times as much money as your "competitors", of course you're gonna win, no matter if the base car is a '06 Cobalt or a '86 Yugo.

BTW, the car had 380hp with nitrous and reportedly GM showed up with two tractor trailers, a full race team and used fresh slicks for every run. :pillepall

Truth be told, I think American cars are much better than their reputation when it comes to handling (disregarding some solid rear-axle dinosaurs like the Mustang), but that's because they use fairly decent suspension designs these days, not because a $1 mil Cobalt can beat a $50k Evo.

overdoped
3rd May 2006, 15:28
Please, please, please, never, never, never compare an american cruiser to a german roadgoing racecar like the M3 CSL. Never ever. Never again.
That makes me very sad.
The M3 CSL is even being sold with racing tyres, unlike the standard-M3.
People buying one even have to sign a letter saying that these tyres can not do well in wet circumstances :D

Friends, don't make me that sad again please :(

lrdbsi
4th May 2006, 06:07
american make some nice cars, theres no use for predjedice (i think thats how u spell it) vtec is good and useful for power in the higher revs,
and vtec change over sounds nuts, tristian driving a decently quick vtec is alot different to reading about them on the web and watching video clips try leaving ur room,
jokes

tristancliffe
4th May 2006, 09:50
No, of course I've never driven a vtec car. Never. Nope.
P.S. Leave your room and get some form of education. English at the very least.

Hatemaker
4th May 2006, 13:50
I drive a 1994 Honda Civic with an Si VTEC motor implanted into it from a 2002 Civic Si (this is my normal driving car... the subie is for weekends ^_^). Allthough, I do have new headers, exhaust, suspension, and new tyres (and wider rims to put the tyres on as well). I don't really notice any different sound, except for the engine getting whinnier (can't spell) the higher my RPMs go. I never understood what was so special about the vtec "sound", as I don't ever notice it.


Before you call out ricer, know that I don't have 20 inch spinners, huge "zaust tip", and 30 foot tall wing. I'm keeping the body stock, and the only visual thing added to it is the 16x7 in rims (white car, black rims, looks kinda nice), and the ergenomic shift nob topping off my short shift kit. Just giving it a little more power to make it more barable to drive around. :shrug:

lrdbsi
8th May 2006, 08:50
No, of course I've never driven a vtec car. Never. Nope.
P.S. Leave you're room and get some form of education. English at the very least.

ok i said it first so it really has no effect, honda pwns and has influenced engine technology to this day, there is many car types to the brand dont let some fag in a auto crx with a exhust tip make u think hondas are gay,
in that case nissan primera is a slow heap of junk yet this doesnt mean nissans are gay, think about it,

Blowtus
8th May 2006, 13:46
honda always seem to want to do things the hard way. Why stuff around with steppy torque curves and fancy technology on a drivers car when more displacement (either in the form of real displacement or forced induction) would be a much nicer option to drive?

tristancliffe
8th May 2006, 13:55
Emissions and Efficiencies (brake/thermal, volumetric etc) basically. Added cubes doesn't make the engine better, just makes it more powerful, but you end up with the same specific fuel consumption, and the same mean effective pressures. Honda (and indeed most Japanese manufacturers) goes for the route whereby each kmol of fuel is make to do as much work as efficiently as possible, and variable cam timing/lift is the way forwards in this regard. From a motorsport perspective it has little relevance - combustion chamber design is much more important, but for road applications it's pretty much a necessity with modern and future legislation.

The days of 'There ain't no substitute fo Cubes' is over.

Blowtus
9th May 2006, 00:12
for a given peak output, more cubes makes the engine heaps better from a drivers perspective... I certainly see the purpose of it on the passenger cars, I just think with their 'sports' type models they always seem to push shit uphill instead of using tried and true methods. I'm all for innovation, I just don't like Honda's style of it :)

bal00
9th May 2006, 06:36
No, of course I've never driven a vtec car. Never. Nope.
P.S. Leave you're room and get some form of education. English at the very least.

:scratchch

:D

tristancliffe
9th May 2006, 09:43
Well spotted, merely a typo :p

alex_nz
10th May 2006, 23:27
Man some people talk some shit.

Honda make amazing n/a motors with fantastic power for their size.

Maybe im lucky living in NZ as we have so many imports here (like 80%) and I get hands on experience with a rang of cars. American cars are ok at using lots of gas, and being big. Its not hard to get good power from a big v8 is it?

It cracks me up when people hassle a b16a motor making over 110kw at the wheels. Thats 110kw at the wheels from a 1600 with I/H/E... not bad power per ltr....

Dont get me wrong I love v8's too, I love any engine that makes good power and is well designed, so I dont see why people need to bag honda's just because a lot of younger folk own them and stick clear tail lights and chrome wheels on them... right motor, wrong body

Blowtus
11th May 2006, 00:12
personally I'm happy to bag them specifically because everyone carries on about their power / litre as if it really 'meant something' :) Since when did power / litre have any effect at all on how well a car drives?

alex_nz
11th May 2006, 04:15
personally I'm happy to bag them specifically because everyone carries on about their power / litre as if it really 'meant something' :) Since when did power / litre have any effect at all on how well a car drives?

Are you being sarcastic? :D It plays a big part. Its all about power to weight, and having a motor that weighs less and has a higher ouput but is still suited to the car is what its all abou :thumb:

Blowtus
11th May 2006, 05:32
see, I'd be a *huge* fan of someone popularising some sort of 'power / kilogram' method of comparing engines, that to me makes far more sense. Even some 'power / volume' (not displacement, physical size) and 'power / price' wouldn't go astray. The whole displacement thing has no bearing on the driving experience in the slightest. Both my rotary and my 2 stroke put out ridiculous power / litre measurements, but that doesn't have any bearing on how good they are in their application...

Lord_Verminaard
11th May 2006, 12:59
Man some people talk some shit.

Honda make amazing n/a motors with fantastic power for their size.



Maybe they do, but Civic's are still slow. An EX runs the 1/4 at what, 17 seconds? An Si runs at 16?? That's slow, at least where I come from. Hell, my V6 Camaro with iron block, iron heads, runs a 15.2.... My little Scirocco runs a 15.4!!! It's got an iron block, only 8 valves, and mechanical fuel injection! That's old technology there folks. :)


It cracks me up when people hassle a b16a motor making over 110kw at the wheels. Thats 110kw at the wheels from a 1600 with I/H/E... not bad power per ltr....


Again, the car could make a million hp, but in the real world, how fast is it? I agree with you to a point, I love anything that makes good power and has some engineering appeal, and I guess Honda's are novel in that respect, but this whole scene where everyone thinks they are the new sport car is so messed up, when you have $1000 in mods to a Civic and they are running like 15.8's.....


Brendan

alex_nz
12th May 2006, 04:28
Again, the car could make a million hp, but in the real world, how fast is it?

I have seen heaps of da6 integra's over here pulling low 14's from a motor i described above. Thats a 1.6ltr.

I have seen loads of them with a b18c chucked in reach into 13's with no stress.

Going on about how an outdated low power per ltr motor makes ok power is nothing special, a smaller engine making much more power per leter is far more interesting from an mechanical point of view, and like I said in a lightish da6 14's is easy with very basic breather mods.

lrdbsi
12th May 2006, 07:00
totaly agree i used to have a gen 2 '90 xsi b16a2. ya theres alot of performance import cars here, we have few of the near fastest cars that exist,
new zealand is under-rated for motorsport and performance
but gas is to expensive here sold up for a CBR250R mc19, peace
yo alex, where are u at in nz?

alex_nz
12th May 2006, 23:44
cbr250r?!?!? man im hoping to get one of those this year.

Im in chch. Where you at?

wonchop
18th June 2006, 09:19
Because the idle sounds cool with an agressive camshaft :D so you want somthing like a misfire sound?

Viper93
18th June 2006, 13:15
I have seen heaps of da6 integra's over here pulling low 14's from a motor i described above. Thats a 1.6ltr.

I have seen loads of them with a b18c chucked in reach into 13's with no stress.

Going on about how an outdated low power per ltr motor makes ok power is nothing special, a smaller engine making much more power per leter is far more interesting from an mechanical point of view, and like I said in a lightish da6 14's is easy with very basic breather mods.
import tuners are overrated I ran a 13.77 in my stock SRT-4

ShannonN
18th June 2006, 19:34
Well, for some reason ricers have orgasms when their honda's VTEC swiches the camshaft profiles. Heres an example: http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=12B9E2F2-8597-4A4A-B5EC-C6C7C7EFB47E&kw=37&p=0

Hee Hee sounded like someone sawing thru plywood with a small rotary saw :)

keltern
18th June 2006, 23:31
import tuners are overrated I ran a 13.77 in my stock SRT-4

isn't the SRT-4 more like a wannabe japanese car? lol! i think it's far more rice than any honda! :D

Shinanigans
19th June 2006, 03:06
It has to be done. Sorry.

http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5087f6aa25.jpg
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/95f9ecd53f.jpg
http://upload.tharaka.net/files/fastandthefurious2pubp%20copy.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/LukaD/1113642802921.jpg
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5c1866cbc8.jpg
http://img424.imageshack.us/img424/6953/crash42by.jpg
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/67cd8f86a1.jpg
http://upload.tharaka.net/files/esprit%20copy.jpg
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/1729/godkills0kg.jpg
http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/8162/finger00016iw.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4708/vtec20bt.jpg
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/647e307cde.jpg
http://image-cache.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/uploads/post-11604-1146797518.jpg
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/7c6f8c8ad7.jpg
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8756/evilmonkey2lg3ki.jpg
http://upload.tharaka.net/files/popshoulder.JPG
http://image-cache.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/uploads/post-11604-1147180421.jpg
http://image-cache.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/uploads/post-11604-1147229978.jpg

:schwitz:

Munza
19th June 2006, 03:18
rofl Shinanigans
(http://www.lfsforum.net/member.php?u=89001)

george_tsiros
19th June 2006, 17:18
Can someone, honestly, give me an explanation why even people with serious car improvements stick the brand names on the doors?
:shrug:
Do they get a discount when they get them installed, or something?

Viper93
19th June 2006, 17:33
isn't the SRT-4 more like a wannabe japanese car? lol! i think it's far more rice than any honda! :D

It's nothing like a wannabe japaneese car. I actually have an engine that produces torque, with all driveline and engine components being rated for 350+ HP from the factory. They did give it a tuner look, but what else could they do with a FWD car and have it marketable? The SRT-4 engine is a hemi engine, dodge just doesn't say that part too loud. I have not heard of any FWD's from any manufacturer running 13.7's stock in the 1/4. The new civic has a chance at 14 flat I think, but your going to have to wait for the HP, not like my car, at 2400 I have full boost and toque with the HP coming on fast, redline is 6240. Even the new civic, which costs the same new as the SRT-4 did only runs 15.1 in the 1/4. Not to mention that it's running 11.1/1 compression, thats racecar territory.

