What is the point of VTEC on an automatic?

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
My question is what's the point of an automatic, unless you've given up on life

Or got married.

Oh, snap.

- M4H

 

[FacelessNobody]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3Eh, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "cam profile" than "camshaft"? It's not as though you're actually changing the cam(s) for another type of cam, just the lift and duration at certain RPMs. There's nothing special about Honda's VVT system, especially not compared to say BMW. BMW's Vanos system beats the pants off of VTEC, i-VTEC, or any other "TEC" Honda wants to come up with, period.

While that might be the case, Honda implements VTEC on vehicles under $20k. I don't seem any BMWs with VANOS anywhere near that. Furthermore, Honda first put VTEC into a car back in the late 80's (Japanese market Civic). That engine, B16A, had 160 hp from a 1.6L. Not too shabby at all back in '89.

I'm well aware of the history of VTEC and how all the riceboys worship it as their god. As usual, when discussing performance and performance only with a ricer, you have to bring up the age old arguments of "HP per liter" and price. No one said anything about price... If you want to stay in the same price range, fine. Toyota's VVTLi is every bit as good as VTEC, and the numbers prove it. Same HP per Liter as Honda engines in the same class, so how is VTEC or i-VTEC any better? Fuel economy? I don't buy sports cars for fuel economy and anyone that does is a fool

If you'll notice, I first agreed that VANOS is superior to VTEC. I never argued VTEC was better, only that you can't expect a system as complex as VANOS on such inexpensive cars. For fuel economy issues, check out VTEC-E and get back to me Tho, that's hardly for high performance. Call me a ricer if you will; doesn't really phase me

Now that I think about it, BMW did announce plans to implement a form of Vanos on their "inexpensive" line of cars not too long ago... Where's NFS4 when ya need him?
Why do you keep bringing up fuel economy??!!!??oneoneoneone!!!!1111

I'll fill in for NFS4. Keep in mind that variable valve timing technology isn't exactly new these days. BMW's got a hell of an attack coming up. The 1 (3dr/5dr) and 2 (2dr) series (which will share parts) will be their VW Golf, Honda Civic, and Ford Focus competition. RWD and will indeed have VANOS in the 165bhp 2.0L 16V 4-cyl, the 200bhp turbo 2.0, and the 150bhp 2.0L 16V diesel, and the high-revving 250bhp 2.4L 4-cyl for the 2007 M2 (I WANT!). The 8V 1.8L engine could have it, too, I suppose. Then of course the new 3 and 4 (sedan and coupe) will share a platform, just like the new 5 and 6 series do. Of the new 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 series cars, I think the 4 is the best looking. The M4 will have a 400hp 4.0L V8, and the CSL version will have a 4.5L 450hp V8. Mmmm, mmmmmm. BMW's 911 competitor. Also there'll be various V, X, Z, and of course M varaints of the 1-7 platforms.

(Source, CAR Magazine March 2004)

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: FacelessNobody RWD and will indeed have VANOS in the 165bhp 2.0L 16V 4-cyl, the 200bhp turbo 2.0, and the 150bhp 2.0L 16V diesel, and the high-revving 250bhp 2.4L 4-cyl for the 2007 M2 (I WANT!).

And that's impressive? Honda's F20C produces 240hp (S2000) and its K20 200hp (RSX).

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: FacelessNobody RWD and will indeed have VANOS in the 165bhp 2.0L 16V 4-cyl, the 200bhp turbo 2.0, and the 150bhp 2.0L 16V diesel, and the high-revving 250bhp 2.4L 4-cyl for the 2007 M2 (I WANT!).

And that's impressive? Honda's F20C produces 240hp (S2000) and its K20 200hp (RSX).

And just how much TORQUE do they produce? If you're going to talk about small engines that produce a lot of power, why not bring up the 4G63 in Lancer Evo VIII MR trim? 300 HP and 300 lb/ft of torque from 2.0L ain't too shabby "but that's not fair! that engine's turbocharged!" blah blah blah, get over it.
I'll take a Bimmer over a fricking Honda any day of the week.