Have you heard an SRT-4 exhaust? I will get a clip for you right now. Rice? it sounds nothing like a civic with a tin can off the back. those guys might as well go buy a Jumbo can of Cambells soup, cut holes to place in the exhaust and run that, would do the same thing:pillepall :razz:

Edit: srry if I sound like I am a complete civic hater, I do like them but they are not the best choice out there by far for good engines. I made the sound clip but now I have to get it onto my computer I need a USB to S-video cable, I am going shopping tonight.

Shinanigans
20th June 2006, 02:36
Can someone, honestly, give me an explanation why even people with serious car improvements stick the brand names on the doors?
:shrug:
Do they get a discount when they get them installed, or something?

Generally, no.

They put the stickers on the side of their cars to show off. "oooh look i have HKS parts in my engine" when in reality, they probably have a HKS radiator cap or something crap like that.

When it comes to proper racing it's a different story. Sponsors pay the person to put their sticker on the side of their race car. The sponsor gets advertising and the car owner gets money. :thumb:

Munza
20th June 2006, 03:13
When it comes to proper racing it's a different story. Sponsors pay the person to put their sticker on the side of their race car. The sponsor gets advertising and the car owner gets money. :thumb:

Not just racecars dude, companies like alpine etc will sponsor u if ur gonna go n buy their ultimate sound system and enter sound off comps or wtf ever those pointless things are, they'll then sponsor u therefor letting u have the good shit cheaper as well as paying u to put their logo all ovr your car :)

steve
20th September 2006, 03:37
VTAK just kicked in yo!

... LFS VTAK (http://media.putfile.com/lfs-vtak-woo-woo) http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7575/wooanikt3.gif

lalathegreat
20th September 2006, 05:41
lol

lrdbsi
4th October 2006, 04:18
my brother just brought a 97 integra type r (white duh) and it has mild work
extractors intake chip and injectors, this thing looses hard traction when snapping 3rd gear and still makes squeaks hitting 4th, my mate has a skyline gts4, rb20det (slow peace of shit, but has 4wd/rwd switch which is all good)
my brothers car makes this inline 6 tubro charged doch look like a turtle, and it has work, front mount, filter etc, normal boyracer shit, i have a cbr900rr now hehe im done for cars peace,

wheel4hummer
4th October 2006, 21:16
You need more displacement in an OHC engine to generate the same power as a DOHC engine with less displacement. For example, the C6 Z06 and the F430 are have about equal engines (well, close enough). The LS7 needs 427ci to output slightly more power then the F430's <5 liter. (I dont know how big the F430 engine is). But, it is much cheaper to develop a big small block V8 then that ferrari engine. So, I'll choose the vette. :shrug:

Vain
4th October 2006, 21:23
I would support a variable valve timing engine in LFS. That would nicely show off LFS's sound potential as LFS's sound engine can deal with variable valve timings without further processing.
This makes the honda fans happy and even delights the realism-fans, as the engine's sound will be properly represented.

Oh, and wheel4hummer: Don't be so stereotypical american. :tilt: Over here you fiddle with compression or aspiration when you want to increase power. Displacement is only for fuel consumption and sound. :wink:
( j/k )

Vain

Viper93
5th October 2006, 06:19
I am still confused as to why someone would want VVT in a race engine? Can someone help me with this?

With VVT you get less power and less torque than you would if you had a cam that was perminent. With this you get a very peaky power and torque curve, I have never heard of any racers actually wanting peaky power.

It would make sense to be to have a level torque curve with a linear power curve just after the troque curve that is present through all RPM ranges.

Blowtus
5th October 2006, 06:27
you have managed to interpret the benefits of vvt completely backwards viper :)

Also - a level (or as close as possible) torque curve would make no sense, from an engine design perspective. You would be making compromises in peak torque and power to attain this 'level' goal, which would serve no real use since race engines spend the vast majority of their time at high rpm. VVT could be put to use in a race engine for more torque down low, while maintaining torque up high.

tristancliffe
5th October 2006, 08:20
Yeah, it's not so much the fact that the high rpm cams are peaky, but that the pre-vtec cams are very lazy and you're missing out on loads of power. Why not just have the good cams all the way and let the engine perform properly.

VTEC Fanboys - "I love VTEC because it means my car is artificially restricted below 5000rpm to make it easy for me to drive". Big girls blouses, the lot of them :D

Vain
5th October 2006, 09:35
I am still confused as to why someone would want VVT in a race engine? Can someone help me with this?You take your street car, put a racing cage and new seats into it, rip some more weight from it and declare it a race car - with a stock engine.
That's how these engines get to the track.

Vain

Viper93
5th October 2006, 16:44
Well this stock engine has a very flat torque curve.

Blowtus: I agree with you on that you have to compromise, but peak power means nothing if you only have it there for a 1-2k RPM. To me it does not make sense to create the most power out of an engine if you can create a smooth power curve that has an even and/or smooth amount of power over many RPM's giving you much more flexability on how you drive and setup the car.

Maybe I am missing on how exactly VVT works. I have always assumed that it was for people that wanted a daily driver that got good gas milage that when you stepped on it gave you some more ponies to work with.

Maybe part of my problem is too that I grew up with American V8's and I never had to wait for the power to come in like you have to wait for in a VVT engine. I hate having to wait, no matter what RPM I am in I want some kind of power, be it either torque or HP.

I looked at some VTEC dyno's they are not as peaky as I thought. I just don't like having to revv the crap out of something to have anything to work with.

Vain: I know they do but I am still confused as to why someone would want to race an engine like that, but alot less confused now. I think it's more down to now that I just hate the idea of waiting. True in racing you would normally be in the higher RPMs, but nobody is perfect and especally with production classes you are not going to be able to change gear ratio's to make sure your in your power band for every corner. Maybe if I took a Civic Si out on a track it might be different but I just don't think the Civic engines are the best solution for a race engine.

Tristian: maybe thats why I thought they were peaky, the new dyno's look good, but you still have to wait until 5k to get any power. I mean jeez I am already close to my peak power by then =) Turbo kicks in at 1700RPM in the SRT-4.

lrdbsi
6th October 2006, 00:26
Yeah, it's not so much the fact that the high rpm cams are peaky, but that the pre-vtec cams are very lazy and you're missing out on loads of power. Why not just have the good cams all the way and let the engine perform properly.

why not?, cause the power is only needed in the high rpms and my vtec with vtec controller showed a loss on hp when i changed change over from 5200rpm (roughly) to 2500rpm, honda knows wat the are doing i-vtec works through the intire rpm featured in the newer hondas, *intelligent variable valve timing life electronic controll, lol when i changed vtec change over to 7500rpm it sounded nutz, specialy with my exhust dumping next to my door

Blowtus
6th October 2006, 00:33
Blowtus: I agree with you on that you have to compromise, but peak power means nothing if you only have it there for a 1-2k RPM. To me it does not make sense to create the most power out of an engine if you can create a smooth power curve that has an even and/or smooth amount of power over many RPM's giving you much more flexability on how you drive and setup the car.

Peak power over 1-2k rpms is pretty much everything for a race car... if it drops off sharply to either side it will be nasty to drive, but it can still be driven fast. Unlike if it doesn't have that peak power in the first place, it will be easy to drive and slower.

Viper93
6th October 2006, 07:35
Peak power over 1-2k rpms is pretty much everything for a race car... if it drops off sharply to either side it will be nasty to drive, but it can still be driven fast. Unlike if it doesn't have that peak power in the first place, it will be easy to drive and slower.

Unless in the case of the XRR, then your just slow:) With a racecar that you can change the gearing yeah 1-2k is enough. But in a production vehicle your not going to be able to be in that 1-2k all the time.


Still, I am not a fan of waiting and I will stick with my V8's or engines that produce power figures like V8's. American V8's that is =)

tristancliffe
6th October 2006, 08:30
The ONLY point to vtec is Environmental. No one, when looking for performance, would choose it. That is my point.

Also Irbdsi, can you learn to spell and punctuate, because I lost you in the middle of your post as it wasn't understandable. For all I know you might have said something clever and correct for a change, and I wouldn't want to miss that event!

Jamexing
6th October 2006, 10:28
Speaking of VTEC and powerbands, I'll like to clarify why a broad and smooth torque band extending from mid to high revs is essential to EVERY form of racing.

Case study 1:

Renault F-1 V-10s. They stuck to 6 speeds because theri beautiful torque bands on't require too many gears to keep the revs within the useful range. Thanks to this, Renaults have the best launch and corner exit perfoemance almost all of the time.

Case study 2:

Rally cars. This is one arena where mid range torque dominates, especially at those super narrow and twisty stages where narrow powerbands allow no room for throttle control since you're too busy shifting gears mid corner.

Case study 3:

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution XI. A car famous for MAJOR mid-range punch. Since 4WD allows the use of all 4 wheels to generate traction, the wide and powerful torque band is exactly what it needs to make the most of the superb traction.

Case study 4:

Audi R10. 1100nm peak torque, 650+hp. Powerband is from 3000-5000rpm, redlining at 5500rpm. In fact, it's torque band is so wide and powerful that it needed only FIVE gears. The wide torque band is a major reason for its incredible record breaking lap times. Even if its power and torque were doen 5%, it'll still be ultra competitive. Besides, drivers love it because: "It's so much fun to drive!".

Conclusion:
It's area under the power and torque curves that REALLY count, not peak power alone, in real life driving and racing applications.

BTW, VTEC/VVTL-i controllers are brilliant ways to unleash the full performance potential of their respective engines. They allow drivability and economy at lower revs while changing to a full performance cam grind at high revs. A friend of a friend of mine installed a VVTL-i controller to his Corolla Sportivo and in its current setting, easily smokes my friend's fully OEM car despite of nothing more than a change from 195/55/16 to 215/45/17 wheels and tires. It was set by the installers for maximum midrange to peak rpm power. Although peak power was practically unchanged, the car was transformed from gutless to glorious with just some positive changes to the VVTL-i switchover points. Spinning the front tires at 3rd gear at midrange rpms?Definitely impossible with OEM settings.

Blowtus
6th October 2006, 10:35
Conclusion:
It's area under the power and torque curves that REALLY count, not peak power alone, in real life driving and racing applications.

man I love the way you can just wade into a thread, throw some cool car names around, and develop a scientific conclusion out of it! :D

If you're on a race track and never drop below 4000rpm, the area under the curve below 4000 rpm is irrelevant...

xaotik
6th October 2006, 10:39
variable valve timing life electronic control

Actually it's "Variable valve Timing and lift Electronic Control". Quite catchy. I'd sing in in the shower any day.

tristancliffe
6th October 2006, 10:50
man I love the way you can just wade into a thread, throw some cool car names around, and develop a scientific conclusion out of it! :D I was thinking the same thing :) Whilst he is indeed correct that the area under... is more important, the conclusion could never be reached from the preceeding sentences.

And I wouldn't call Evo's, R10's or modern rally cars cool at all. Not even slightly. A RS200 is cool. A Stratos is cool. A Ford Cosworth is cool. The three he mentioned (one being a generic hold-all) are just computer controlled turds. Quicker - yes. Safer - yes. More reliable - certainly. But cooler? No way. Cool? Nope. Dull and uninspiring - YES!

(eeek, mentioned two Fords on either side of a Stratos - now I'm certainly not cool!)

z3r0c00l
6th October 2006, 11:35
I'd rather be a consistantly quick driver than "cool" any day.

I don't believe VTEC has any place on a track, aside from track days. It's impressive technology, but impressive doesn't necessarily mean useful.

A race driver needs to keep the car balanced and smooth, at the degree of slip angle you're already at when driving on the limit of acceleration and cornering g force, a jump in power or engine compression, in either direction is going to put you into sever oversteer (RWD)/understeer(FWD), adding tenths of a second to your corner.

If the guy you're trying to pass slows down from peak corner speed mid corner, and you have to lift off, and you drop below your vtec crossover point, you're going to have to change down a gear, concequently by the time you've finished the straight after that corner, you'll be 5 car lengths behind him.... losing.

2 stroke motorcycle engines have had this variable valve technology for atleast 20 years, it's good because of the massive difference of power, with my powervalve (i wish they'd call it something else) shut, I have 12bhp up to 7,000 rpm, at which point it splutters and stops revving any higher, probably a good time to have changed gear by, on the other hand, if I have it open, I have absolutely no power, like 6 bhp up to 7,000rpm, at which point i get up to about 22bhp at 13,000rpm and it will continue climbing to 16,000 (going past 14,000 has only happened a few times, usually when a ponse with a hat and a body kit tries to cut me up, which I don't allow.)

Back to the point, VTEC engines are not 2 stroke, they are 4 stroke, why rob yourself of power at the bottom end of the rpm range? In a race, one day you might need that power, it could win you a championship because you were able to survive the rest of the last lap in 3rd gear and hold onto 3rd place....

No real race car has ANYTHING on it that hurts performance unless the FIA enforce it for safety reasons, or the increase in reliability is worth the trade off, except, I don't think Honda's are any more reliable just because of a change in valve timing, if anything, that's something else to break....

Advantages - fuel consumption, noise level cut down, makes rice boys feel like they have Nitrous Oxide or a turbo because of the kick in power (however mild), but anyone can have a kick in power if they limit the power lower down up to a certain point.

Disadvantages - slower than if you just had a straight four engine with decent valve timing all the way accross the rpm range, heavier than your usual valve system, more likely to break than something simpler...

Conclusion: VTEC doesn't give you more top end power, it takes away bottom end power for noise and fuel advantages.

and by the way, being an SRT4 fanboy is no better than a VTAK fanboy, neither of them are race cars. :D

Blowtus
6th October 2006, 11:46
Haha Tristan I'll pay that. mmm old school rally goodness. The sound and sight of a Stratos driven in anger would have been magic... even footage of it gets the spine tingling ;)

zerocool - I'm sure somewhere in this thread, at least once, it's been explained that vtec allows a higher state of tune with more driveability at low rpm? It does work just the same as the 2 stroke powervalve, really.

Jamexing
6th October 2006, 11:50
man I love the way you can just wade into a thread, throw some cool car names around, and develop a scientific conclusion out of it! :D

If you're on a race track and never drop below 4000rpm, the area under the curve below 4000 rpm is irrelevant...

I CAN scientifically prove that cars with fat mid to high range torque tend to be faster especially on the twisty track with megabytes worth of calculations and data, but I simply used RL examples for the sake of clearity and practical context.

I should have mentioned that a broad and fat mid to high range torque curve is what REALLY counts for racing applications. 4000rpm? That depends on what engine you're talking about. For a racecar with a 7000rpm redline, torque at 4000rpm would be considered mid range torque. This rpm region would be very important for corner exits at the slower corners, such as haripins. :)

IRL, shifting takes time, which slows the car down as no drive is transmitted to the wheels. Which is one reason why a broad torque saves lap times. The only racing transmission with no shift time is the zeroshift, but excess gears are just a waste of space and weight. Besides, attempts to make numerous gears fit into confined spaces tend to end up with less robust gears.

And Tristan, no offense but "coolness" is a "quality" that's simply too subjective on itself. Some people think old morgans are cooler than all other cars, but how's a sphagetti noodle wooden chassis going to help? It just gets nowhere.

Yes, Lancer Evolutions are high tech showcases, but the whole point is simply to extract the most of the car's potential. Computers onboard the EVO help optimise grip and handling, but do NOT break the laws of physics. Besides, its still takes exceptional skill to get the most out of them, unless you think someone like Tomi Makinen is a nancy boy.

I prefer to aprreciate cars for what they are, not via sweeping categorizations. I guess you hate diesels no matter how good they get. Just a hunch.

z3r0c00l
6th October 2006, 11:57
Blowtus - I understand it's very much like VTEC, I just thought another, perhaps more extreme example might be worth a mention.

Does anyone know how much power does a VTEC engine lose low end with the VTEC stuck in the high rpm profile?

My main point, hence the bolding, is that while it's good for the street, it's bad for performance on the track. Air conditioning is good for street use, but that costs a lot of petrol, and a lot of power, and as such no track car is going to have it. I think since in LFS they are ALL track cars, VTEC doesn't really need to be coded in either. I'd rather the time was speant developing something else.

Blowtus
6th October 2006, 12:03
Zerocool - why is vtec bad for performance on the track? Other than the extra complexity? You're not going to tell me that powervalves are bad for track performance too are you?

I CAN scientifically prove that cars with fat mid to high range torque tend to be faster especially on the twisty track with megabytes worth of calculations and data, but I simply used RL examples for the sake of clearity and practical context.

Fat mid to high range torque = high peak power. I agree that there is more to a car than peak power, but it's a 'reasonable' and simple indicator for a race engine, whereas a shit indicator for a street engine.

z3r0c00l
6th October 2006, 12:10
Powervalves are good for the track because without them you simply can't get any more than 12hp out of a 125 2 stroke engine, it will NOT rev high enough.

VTEC engines are bad for the track because as I understand it, VTEC doesn't give you any extra power top end, nor extend the power band further, or give it a higher redline, it takes away power lower down for drivability on the road.

The smoother you drive, the faster you can be, and that changeover will hurt your time in corners, and you will lose out compared to someone driving smoother than you are.

If someone could give me the Dyno charts for a car with VTEC, the same car with the timing always on the first cam lobe, and then another chart with it on the second cam lobe, I can prove VTEC has no track application, for any given set of corners (providing I've got the radius for a constant radius corner, or otherwise, plus the cornering force limit for the car in question, which is probably about 0.7 G)

Jamexing
6th October 2006, 12:13
Blowtus - I understand it's very much like VTEC, I just thought another, perhaps more extreme example might be worth a mention.

Does anyone know how much power does a VTEC engine lose low end with the VTEC stuck in the high rpm profile?

My main point, hence the bolding, is that while it's good for the street, it's bad for performance on the track. Air conditioning is good for street use, but that costs a lot of petrol, and a lot of power, and as such no track car is going to have it. I think since in LFS they are ALL track cars, VTEC doesn't really need to be coded in either. I'd rather the time was speant developing something else.

Last time I checked, AC WILL be COMPULSORY in closed top Lemans cars next year if I remeber correctly, but it'll be so sooner than latter. Only very small (less than 1mm (0.3mm to be exact) for a 25mm restrictor) increases in air restirctor sizes are required to level the performance.

Just to clearify things, VTEC is meant to simply provide multiple cams for one engine, i.e. 2 engines in one. That's the real practical point of it. Unfortunately it does act like an annoying on/off switch. As for increased power, it does so if its high speed cams are of a profile just as aggressive as full blown race cams. The good news would be of docile handling at low (such as below 3000rpm) revs used on the street.

However, the IDEAL cam would have infinitely variable lift and timing settings. Some variable cams such as Ferrari's use a shaft that slides forwards and backwards as such longitudinal regions represent different timings and lifts, allowing an almost infinitely variable cam adjustments in real time.

Last time I checked, the V-8 Renault F-1s were FORCED to adopt 7 speeds as its variable air intakes that helped produce excellent powerbands was BANNED. Hate it when F-1 forces technological mediocrity with the excuse of "better" racing.

Blowtus
6th October 2006, 12:13
rubbish! :) powervalves dont make the engine rev higher, they do exactly the same as vtec - allow the engine to be useable down low while tuned for higher peak power. pre powervalve highly strung 2 strokes are pretty nasty things to ride by all reports...

z3r0c00l
6th October 2006, 12:21
I have one of those highstrung two stroke motorcycles, and I HATE IT! It's horrible to ride. so yes, you're right there!

If you had VTEC "kicked in" 100% of the time, you'd have more power low down.

If you have a powervalve open 100% of the time the bike will barely pull away under its own power.

Having the low lift cam profile at all is damaging to the cars peformance, you get less power. Having the lower exhuast exit port on a 2 stroke motorcycle means you can actually pull away without being above 7,000 rpm.

Those are my reasons for thinking they are fundamentally different, the only reason I race my crappy 2 stroke motorcycle is because it's cheap, I can get the engine overhauled for practically no money when I break it.

tristancliffe
6th October 2006, 12:23
Some people think old morgans are cooler than all other cars, but how's a sphagetti noodle wooden chassis going to help? It just gets nowhere.

Yes, Lancer Evolutions are high tech showcases, but the whole point is simply to extract the most of the car's potential. Computers onboard the EVO help optimise grip and handling, but do NOT break the laws of physics. Besides, its still takes exceptional skill to get the most out of them, unless you think someone like Tomi Makinen is a nancy boy.

I prefer to aprreciate cars for what they are, not via sweeping categorizations. I guess you hate diesels no matter how good they get. Just a hunch.

Some Morgans ARE cool (and I don't like English cars generally), and the wooden chassis is actually a very clever and good idea. All the strength of wood, with predictable flex, low cost and not that much weight. A natural composite - in fact I think a LOT of modern cars would benefit from a bit of woody goodness in their chassis!

Whilst computer controlled cars cannot break the laws of physics, and whilst undoubtedly a good driver is needed to extract the maximum from them, the point of the electronics is to make crap drivers fast. I'm old school in so much as I think crap drivers should either a) not drive b) learn to drive or c) die (yes I think c, even though my brother was killed in a road accident - I'm a firm beleiver that cars should be able to kill, and I don't want a spotty 17 year old programmer deciding that that last mm of throttle travel won't be allowed. It's what gives you an incentive to not push the limits, drive safely and learn what you are doing. No airbags in my car, or TC, or ABS. And a nice flexible chassis to put the engine in my lap - perfect!).