 

[NutBucket]

RSX has 158 ft-lbs anf the S2000 153 ft-lbs. Mind you this is the "older" S2000. The new one has a 2.2L; same hp, more torque.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NutBucket
RSX has 158 ft-lbs anf the S2000 153 ft-lbs. Mind you this is the "older" S2000. The new one has a 2.2L; same hp, more torque.

OOOOH! Earth-shattering torque!!! ROFLES! The sad thing is that's the most torque any Honda 4 banger has ever produced

 

[NutBucket]

Eh, my 2.2 has 161 ft-lbs. But we don't have figures for the BMWs so hard to compare.

 

[SammyBoy]

Nebor you are a real puss. You should be driving a camry with an I4 and a slushbox, I've never seen anyone with decent cars that was so moronic.

"pretty far down there"? The piece of crap accord you are talking about is not a RWD 600 horse monster that will smoke the tires in the blink of an eye. If you want to move, accelerate, pass, or do anything of value in japanese family cars you have to floor it. That is if you have anything between your legs of value

I agree that it might be hard to keep traction just flooring a lightning off the line, but people who race will modify things to get better traction...also who says you can't *gasp* vary how much you push in the pedal? On a dry track once you're at about 3000 RPM's you can floor a lightning and you won't loose control. The starting line and redline are a decent ways away, especially after 1st gear, youre allowed to floor it after you get traction, and then it'll wait til redline to shift.

You're stupid.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Eh, my 2.2 has 161 ft-lbs. But we don't have figures for the BMWs so hard to compare.

LOL, still not impressed. Come back when your torque figures match your HP, then we'll talk
Oh, and for the record: BMW PWNS Honda! This isn't even a valid topic of discussion, except to a ricer coughRICERcough

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Eh, my 2.2 has 161 ft-lbs. But we don't have figures for the BMWs so hard to compare.

LOL, still not impressed. Come back when your torque figures match your HP, then we'll talk
Oh, and for the record: BMW PWNS Honda! This isn't even a valid topic of discussion, except to a ricer coughRICERcough

Hmmm...so that's why that M3 couldn't gain any ground on me Friday. I'll keep that in mind

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Eh, my 2.2 has 161 ft-lbs. But we don't have figures for the BMWs so hard to compare.

LOL, still not impressed. Come back when your torque figures match your HP, then we'll talk
Oh, and for the record: BMW PWNS Honda! This isn't even a valid topic of discussion, except to a ricer coughRICERcough

Hmmm...so that's why that M3 couldn't gain any ground on me Friday. I'll keep that in mind

Oh noes, not unverifiable anecdotes! You have teh defeated meez in verbal combat!

LOL, even if your rice rocket somehow did manage to defeat a *real* automobile in a "race", I'd still take an M3 over a riced out early 90's Accord. You can't even compare the two, come on...... Not ragging on your car, whatever works for ya man, just don't compare it to *real* automobiles please!

 

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Eh, my 2.2 has 161 ft-lbs. But we don't have figures for the BMWs so hard to compare.

LOL, still not impressed. Come back when your torque figures match your HP, then we'll talk
Oh, and for the record: BMW PWNS Honda! This isn't even a valid topic of discussion, except to a ricer coughRICERcough

Hmmm...so that's why that M3 couldn't gain any ground on me Friday. I'll keep that in mind

That M3 driver is infinatly more sexy driving an M3. Even challenging an m3 with a honda means you penis and pocketbook is small.

 

[NutBucket]

I'm not evening going to get into it. I should have stuck to my instinct and not said a word.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NutBucket
I'm not evening going to get into it. I should have stuck to my instinct and not said a word.

What did you expect man? You make some out of the blue comment about beating a car which is superior to yours in every way, and expect us to just take your word for it? Sorry, not happening. 333HP beats whatever rice power you think your car has, period. Let's not even get into the fact that the M3 is RWD and an actual sports car whereas your vehicle is FWD and an econobox....
I'm not saying it's impossible for a Honda to beat an M3, I know full well what Hondas are capable of.