Evo's are, quite simply, for people who can't drive a proper car ;)

Yes I dislike diesels. Mainly because they are worse for the environment, are heavier, more expensive, sound crap, are rev capped, don't have much engine braking, and are considered by some to be the future. Sure they might give you better mpg's on the road, but for every mile you are giving more people cancer. Whooo! On an individual basis I am prepared to accept that aspects of diesels are great, but on a general basis I am against them. When they can produce an unthrottled gasoline engine on an economic scale for better part load efficiency I think we'll see diesels die. And unthrottled gasoline engines are the focus of lots of research, so I think it's only a matter of time :D

Edit: The only reason I seem to argue with you a lot James is because a) you know your stuff and b) you're as arrogant and opinionated as me. I'm just glad we do agree on some stuff, otherwise we'd just end up hating each other :D

Blowtus
6th October 2006, 12:28
I have one of those highstrung two stroke motorcycles, and I HATE IT! It's horrible to ride. so yes, you're right there!

If you had VTEC "kicked in" 100% of the time, you'd have more power low down.

Didn't you say yours had a powervalve?? powervalved 2 strokes are the best bike engines around! :) my ktm380 lifts the front wheel with the engine on the verge of stalling lol.

When folk talk about vtec kicking in, they mean the wild cam profile - worse power down low.

z3r0c00l
6th October 2006, 12:30
I agree with Tristan, in as much as all driver aids should be removed, except for formula 1, because that should be a competition for cars to go as quickly round the track as possible, as such there should be no engine tyre or aerodynamic limits.

In every car with traction control, ESP, whatever acronym that turns up on the latest car door in crappy plastic chrom lettering.... The first thing I do is switch it off. I don't like the idea that any thing can take control away from me as a driver, I've worked so hard to get good at it, and I'm a firm believer in my own ability, and my real world track times are testiment to that, as such, anything taking away from my driving experience is a definate negative. :pillepall

People don't crash planes very much becase they are lethal when that happens, people survive car crashes every day, me included. Put everything on something far more dangerous than a car, and eventually the crash rate will plummet, everyone who's going to crash will have done it already, and won't do it again!

lol, ok maybe not, but it's an interesting concept.

edit :

I can't find dyno charts for the same car with the VTEC enabled, disabled and normal, plus disabled and always in the wild cam profile. I don't think a conclusion about this is possible untill we find them!

Jamexing
6th October 2006, 12:58
Some Morgans ARE cool (and I don't like English cars generally), and the wooden chassis is actually a very clever and good idea. All the strength of wood, with predictable flex, low cost and not that much weight. A natural composite - in fact I think a LOT of modern cars would benefit from a bit of woody goodness in their chassis!

Whilst computer controlled cars cannot break the laws of physics, and whilst undoubtedly a good driver is needed to extract the maximum from them, the point of the electronics is to make crap drivers fast. I'm old school in so much as I think crap drivers should either a) not drive b) learn to drive or c) die (yes I think c, even though my brother was killed in a road accident - I'm a firm beleiver that cars should be able to kill, and I don't want a spotty 17 year old programmer deciding that that last mm of throttle travel won't be allowed. It's what gives you an incentive to not push the limits, drive safely and learn what you are doing. No airbags in my car, or TC, or ABS. And a nice flexible chassis to put the engine in my lap - perfect!).

Evo's are, quite simply, for people who can't drive a proper car ;)

Yes I dislike diesels. Mainly because they are worse for the environment, are heavier, more expensive, sound crap, are rev capped, don't have much engine braking, and are considered by some to be the future. Sure they might give you better mpg's on the road, but for every mile you are giving more people cancer. Whooo! On an individual basis I am prepared to accept that aspects of diesels are great, but on a general basis I am against them. When they can produce an unthrottled gasoline engine on an economic scale for better part load efficiency I think we'll see diesels die. And unthrottled gasoline engines are the focus of lots of research, so I think it's only a matter of time :D

Edit: The only reason I seem to argue with you a lot James is because a) you know your stuff and b) you're as arrogant and opinionated as me. I'm just glad we do agree on some stuff, otherwise we'd just end up hating each other :D

When was the last time chassis flex is good for handling precision? And judging from what you say about cars with computer controlled differentials, professional rally driver in Lancer Evolutions/Subaru Stis/Citreon Xsaras are all crap drivers. A list that includes Sebastain Leob, Tomi Makinen, Marcus Gronholm, etc. Next time you such a thing, you might as say that all the current WRC drivers are no skill hacks of no driving ability.

Just to illustrate that sweeping statements make no sense.

Homogenous Petrol combustion is known to me as well, but the truth is petrol is getting real old. It's dino oil based, and no matter how much oil is currently left, it's FINITE. Even though new sites are found every now and then, ACCESSABILITY WILL be increasingly difficult and *EXPENSIVE*. I wonder if you are willing to pay 10 pounds per liter of petrol before you frigure that it's hopeless to adamantly stick to petrol in the long run. Unless of course you couldn't care less about your future generations. :(

Diesel, on the other hand, has multiple sources, so it's not utterly dependant crude oil alone.

Oh, while you're away, diesel technology has gone a LONG way from the 70's smokers. :) As if petrol engine emmisions don't cause cancer at all. The solutions for the NOx problem are now well within reach. Don't be surprised that 5 years from now all new diesels would have no more and possibly even less NOx emmsions than contemporary petrols.

Diesels have NO ENGINE BRAKING? Is this a reverse logic universe? When was the last time a diesel manual car lost to a petrol car with almost all else equal in the engine braking department? Even with taller gearing usually used for diesels, they STILL consistantly beat all petrols in the engine braking department. I guess you've never driven Diesel Off-Road 4WD vehicles before.

On the weight front, diesels have made startling progress thanks to materials and design technologies used for the AUDI R10 , which WILL be applied to poductions cars very soon. Don't be surprised if Diesels will soon be not significantly heavier than contemporary petrols.

Tristan, I'm perfectly fine with opinions as long as they have some valid reasons to back them up, but please, don't resort to categorial hate. And please don't discount new technology that is now widely available before you make an opinion.

Blowtus
6th October 2006, 13:24
I can't find dyno charts for the same car with the VTEC enabled, disabled and normal, plus disabled and always in the wild cam profile. I don't think a conclusion about this is possible untill we find them!

don't you think if more power was possible simply by leaving it in wild cam mode, all the vtec boyz would be disabling the system?

Hyperactive
6th October 2006, 14:30
I'm old school in so much as I think crap drivers should either a) not drive b) learn to drive or c) die (yes I think c, even though my brother was killed in a road accident - I'm a firm beleiver that cars should be able to kill, and I don't want a spotty 17 year old programmer deciding that that last mm of throttle travel won't be allowed. It's what gives you an incentive to not push the limits, drive safely and learn what you are doing. No airbags in my car, or TC, or ABS. And a nice flexible chassis to put the engine in my lap - perfect!).

...

But I wish it was that simple. Usually the boyracers drive above the speed limits, have no real idea about what they are doing and in general their car control skills are shite. Plus the obvious that when they crash out, they usually kill/cripple innocent bystanders instead taking their own life.

I think every car sold should be infested with all kinds of safety devices because I don't want to get killed on highway when 18 years-old idiot from the next door tries how fast his punto can go, eventually losing control on straight highway spinning in front of me, making me live the rest of my live in vegetative state while he just continues living. Plus the fact that most people have no idea how to drive on extreme situations.

I have TCS, ABS (no ESP) etc... in my car and they really don't bother me at all. If the deviced were limiting my "performance" - it would be a sign that I'm driving too fast instead of that they limit my skills. Of course it is sad that ESPs and such are used in modern cars to make the handle better making the driver to believe that he can actually drive. :really:

Racing car is a different topic. I want the frame to be sturdy and the car to be safe so in case of a flat rear tire I don't need to learn to drive without feet. But electronics aren't the place for racing cars, the driver should be the only one who decides how deep the loud pedal is pushed or how hard he brakes on corners.

Vain
6th October 2006, 14:44
I'm a bit fearful of electronic control devices.

My first car had neither ABS nor any other electric controls. My closest situation to a severe crash was when I was travelling over a twisty downwards section in a town. Travelling at 60km/h I suddenly saw a car standing square right on my lane in a left turn.
Without thinking I opted for an evasive move to the left lane, quickly turned the steering wheel left, tapped the brake, induced oversteer and flicked the rear end around the obstacle neatly.
TC or ABS would never have allowed me to do this. The car would have never gone sideways and I would never have had the time to react to that "unnatural" behaviour. I would have crashed right into the driver of that car.

ABS and TC are made for people who lack understanding of vehicle dynamics. And it's a great protection for them. But everyone who knows how braking while turning influences the grip levels at the wheels of a car will have to visit a street security course with his car to understand what it will do with his (propably senseful) inputs in specific situations.

(Sorry for being offtopic, but I thought I'd share the story. Really, if you never learned how a TC works you can't anticipate it and it will be dangerous if you f.e. expect the car to go sideways. Security courses are really senseful there.)

Vain

kaynd
6th October 2006, 15:27
If you had VTEC "kicked in" 100% of the time, you'd have more power low down.

If you have a powervalve open 100% of the time the bike will barely pull away under its own power.

Having the low lift cam profile at all is damaging to the cars peformance, you get less power. Having the lower exhuast exit port on a 2 stroke motorcycle means you can actually pull away without being above 7,000 rpm.



That’s not true… It’s a little bit difficult to explain… mainly cause of my bad English (I am correcting the spelling and grammar mistakes for about a hour, on ms word)

It is logical that the power extracted by an engine depends on the air (or air mixture) flow of intake and exhaust system including the cylinder head and the valves…
It’s also logical to think that the higher the valve lifts and the more it remains opened the better air flow you have.

The problem is that when engine is working even in low rpm, the speed of the gases mass passing the intake valve or the exhaust valve is much higher than you can imagine… In that condition air (and gases) doesn’t moves as we normally think,
it moves in the form high frequency waves…
Engineers study the behaviour of those waves and tune the intake – valve train –exhaust system to be coordinated in the frequency in which air moves in certain rpm.

Tο determined that frequency in which the engine will have its max efficiency; (max torque) geometric characteristics such as length, diameter of the intake-exhaust system and the valve train geometric-timing characteristics are carefully chosen.

An intake camshaft e.g. 11mm lift and 290οduration, prevents maximum air flow in cylinder head only around 7000rpm with an optimal range of +- 1500 rpm… that camshaft may be full efficient there but when the rpm drop under 3000 the air flow wil be messed up… and in idle the engine will hardly keep working… In low rpm an camshaft with lower lift and shorten duration will be more efficient.

Ideally the best would be that the camshaft geometric characteristics (as also the exhaust ant intake system, but lets stay focused on the valvetrain) could change continuously as the revolution rate of the engine is altered.

Well fore now we have the ability in an engine with logical cost to get only e few modes of camshaft characteristics depending on which rpm the engine works.

Off course for road used cars the timing of the valvetrain and the modes are not tuned for maximum attribution of power in all rpm…
They use the benefits of that technology most for fuel efficiency and lower emissions… and for not having the customers disappointed they give to them a peak power point which comes suddenly 1000rpm before the rev limiter, to play with…

That’s because valvetrain control systems tuned in that way, cant have a good racing performance. (When the wider the power band is the least gear changes you have to make to keep the acceleration high)

Valve timing&lift control systems are used in more racing cars (including F1) than you can imagine…

But not in the way similar systems control the power extraction of a road going car…


(tip: when tuning (vtec,vvti etc) engines you can easily (by reprogramming the ecu) move the “wild cam mode” rpm point in lower rpm such as 5000rpm… and you have a nice wider power band, so you have at least 3000 rpm το play with. (end you don’t even feel the kin of that point…)
And for the reason I mentioned before the wild cams don’t work properly in lower rpm…



As for the valve system tow stroke engines have… its completely different with the one fore stroke engines have… And as for the exhaust port of a tow stroke engine… if you leave it wide enough you may not have power at all… Yes… and there gases gone mad cause off the speed… also hi frequencies, and because we have no cylinder valves the only way to tune the engine to produce more power is to coordinate the exhaust pipe with complex geometry...

And yes. I have omitted a lot theory which I must have reported to prove what I am writing…
And yes my description sucks … so just look for some info about that and you will see.

tristancliffe
6th October 2006, 15:41
When was the last time chassis flex is good for handling precision?Lots of times. There is such a thing as a chassis that is too stiff. Chassis flex in cars is a very important aspect of their design, and they don't simply make them as stiff as possible. Gains can only occur when the flex is substituted elsewhere in the suspension, and in many cases low profile tyres and limited suspension travel (yes, on road cars) means that chassis flex is important. Drive any new BMW on run-flat tyres and tell me that the TERRIBLE ride couldn't be improved with a bit of give in the chassis.
And judging from what you say about cars with computer controlled differentials, professional rally driver in Lancer Evolutions/Subaru Stis/Citreon Xsaras are all crap drivers. A list that includes Sebastain Leob, Tomi Makinen, Marcus Gronholm, etc. Next time you such a thing, you might as say that all the current WRC drivers are no skill hacks of no driving ability.I think you'll find that the drivers prefer the mechanical diffs ;)
Just to illustrate that sweeping statements make no sense.You forgot the bit after this sentence.
Homogenous Petrol combustion is known to me as well, but the truth is petrol is getting real old. It's dino oil based, and no matter how much oil is currently left, it's FINITE.It's not just the finite nature of it, but the environmental impact too. So...
Even though new sites are found every now and then, ACCESSABILITY WILL be increasingly difficult and *EXPENSIVE*. I wonder if you are willing to pay 10 pounds per liter of petrol before you frigure that it's hopeless to adamantly stick to petrol in the long run. Unless of course you couldn't care less about your future generations. :(I think you'll find there is a lot more oil out there than we know about ;)
Diesel, on the other hand, has multiple sources, so it's not utterly dependant crude oil alone. Aha, yes, you can make it from plants too. Which means cutting down the trees to make space for the huge fields of oilseed etc, which means even less trees to keep the atmosphere going. You see, there is no solution that involves burning oil at the moment that DOESN'T harm the environment just as much as any other. Vege oil diesels are no better for the environment than dino oil as you put it.
Oh, while you're away, diesel technology has gone a LONG way from the 70's smokers. :) Yup it has. And it's still awful![/quote]As if petrol engine emmisions don't cause cancer at all.[/quote]Almost negliably compared to diesel emmisions, but of course there is some added risk yes.
The solutions for the NOx problem are now well within reach. Don't be surprised that 5 years from now all new diesels would have no more and possibly even less NOx emmsions than contemporary petrols.Only if petrol technology doesn't improve too. It will, and I firmly believe that diesel will always be playing catch up. And by the time it does we'll have something 'better' like Fuel Cells or something.
Diesels have NO ENGINE BRAKING?The lack of throttle means that there is less work done on the piston crown on overrun, resulting in less engine braking. This is partly, though not entirely, offset by the larger compression ratios and cylinder friction, but I still have yet to drive a diesel with as much engine braking.
Is this a reverse logic universe?Aha, cheap digs at dawn!
When was the last time a diesel manual car lost to a petrol car with almost all else equal in the engine braking department? Even with taller gearing usually used for diesels, they STILL consistantly beat all petrols in the engine braking department. I guess you've never driven Diesel Off-Road 4WD vehicles before.All all the vehicles in the world, I would enjoy a diesel (yuck) off-road (yuck) 4WD (yuck) car the least, but yes I have done a bit in the aforementioned excuses for transport. And I felt the off-throttle performance (i.e. engine braking) was stronger, more predictable and easier to modulate in the petrol (throttled) vehicles.On the weight front, diesels have made startling progress thanks to materials and design technologies used for the AUDI R10 , which WILL be applied to poductions cars very soon.Yeah, in about 10 - 15 years they will be as light as petrol engines. Don't be surprised if Diesels will soon be not significantly heavier than contemporary petrols.When, not if, but the when is still a long way away.
Tristan, I'm perfectly fine with opinions as long as they have some valid reasons to back them up, but please, don't resort to categorial hate. And please don't discount new technology that is now widely available before you make an opinion. James, I perfectly fine with option as long as you have some valid reasons to back them up, but please, don't resort to blind fanboyism. And please don't just love new technology or technology over the horizon just for the sake of it. And please don't hate old technology just because a magazine says something newer is better.

I have nothing against new technology. But it's either trying to gain public opinion ('Wind Power is Good' says government. 'Okay, we believe you' says gullible public), or to sidestep emissions legislation (Use LRP, it's better honest) in many many cases. With regards computer control and driver aids in road cars it's simply because driving standards are falling WORLD WIDE, partly because people are too lazy to learn how to drive, and partly because they don't need to learn because the computers compensate. But then they need more computer aids to compensate for the humans being slightly lazier each time than they expected.

This is a discussion about Vtec engines, and not the rights and wrongs of diesels. Start a new thread if you really want to discuss it, but this is the wrong place.

z3r0c00l
6th October 2006, 18:10
Kaynd - thank you for your detailed explanation, your english is good, exceptional considering the nature of the technical subject.

I had been aware of the compression waves of fuel mixture before, however I assumed it's affect to be negligable for four stroke engines, due to the fact there is an exhaust valve that shuts to allow compression, where as a two stroke requires back pressure provided by the expansion chamber to keep the mixture in the cylinder and out of the exhaust.

So essentially, while the variable valve timing may exist in motorsport, you would never get the trademark VTEC sound, as the cam profile switches a lot earlier and far more smoothly before a sudden step in power is noticable, and dropping off into an area of lacking acceleration is less likely as it is far lower down the rpm range and the power delivery is smoother than "the loudest vtec crossover ever lolz"


The result I wanted, all be it in a rounderbout kind of way! lol.


Does this mean every VTEC owner with an aftermarket exhaust system requires their VTEC extensively retuned to take advantage of the backpressure frequencies with the new system?

kaynd
6th October 2006, 21:14
Does this mean every VTEC owner with an aftermarket exhaust system requires their VTEC extensively retuned to take advantage of the backpressure frequencies with the new system?

Yes if you really want to take advantage of that modification you must reprogram the ecu not only for the vtec management but also the fuel injection and the advance of the ignition.
But because ecu tuning may be easy to do but not easy to have the desirable result, we usually tune it after more modifications than an aftermarket exhaust pipe.

The main reason someone changes the exhaust pipe and silencer, is the better sound.

There is no need to change the exhaust system if you don’t upgrade the intake system.

Also a small amount of back pressure is wanted and in four stroke engines cause of the valve overlap which all modern engines have in some degree.
So having a wide diameter exhaust pipe without providing the proportional air and fuel in the intake will bring loss of power.

z3r0c00l
6th October 2006, 21:54
Thank you for taking the time to explain. :)

See you on the track, apologies to everyone who was gagging for a VTEC sound and has subsequently had their idea beaten to death on this thread. :shrug:

Viper93
8th October 2006, 18:06
So after all that, what I orginally said the VTEC is not good for racing is correct, I knew it was :razz:

Jamexing
9th October 2006, 01:39
Lots of times. There is such a thing as a chassis that is too stiff. Chassis flex in cars is a very important aspect of their design, and they don't simply make them as stiff as possible. Gains can only occur when the flex is substituted elsewhere in the suspension, and in many cases low profile tyres and limited suspension travel (yes, on road cars) means that chassis flex is important. Drive any new BMW on run-flat tyres and tell me that the TERRIBLE ride couldn't be improved with a bit of give in the chassis.
I think you'll find that the drivers prefer the mechanical diffs ;)
It's not just the finite nature of it, but the environmental impact too. So...
I think you'll find there is a lot more oil out there than we know about ;)
Aha, yes, you can make it from plants too. Which means cutting down the trees to make space for the huge fields of oilseed etc, which means even less trees to keep the atmosphere going. You see, there is no solution that involves burning oil at the moment that DOESN'T harm the environment just as much as any other. Vege oil diesels are no better for the environment than dino oil as you put it.
Yup it has. And it's still awful! Almost negliably compared to diesel emmisions, but of course there is some added risk yes.
Only if petrol technology doesn't improve too. It will, and I firmly believe that diesel will always be playing catch up. And by the time it does we'll have something 'better' like Fuel Cells or something.
The lack of throttle means that there is less work done on the piston crown on overrun, resulting in less engine braking. This is partly, though not entirely, offset by the larger compression ratios and cylinder friction, but I still have yet to drive a diesel with as much engine braking.
Aha, cheap digs at dawn!
All all the vehicles in the world, I would enjoy a diesel (yuck) off-road (yuck) 4WD (yuck) car the least, but yes I have done a bit in the aforementioned excuses for transport. And I felt the off-throttle performance (i.e. engine braking) was stronger, more predictable and easier to modulate in the petrol (throttled) vehicles.Yeah, in about 10 - 15 years they will be as light as petrol engines.When, not if, but the when is still a long way away.
James, I perfectly fine with option as long as you have some valid reasons to back them up, but please, don't resort to blind fanboyism. And please don't just love new technology or technology over the horizon just for the sake of it. And please don't hate old technology just because a magazine says something newer is better.