 

[NutBucket]

This was the E36 240 horse version.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: NutBucket
This was the E36 240 horse version.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, so now the truth comes out Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Even so, I'd still take an E36 over an Accord

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket
RSX has 158 ft-lbs anf the S2000 153 ft-lbs. Mind you this is the "older" S2000. The new one has a 2.2L; same hp, more torque.

OOOOH! Earth-shattering torque!!! ROFLES! The sad thing is that's the most torque any Honda 4 banger has ever produced

dude shut up. The current design K24 makes 150 TQ at the wheels. It makes more torque per liter than the mustang GT 4.6L.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket
This was the E36 240 horse version.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, so now the truth comes out Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Even so, I'd still take an E36 over an Accord

Hey, if you're willing to fund the difference in sticker price, insurance, upkeep and routine maintainence, so will I.

- M4H

 

[boyRacer]

You know... it maybe just an accord to someone else... but i'm sure he loves it... and repeating how much it sucks over and over is just ...:frown:

Id would give more respect to someone who made an effort about his car than to someone who just has $$$ and bought an M3 straight out.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket
RSX has 158 ft-lbs anf the S2000 153 ft-lbs. Mind you this is the "older" S2000. The new one has a 2.2L; same hp, more torque.

OOOOH! Earth-shattering torque!!! ROFLES! The sad thing is that's the most torque any Honda 4 banger has ever produced

dude shut up. The current design K24 makes 150 TQ at the wheels. It makes more torque per liter than the mustang GT 4.6L.

x one meeeeelion! Shut up ricer. Torque per liter means absolutely jack squat and you know it. If the engines were the same size then it would mean something, but since they're not, it means nothing!
For fvck's sake I would hope a brand-new engine design would be more efficient than an engine based on decades-old technology!
Torque per liter, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Silly ricer

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: NutBucket
This was the E36 240 horse version.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, so now the truth comes out Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? Even so, I'd still take an E36 over an Accord

Hey, if you're willing to fund the difference in sticker price, insurance, upkeep and routine maintainence, so will I.

- M4H

I'll second that

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

x one meeeeelion! Shut up ricer. Torque per liter means absolutely jack squat and you know it. If the engines were the same size then it would mean something, but since they're not, it means nothing!
For fvck's sake I would hope a brand-new engine design would be more efficient than an engine based on decades-old technology!
Torque per liter, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Silly ricer

I'm just curious, what do you drive?

I didn't realize the OHC 4.6L was decades old technology. I thought that engine came out in the mid 90s. But what do I know.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

x one meeeeelion! Shut up ricer. Torque per liter means absolutely jack squat and you know it. If the engines were the same size then it would mean something, but since they're not, it means nothing!
For fvck's sake I would hope a brand-new engine design would be more efficient than an engine based on decades-old technology!
Torque per liter, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Silly ricer

I'm just curious, what do you drive?

I didn't realize the OHC 4.6L was decades old technology. I thought that engine came out in the mid 90s. But what do I know.

OHC isn't exactly "new technology"

I drive a DSM. Turbo, AWD, lots of fun
BTW, my engine is based on decades-old technology, as the 4G63 was developed in the late 70's. How bout you?

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

OHC isn't exactly "new technology"

I drive a DSM. Turbo, AWD, lots of fun
BTW, my engine is based on decades-old technology, as the 4G63 was developed in the late 70's. How bout you?

dude, first you say the engine is decades old. I point out it's not. Get your sh*t together, you must be easily confused. Nothing in the K series is new technology either, it's just a recent design.

I have a 2003 accord.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

OHC isn't exactly "new technology"

I drive a DSM. Turbo, AWD, lots of fun
BTW, my engine is based on decades-old technology, as the 4G63 was developed in the late 70's. How bout you?

dude, first you say the engine is decades old. I point out it's not. Get your sh*t together, you must be easily confused. Nothing in the K series is new technology either, it's just a recent design.

I have a 2003 accord.

LERN HOWE TOO REED!!! The phrase: "based on decades-old technology" and "decades old" are NOT the same! Nothing in the K series is new? What's i-VTEC then? The K series is the first Honda series of engines to utilize i-VTEC. Nothing new eh? Oops!
Looks like you need to get your "sh*t" straight