I have nothing against new technology. But it's either trying to gain public opinion ('Wind Power is Good' says government. 'Okay, we believe you' says gullible public), or to sidestep emissions legislation (Use LRP, it's better honest) in many many cases. With regards computer control and driver aids in road cars it's simply because driving standards are falling WORLD WIDE, partly because people are too lazy to learn how to drive, and partly because they don't need to learn because the computers compensate. But then they need more computer aids to compensate for the humans being slightly lazier each time than they expected.

This is a discussion about Vtec engines, and not the rights and wrongs of diesels. Start a new thread if you really want to discuss it, but this is the wrong place.

Note the EVOs use ACD and AYC, things meant to simulate ideal differentials to get the most out of a chassis. However, note the current Evo is ultimately limited by its 235 width tires. The EVO X will have 255 tires to bridge the gap between its massively overtyred European rivals. As for diff preference, I've not been lucky enough to interview the current WRC guys yet, but when winning really counts, drivers tend to prefer whatever get's them a win. Having computer controlled diffs doesn't really make the car less easy to crash at the absolute limit as seen by these drivers. Actually, one reason they banned active diffs for top drivers in WRC is the ever increasing cornering speeds afforded by partly near ideal diff behavior.

Chasis stiffness. Well, no one is actually aiming for SOFTER chassis these days for obvious reasons. Soft chassis are annoyingly insensitive to suspension setup changes. Chasis flex isn't as precisely controlled as suspension motions, being notoriously underdamped. It doesn't feel so bad with the sphagetti noodle morgans (not all morgans are THAT soft though) because their natural frequencies are so low and you don't perceive the oscillations so well. The worse case I've actually had IRL is the Nissan Patrol. It flexes so much that it actually pops the real door quite often while negotiating axle crossing terrain off road.

Last time I checked, the current luxury BMWs have computer controlled ARBs and Dampers to provide brilliant ride even with the stiff low profile sidewalls. It's actually easy to deal with stiff sidewall induced jigglyness. Just use speed sensitive dampers that have high speed blow offs that provide lower rates of damping force increase with speed at predefined blow off damper speeds. With computer control, this is only a software tweak away.

As for the Diesel, I'll like to further discuss this with you in another thread that's more Diesel vs Petrol Oriented. It's rather hard to explain my points without getting long and VERY technical. On that note, don't worry about chopping trees for biodiesel. One example is Malaysia, a place where there's already a serious overproduction of plam oil, so much so that prices are terribly low. If the current initiative to make biodiesel work pulls through, it'll definitely do more good than harm. :) I'll start a proper Diesel thread when I've got time and try to properly explain everything that matters. I'm not hating all petrols, I'm just saying that if biodiesel works as it should, there's more sustainable hope. Trees need a lot of CO2 to make oil BTW. Might as well use the already deforested areas to make biodiesel than leaving them to rot. And there's always the option of super efficient algea. :) And do note that diesels have moved much faster than petrol in the past 10 years than petrol ever has in the past 20 years. The latest BMW production diesels make max power arund 4700rpm and redline at 5500rpm. That's no worse than a current Aussie V-8 sedan (5500rpm redline too).

BTW, I happen to have seriously upgraded to adjustable dampers on my Pajero and the difference is amazing. What used to feel like a washboard now feels like almost nothing. If it wasn't for the fact that I visually scan the terrain ahead of me as I drive and the tiny bit of tire rumble, I wouldn't feel a thing. And speed bumps are actually most comfortable when taken at faster tha the usual sub 20km/h speeds. The "miracle" of a high speed blowoff valve. What matters even more is that the dampers are MUCH stiffer at low damper speeds for precise roll rate control and transient handling. All this with no electronics or computers, just some well balanced settings attained by adjusting stiffness knobs. :)

I rather enjoy discussing technical issues with someone like you too, but you're rather quick to accuse me of fanboyism. I just say things as observed, not blindly believing some overglorified import tuner crap. BTW, I DON'T subscribe to that crap. I am not anti old tech. Otherwise, why would I prefer to dirve with no nanny tuned TC and ABS IRL? Because it actually works better for me. I like technologies that work well, old or new. I read RACECAR ENGINEERING. :thumb: One reason WHY I play LFS. :)

As on VTEC. I've driven 1.6L VTEC Civics IRL, and let's just say the lack of low end torque is horrid. At least it runs like hell at high revs. As kaynd explained, wild cam all the time isn't always idea, since the valves must be tuned to ensure gas flow velocties and so on. FYI, the optimum switychover point for VTEC is very close to 5000rpm.

BTW, if I remeber correctly, the latest i-VTEC has 3 stages of valve settings. If tuned correctly, this would be a major boon for both racing and roadcar use. The reason variable valves are not used in racing are wide and varied, but one includes the rules. It's unfortunate that almost everyone's going NASCAR these days. :( Well, F-1 has become so technically restrictive now it is has fast become formula irrelevant. And those oxymorons try to make relevance by allowing hybrid drivetrains. Amazing.

Anyway, no LFS cars have VTEC, accept for the lousy turbo model that gnerates VTEC like behavior :D

michaelnyden
9th October 2006, 03:43
I think we have all strayed way off topic in this thread, the guy who originally posted this thread was just designing a civic and wanted it to be more authentic by just having a sound changeover by asking if there were any settings in lfs tweak or mechanic s2 to simulate a huge jump in power at a certain rpm which in lfs would make a sound difference since lfs's sound engine can simulate where an engine is shining or running out of breath...

is there some settings in mechanic or tweak to simulate a jump in power at a certain rpm without using a turbo? I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong...

if you drive the ferrari 360 modena in gtr or gtr2...you can hear a distinct changeover--and a rather loud one at that! but the gears are setup so that if you shift at redline/limiter in the game, you won't hear the changeover as it stays in that band...you have to go below the rpms again to hear it...

Jamexing
9th October 2006, 04:56
I think we have all strayed way off topic in this thread, the guy who originally posted this thread was just designing a civic and wanted it to be more authentic by just having a sound changeover by asking if there were any settings in lfs tweak or mechanic s2 to simulate a huge jump in power at a certain rpm which in lfs would make a sound difference since lfs's sound engine can simulate where an engine is shining or running out of breath...

is there some settings in mechanic or tweak to simulate a jump in power at a certain rpm without using a turbo? I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong...

if you drive the ferrari 360 modena in gtr or gtr2...you can hear a distinct changeover--and a rather loud one at that! but the gears are setup so that if you shift at redline/limiter in the game, you won't hear the changeover as it stays in that band...you have to go below the rpms again to hear it...

Yep, Ferrari's variable cam system. :)

WAY better than VTEC. Actually, if there is an LFS tweak for version U, we could easily do it with that weirdo turbo lag that's already in existance. All the TBO cars have engines that exhibit VTEC like jumps in power(sudden surge of turbo boost) anyway. Just remember to tweak the top end powerband so that power runs all the way to the redline. :D

das9125
30th November 2006, 14:31
People

I have a Civic VTi, only 1600cc but getting 170hp.
Funny, I have beat my friends 92 mustang (3 times the displacement) down the strip in 1/4 mile, by half a car length. :thumb:
I always get beat off the line of course, but VTEC does work.
My car keeps pulling all the way into 4th gear as if I was in 2nd gear. Doing the 1/4mi in under 17 secs with a 1600cc engine, well not bad, especially since my car is stock. :D
Yea sure, there are better technologies, but they usually involve larger engines and for the price? Which 1600cc stock engine can beat a B16A Honda Vtec engine?
Remember though, the D16 engines are also Vtec but not close to performance to the B series you find in VTi's and SI's, which are DOHC versus SOHC of the D16s. So maybe some people here have experience with the lower D16 engines on the EX's, which only give about 125hp stock.
But with the B16A, stock 168hp, someone tell me of a better stock engine for the price of my civic?
Golf GTIs are beat all the way. And those are 2000cc
With 104hp per liter, nothing cheap can beat a Honda. Thats the kind of hp/displacement performance found in high end cars.
:scratchch

To Jamexing, you are close to right. The stock switchover is at 5500 rpms. However with a VTec Controller, which allows to change the switchover point, and optimum point is found closer to 4200-4500rpms. The torque is still pretty bad, I don't like my 1st gear much. But it's so fun to catchup and pass. Hehe. Plus its nice to hear an engine revving at 8000rpms

Dennisjr13
30th November 2006, 18:57
I have a Civic VTi, only 1600cc but getting 170hp.
Funny, I have beat my friends 92 mustang (3 times the displacement) down the strip in 1/4 mile, by half a car length. :thumb:
I always get beat off the line of course, but VTEC does work.
My car keeps pulling all the way into 4th gear as if I was in 2nd gear. Doing the 1/4mi in under 17 secs with a 1600cc engine, well not bad, especially since my car is stock. :D

that 92 mustang sounds awfully slow to be running around 17 seconds in the quarter. I think the guy couldn't drive and the mustangs of those years were one of the slowest ones ever made (power to weight ratio wise)

Jakg
30th November 2006, 19:00
To quote somewhere else...

"V6 Mustangs run 16's."

V8 Mustangs run MUCH more

Whats the smell? Oh yes, it's BS! :D

das9125
1st December 2006, 14:30
Nice on Jakg. Its what it is.
One thing, I am in Bogota, Colombia.
2600metres (about 8600feet) above sea level, so oxygen levels are lower, and are up to a second slower in 1/4mi than at sea level.
But even at sea level, that mustang couldn't run under 16. And I still beat him in a car that has a third of the displacement. A third! 1/3!
How much HP/Liter does a V6 mustang have? 40? If that? :pillepall
Try a small american engine and it drives like a skateboard. Heheh.
My friend can drive, but the Mustang is very heavy, lot of torque, but at higher gears, little power for such a big engine.
And my Civic VTi corners beautifully. Actually on the actual circuit at the same track, he has no match for the power/weight, suspension, and braking distance of my Civic. Sure he beats me out of a corner, but into and trough a corner, especially on faster sections of the circuit, gets beat.
I have raced Golf GTIs 2.0, Skoda Octavias 2.0, BMW 318s, Audi A4! (2.8L),
that one mustang, a turbo Mazda Protege, and beat all of them on the strip.
You can say that VTEC and Honda engines are crap, but the track speaks for itself. And well, you might be rich, but cars here are not cheap, and I couldn't afford an M3 or an STi. I cannot get anything close to as fast with the money I get a nice Civic.
And my car is stock. It is no wonder Civics are the No1 preferred car for tuning. There is a guy at the track that has a severly tuned Civic VTi like mine, Marlboro Red :thumb: , 420hp to the ground. Out of 1600cc. Say what you may, but that's just monstrous.
http://www.tucarro.com.co/anuncios/carros/honda/eux-372-5.jpg

And thats a B16A2 on a VTi
Like mine -> http://www.jrautoparts.com/images/hondaengine/b16a%20OBD1%20longblock.JPG
B16A2
VTEC
1996-2000 Honda Civic VTiR (EK)
Displacement: 1595 cm3
Compression: 10.4:1
Power: 160 hp @ 7800 rpm & 113 ft·lbf (153 N·m) @ 7300 rpm

A B16B, only in Japan though, in a type R Civic,

B16B
VTEC
Found in:
1997-2000 Civic Type-R
Displacement: 1595 cm3
Compression: 10.8:1
Power: 185 hp :) (137 kW) @ 8200 rpm & 118 ft·lbf (160 N·m) @ 7500 rpm
Transmission: S4C WITH LSD

HighRoad
1st December 2006, 19:33
sry to bump this but i would need this seeting for xfg in csr....:shy:

Viper93
2nd December 2006, 09:26
420HP is nothing...

http://media.ams-evo8.com/videos/srt4/Neon772.wmv

Nobody was saying Civics are crap, they are just not the best car to have for circuit racing because of not having any torque, sure you can say that YOU beat all those cars on the track with yours BUT at the end of the day thats driver ability. FYI I hope you would beat a V6 stang, they are crap and in the states are not considered a performance car at all. Even the insurance companies agree and you routinely see 16 year old girls, not boys, driving them to school every day. Now if you want to talk about V8's, the proper Mustang, thats a different story, you wouldn't stand a chance.

A855
(Hemi)
Found in: 2003-2005 Dodge SRT-4
Displacement: 2.4 liters
Power: 230BHPnot engine HP like the civic which would put brake HP around 150 for the civic (171.51kW) @ 5200 rpm and 250 ft lbf (338.57 Nm) @ 2400-4400 rpm
Transmission: 5-speed NVG T-850 manual with a quafe LSD unit

Ohh these cost less than a Type-R and they out handle them too =)

das9125
4th December 2006, 13:04
Of course its driver ability! :thumb:

And nice specs from the Dodge. :scratchch Good hp for only 2400ccs
I wouldnt know though since Dodge stopped bringing cars to Colombia. Only Chevrolet and some Ford to be found.
I lived in the states several years and you're right, a lot of girls drive those cars. And then the exception, when I had my good laugh once in a while when some short girl was driving a Corvette to school and could barely see over the steering wheel.
Here in Colombia though, American cars have been unable to compete with Japanese, European or Korean cars here dont know why. I guess price.
The french companies are just tough to beat here, with Renault, Citroen, and Peugot having a huge chunk of the market here. Then you have Honda and Toyota, and there is little space for American cars.
The reason Chevrolet is stronge here is because they have an assembly factory here in Colombia.
And well if you are gonna be charged the same for a Dodge SRT as for a Citroen C4 or a Bmw 328, or a Lancer Evolution :D well its not a choice really. :pillepall
But when it comes to muscle cars, well American of course. :D
Too bad you guys cant try the Renault Clio Sport in the US.
I would compare it to a very souped up version of the Focus WRC version, with 300hp, and very short wheel base. So fun on the track. :tilt:

In the end, there is really no argument. They are different mentalities to car building, american versus japanese, and both have their ups or downs.
I have been racing karts and sporadic amateur formula for years now, (I even raced an amateur rally in a clio hehe) and well my Civic is just one for town.
But its edgy enough not to be boring. Sure a V8 mustang would be fun, but man my gas bill would just kill me. Hehe
And about the Neon, I've noticed its probably the No1 tuned American car. The civic counterpart. Of course there are no limits to tuning, but its not really my thing,
I prefer equali machinery and the driver to make the difference. And again we agree, being more impressed with skill than machinery, where money is the only limit.

ElBoss
4th December 2006, 13:29
vtec sound??

is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku0kPhTRWSw

:thumb: :thumb:

cheers

Viper93
5th December 2006, 16:03
American cars as a whole cannot compete with the Japanese =) Granted the newer american cars are much better than they were, but they still have a ways to go for the most part. Civics are great cars and you cannot beat their reliability but I would never have one for a racecar =)

Jamexing, I reread your post about your dampers, I have tokico allumina's, that Dodge put on my car factory, that are 5 way adjustable and at high compression and rebound rates the valving inside the strut releases the pressure and lets the spring oscilate creating a very smooth ride, while still being stiff. I absolutly love it, you explained why beautifully =)

Michel 4AGE
5th December 2006, 16:42
But with the B16A, stock 168hp, someone tell me of a better stock engine for the price of my civic?

Toyota AE111 BZ-R /w 4A-GE 20v. 1587cc 170HP/155Nm
Toyota AE101 GTZ /w 4A-GZE 16v 1587cc 170BHP/210Nm
Nissan SR16VE 173hp 1600cc
Nissan SR16VE N1 197hp 1600cc

Sorry , had to do this :D

TyresHot
5th December 2006, 17:09
Toyota AE111 BZ-R /w 4A-GE 20v. 1587cc 170HP/155Nm
Toyota AE101 GTZ /w 4A-GZE 16v 1587cc 170BHP/210Nm
Nissan SR16VE 173hp 1600cc
Nissan SR16VE N1 197hp 1600cc

Sorry , had to do this :D

thanks , well done :thumb:

n0stra
6th December 2006, 03:08
At least the mentioned Nissan motors are turbocharged and cant be compared to the Honda B16, B18, K20 and the F20C wich produces 240 HP from a 2 litre engine N/A. To my knowledge this is the world record in hp/litre N/A to this day (mass produced of course).

About those SRT-4's:

http://home.comcast.net/~xcessivex/rangers9wi.jpg

;)

But seriously. Smack a turbocharger/supercharger in a K20 honda/acura and compare it to the SRT and it would be no contest at all. If one absolutly wants to compare two cars at least give them the same type of breathing.

I myself drive a K20 with only N/A tuning, nothing done to the engine itself, yet. Best 1/4 result for a N/A K20 car i know of is the Skunk2 Acura RSX type-S with 9,7s @ 140+ mph. Information about this car can be found on www.clubrsx.com for the ones interested.

Best turbocharged streetdriven K20 result i know of would be the PR RSX-S wich ran 10,3s and 10,4s.

Anyway, it would suck if everyone wanted and loved the same types of cars and engines. I dont expect averyone to understand my preferences and therefore i dont get mad just becaus someone wants a car that in my opinion just drives well on straights. Im one of those that prefere a Yamaha R1 compared to a Harley anytime.

PS: comparing VTEC/i-VTEC to VVT-i and others systems as inferior and old is just plain rubbish. Get your facts straight, i would suggest checking out the history of the technology on wikipedia and other more objective sites.

das9125
6th December 2006, 13:00
n0stra

Nice post!! :D :thumb: Love the K20. Here in Colombia I'd have to pay a lot, like $40K US for an RSX. :(

Of course they had to be turbocharged. :nod: :pillepall
Michel, And the Toyota Levin engine? Supercharged buddy. :D
Compare to Corollas.
I sustain that no comercial car that competes pricewise with Honda has the hp/displacement for N/A engines.
And well all your examples are Japanese Michel, nice :thumb:
But still subpar to Hondas.
Nissan's VVL engines are very much like Honda's VTECs, except some turbocharged. The N1? Nice. Hard to find. and discontinued.
Comparing hp/displacement, try S2000, 240hp from only 2000cc! :nod: N/A! :thumb:
http://www.billzilla.org/vvtvtec2.htm
And on revs, well, I've seen S2000 revving at 11,000.
About the VVT-i Toyota models to try and compete with the Honda Vtec, check this out.

http://www.billzilla.org/vvtvtec.htm

I tried my friends corolla, the sports version VVT-i, and although it feels edgy in 1st gear, in higher gears it stops pulling unlike my civic, and his is a 2005 model with 1800cc, specs say 129hp, from 1800, versus 168 from my 1600. :tilt:

SRTs? Well, not even worth mentioning in this context. Especially if not N/A

Michel 4AGE
6th December 2006, 16:09
Michel, And the Toyota Levin engine? Supercharged buddy. :D
Compare to Corollas.
I sustain that no comercial car that competes pricewise with Honda has the hp/displacement for N/A engines.

Nissan's VVL engines are very much like Honda's VTECs, except some turbocharged. The N1? Nice. Hard to find. and discontinued.


Yeah the AE101 is supercharged. But the AE111 isn't. Those Nissan VE engines are N/A too, so I don't get your point. But maybe you just like Honda only :)



PS: comparing VTEC/i-VTEC to VVT-i and others systems as inferior and old is just plain rubbish. Get your facts straight, i would suggest checking out the history of the technology on wikipedia and other more objective sites.

Would you try and explain in your own words why systems like VVT are inferior/rubbish/old ?

n0stra
6th December 2006, 19:37
Yeah the AE101 is supercharged. But the AE111 isn't. Those Nissan VE engines are N/A too, so I don't get your point. But maybe you just like Honda only :)



Would you try and explain in your own words why systems like VVT are inferior/rubbish/old ?

It wasnt me trying to make a deal out of vtec being absolete, neither the other way around. Check out www.wikipedia.com and look at variable timing, VTEC, I-VTEC, VVT and VVT-i if you want. Check out the history. I have no reason to explain since im not a mechanic, i just stated out the fact that vtec is in no way inferior to vvt. I could rather ask the question the other way around.

Those Nissan engines must inteed be turbocharged, i can quote:

"The 1.6 L (1596 cc) SR16VE has Nissan's Neo VVL variable valve timing with lift control. It produces 175 PS (129 kW) @7800 rpm and 119 ft.lbf (161 Nm) @7200 rpm."

So if you want to give it those extra horesepower you would either have to boost it or tune it in some way. Thus making it a non OEM engine and therefore not comparable. The socalled "N1" was tuned and made by Autech Japan and not Nissan themselves.

If you want to compare tuned cars i could easily show you my friends B18 Integra with 260PS, or a Mugen V6 NSX Vtec engine, but thats not what we are talking about is it.

About the two Toyota motors you mention:

"A special 4A-GE was produced from 1991 through 1998 to replace the 4A-GZE. It was a naturally-aspirated engine with an additional intake valve for each cylinder, making it one of the first production 5-valve engines in history. The engine can be recognized by its silver or black top. This was the last of the 4A family to be produced. Toyota's VVT was used for 160–165 hp (123–127 kW) at 7800 rpm and 120 ft·lbf (162 N·m) at 5600 rpm, quite impressive for a naturally-aspirated 1.6 L engine. Note that although VVT was present in the silver top and the black top 4A-GE, VVT-i was not available."

165, not 170. Thus being beaten by the best B16 Honda engine.

Finally, if im not mistaken, when your talking about AE101 and AE111 your talking about two different kinds of truenos/corollas (series) while the engines mentioned are the 4A-GE 20v and the 4A-GZE. It just gets confusing sometimes as there is no problem with putting the one engine in the other car.

I love alot of the japanese engines around, both the heavier older ones and the new aluminium ones from wankel to vtec to vvti to boxers and so on. I just dont like people talking down about other engines without having the facts 100 percent right when trying to give the impression that they do. If one were to say "i think that the nissan engines are much better" well thats their opinion. When stating facts when they are not necessarily correct, well thats something completly different.

Got two friends here in Trondheim, one with a 91 Sunny GTi-R and one with a Skyline GTR33R. Great cars both and great engines.

Michel 4AGE
6th December 2006, 19:56
I love alot of the japanese engines around, both the heavier older ones and the new aluminium ones from wankel to vtec to vvti to boxers and so on. I just dont like people talking down about other engines without having the facts 100 percent right when trying to give the impression that they do. If one were to say "i think that the nissan engines are much better" well thats their opinion. When stating facts when they are not necessarily correct, well thats something completly different.



I'm not saying / trying to tell that Honda or whatever is inferior or something, I'm just trying to say that it's not only Honda that makes good/reliable engines with high HP/ltr. I also don't fancy to go along with factory specs, I prefer real life experience.

n0stra
6th December 2006, 20:01
I'm not saying / trying to tell that Honda or whatever is inferior or something, I'm just trying to say that it's not only Honda that makes good/reliable engines with high HP/ltr. I also don't fancy to go along with factory specs, I prefer real life experience.

The answer i made in the first thread i made was to the one stating that VTEC was inferior. It had nothing to do with you if you werent the one stating this as a fact.

And im not saying that its only honda that can make engines like that, its just that they are so f'ing great at it and when it comes to OEM, at the moment, noone beats them and thats just a fact of life. I guess you have to do this when your only making N/A engines. Nissan and toyotas most famous cars from the 90s and onwards are the Supra, 200sx, Silvia, Skyline, Pulsar/Sunny and they are all turbocharged. Not that this is a bad thing, but i find it somewhat exiting that a N/A manufacturer can make something competing with these without using the same technology.

I myself never trust the "butt dyno" ;)

das9125
7th December 2006, 13:14
n0stra. Nice :thumb:

Yes the 111 was not turborcharged, but as n0stra pointed out, it was a 5 cylinder, 20v version, versus 16v, 165hp, a limited edition, still beat by a non-special edition B16B. :smileypul
My intial argument was that no engine manufacturer could get close to the horsepower performance by Honda for N/A engines, especially american cars.
I was just stating that Honda had better hp performance, whether a little or a lot. The S2000 for example has some F1 technology, look at engine diagrams, and its high rpm ranges are incredible for a production car.
Even my Civic redlines at 7,500 and dials stock to 10,000.
Nissan has some great engines, the Skyline is awesome, Toyota on the other hand, have had some nice cars along the way, but nothing in constant production, nothing to compete against the Civic Type R year after year.
And Michel, I dont just like Honda engines. I like engines in general. The engineering behind the performance and realiability in an engine. An engineer myself.
But since you brought up the Honda vs Toyota argument, I'll follow up and beat you all the way.
Toyota on the other hand, have had to play catch up to Honda during the last 15 years believe it or not. Even in racing. After all how many titles does Toyota have in F1 versus Honda? And the current Toyota F1 program is twice the budget of Honda with nothing to show.
And in the racing community? Its a no contest, Honda by a great margin. Nissan being a much smaller manufacturer even edges Toyota.
Besides Hondas also look much nicer than Toyotas, hehe. I heard a better version of the new NSX is on the way. Wohoo!
:thumb: :D
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/06/honda_nsx-r_front.jpg
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/02/nsxrgt05_03.jpg
So you wanna keep going at the Honda vs Toyota?

tristancliffe
7th December 2006, 14:02
Whilst the S2000 engine in undoubtedly 'clever', it's appaling for a road engine. All revs and not much go. I'd much rather have a few less revs and a few more lb.ft. Unfortunately Honda love seeling horsepower, and seem to be using higher and higher revs to acheive this (at the expense of midrange torque).

In the real world Nissan and Toyota (for Japanese manufacturers) are far superior to Honda in terms of useability and A-B performance. All in my opinion, of course.

Viper93
7th December 2006, 15:45
Whilst the S2000 engine in undoubtedly 'clever', it's appaling for a road engine. All revs and not much go. I'd much rather have a few less revs and a few more lb.ft. Unfortunately Honda love seeling horsepower, and seem to be using higher and higher revs to acheive this (at the expense of midrange torque).

In the real world Nissan and Toyota (for Japanese manufacturers) are far superior to Honda in terms of useability and A-B performance. All in my opinion, of course.


I agree =)

As for 4 cylinders here is the new SRT-4 engine specs

2.4 litre i4

Horsepower 300 HP at 6,000 rpm
torque 260 lb.-ft between 2,000 and 6,000 rpm

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/08/aye-carumba-dodge-unloads-the-300-hp-caliber-srt-4/

Michel 4AGE
7th December 2006, 16:03
n0stra. Nice :thumb:

Yes the 111 was not turborcharged, but as n0stra pointed out, it was a 5 cylinder, 20v version, versus 16v, 165hp, a limited edition, still beat by a non-special edition B16B. :smileypul
My intial argument was that no engine manufacturer could get close to the horsepower performance by Honda for N/A engines, especially american cars.
I was just stating that Honda had better hp performance, whether a little or a lot. The S2000 for example has some F1 technology, look at engine diagrams, and its high rpm ranges are incredible for a production car.
Even my Civic redlines at 7,500 and dials stock to 10,000.
Nissan has some great engines, the Skyline is awesome, Toyota on the other hand, have had some nice cars along the way, but nothing in constant production, nothing to compete against the Civic Type R year after year.
And Michel, I dont just like Honda engines. I like engines in general. The engineering behind the performance and realiability in an engine. An engineer myself.
But since you brought up the Honda vs Toyota argument, I'll follow up and beat you all the way.
Toyota on the other hand, have had to play catch up to Honda during the last 15 years believe it or not. Even in racing. After all how many titles does Toyota have in F1 versus Honda? And the current Toyota F1 program is twice the budget of Honda with nothing to show.
And in the racing community? Its a no contest, Honda by a great margin. Nissan being a much smaller manufacturer even edges Toyota.
Besides Hondas also look much nicer than Toyotas, hehe. I heard a better version of the new NSX is on the way. Wohoo!
:thumb: :D
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/06/honda_nsx-r_front.jpg
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/02/nsxrgt05_03.jpg
So you wanna keep going at the Honda vs Toyota?

Dude pls stop. I can tell you're a hardcore Honda fanboy. I don't mind. But please stop talking bullshit. Since when is the 20v a 5cyl ? Last time I checked under my hood it was a 4cyl ? And does the B16 come with a Yamaha ITB's/4throttle system from factory ? I don't think so. Also the 20v was in n o way a special limited engine or whatsoever.
Have you ever seen a Blacktop 20v in real life ? Do you know why it's only 165hp from factory ? Your Civic redlines at 7500. Cool. Mine does @ 8200rpm. So what ? Is the redline something that determines the perfection from your car ? I don't think so.

Yeah sure the S2000 engine has F1 technology. Is that why it consumes more oil then gasoline ? And what about torque ?

n0stra
7th December 2006, 19:04
Well, torque torque torque aint all what its about either. Its a compromise of the two and the engine as a whole that desides. Honda has won far more prices as more reliable in the US market amongst others. The Element, Accord and Ridgeline with 2,2 and 2,4 liter engines are highly popular over there for instance. Just check out the american consumer reports which are highly praised as being neutral.

But if ones discussing HP/Nm from a small engine volume thats what were discussing, personal opinions doesnt matter, the dyno numbers does. Those numbers arent subjective.

Honda does very nicely in the JGTC league also with alot of NSX's. But as formerly stated, i would also love to have a supra, wrx sti, sunny gti-r and so on.

Michel 4AGE
7th December 2006, 19:11
I quote the worlds biggest encyclopedia, where do you get your bs? Oh yea im a fanboy, then what about you? Just like whining all day?

I get my bs from 10yrs track experience and actually building engines, not from "teh internet" .

Viper93
8th December 2006, 07:01
Big reason they are popular is because they are so cheap. Not because they have HP, thats not a very incorrect statement saying that Honda's have horsepower.... well many FWD's for that matter.

I think it would be wise to listen to Mike Nostra. I have seen Honda dyno's they are nothing spectacular and deffinatly don't belong in a race engine...

Here is a dyno of what a race engine should look like, granted it's not perfect and depends on how you drive but this would be very drivable

http://www.dragtimes.com/2004-Dodge-Neon-SRT-4-Dyno-Results-Graphs-8832.html

Michel 4AGE
8th December 2006, 07:06
That's a nice curve there. It actually has power under the curve, instead of just a peak number.

Viper93
8th December 2006, 09:47
That's a nice curve there. It actually has power under the curve, instead of just a peak number.

Yup I LOVE it! sooo smooth even with the turbo, there is minimal turbo lag partly because of the torque generated on top of having a tiny turbo that boosts 14PSI. It's an awesome engine in general too having all internals suitable to run up to the stage 3 turbo kit via the factory for 355 HP. People say that turbo engines don't last... this engine for people have been ticking perfrectly at over 100k miles! I also have a 7 year factory warrenty with my 05 SRT-4 ACR. Not to mention it's the fastest production FWD you can buy in the world =)

Most cars you get a kick in the butt at 3k when you ramp up the cam but this engine is perfectly smooth and pulls just like a V8, you can't beat it. And I still get 30MPG cruising. I have yet to downshift for hills, not once. Even when I went from Wisconsin to Florida through the mountains. You cannot beat this engine.

TypeRCivic
28th December 2006, 16:07
After reading most of the comments from people on this thread it seems like it's a bit off topic, all the kid wants is a CSR pack where VTEC would kick in around 4,000-4,500 rpms. Coming from a honda builder it's impossible to make a sufficent pack for a VTEC sound, I'm sure you can have the sound of VTEC engaging but it wouldn't be realistic, the car would seem to have power thats not there:really: If there were a pack for VTEC I my self wouldn't get it.

Jakg
28th December 2006, 17:32
when this thread started CSR wasn't out

Dudles
28th December 2006, 17:46
i wanna know What the Hell is CSR and How does it works...

TypeRCivic
31st December 2006, 02:37
CSR is a sound pack you download and you can change sounds, blow off sounds, different gear shifting sounds and some other stuff, it's pretty kewl, until it lags in game play but that can be fixed:D

Al4traZ
3rd January 2007, 15:12
Is there anything released yet for the "VTEC" sound ?

nfsjunkie91
3rd January 2007, 15:26
Is there anything released yet for the "VTEC" sound ?

*ahem* http://www.lfsforum.net/search.php

Al4traZ
3rd January 2007, 16:40
thx im gonna search haha ;)

marcusv8thunder
20th April 2007, 17:00
OK this rules, this is someone routing a induction kit into the cockpit! listen to this!! u can clearly hear the vtec switch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbZg8QBJaMM&mode=related&search=