running cost for vetc

what_car

JHMEG wrote: »

Ironically (speaking of people who don't understand;)), the video you quoted is of the new 1.8 iVTEC, which is a SOHC. All valves are operated by a single camshaft. On the other hand your Accord has a DOHC engine. Intake and exhaust valves are on seperate camshafts. The 1.8 has an economy lobe, (harking back to the JDB D15B in the JDM Civic 'VTI') whereas your Accord does not. The 1.8 has a variable volume induction system, your Accord does not.

They about as different as petrol engines can be! Or at least the valvetrains are.

I owned a 2.0 Accord Coupe (auto) for a while. Very very comfy, not sporty. I also drove the original 2.4 Type-S, 190bhp, bodykit, 6-speed. Very quick and very comfy. Not really a driver's car either.

I also owned a dohc vtec Integra. No comparison. Not comfy. Loud stock induction system. Fantastic driver's car. Super communicative. You could nearly tell the colour of the road surface from the feedback through the steering.

It's really driver's car vs comfy car at the end of the day.

EDIT: The VTEC idea is quite simple:
To get more power you need to burn more fuel (simple idea). You can burn more fuel by either a) larger displacement, b) forced induction creating artifically larger displacement, or c) spinning faster.
Spinning faster, increasing the burn rate, requires more air. This is where VTEC comes in. Open valves wider and for longer at higher rpm and hey presto, more air can get in. So why not do it across the rev range? Look at videos on youtube of cars with Toda VTEC Killers installed (Camshafts that simulate the high cam being constantly activated, ie vtec is always "on"). The cars are not driveable due to wrong mix of air and fuel at low rpm and the fuel economy would be sh1t. Such is the nature of petrol engines.

woops wrong link.. posted... ill post the one i was looking at when i find it again

what_car

[QUOTE=JHMEG; I also drove the original 2.4 Type-S, 190bhp, bodykit, 6-speed. Very quick and very comfy. Not really a driver's car either.

QUOTE]

can someone tell me what a drivers car is then?

Steve

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm sure everyone in thier BMWs is very impressed at how hard you can press down on your clutch

My bad:o
Did you not know that you drive vtechs with your legs crossed...

Atomic Pineapple

my integra tank holds €45 petrol at 1.17c per litre and that gets exactly 200miles of mixed driving, using the vtec quite a bit for overtaking, i drive about 50 miles a day. what a great car to drive it really is the definition of a drivers car

Biro

what_car wrote: »

[QUOTE=JHMEG; I also drove the original 2.4 Type-S, 190bhp, bodykit, 6-speed. Very quick and very comfy. Not really a driver's car either.

QUOTE]

can someone tell me what a drivers car is then?

In some ways that's like saying "Can someone tell me what a good opera is".
If you don't know, you'll never know really. Some people just don't get the whole concept and feel of an involving chassis or steering feed back. People have opinions on what they like to drive, and that's fine, but that doesn't make it a good drivers car. It's like music in a way... you might like west life, but that doesn't mean that your taste is dictating what's good and what's not. You might be shown a good opera by music critics, but that doesn't mean you'll like it.

--amadeus--

Couldn't agree more in lots of ways. Two people might disagree totally over what is a good drivers car - I might argue that anything with FWD for example isn't a true drivers car (possible torque steer and dulling of steering feedback vs RWD) and others would point to something like the 205GTi (or some of teh Jap cars) as examples of cars that can feel good and still be FWD.

But I think that there are general things that all "drivers cars" have that set them out from "ordinary" cars

- Better power to weight ratio. Drivers car's aren't all about power. Look at the Lotus Elise, but a good power to weight ratio is essential to give good performance

- Good roadholding. Generally this will mean a stiffer suspension than a standard car and allows the driver to take corners with less body roll

- Communication. This is linked to roadholding and suspension but is a lot more. You want to feel what the car is doing and be able to sense through your hands on teh wheel and your bum on the seat exactly how much grip each tyre has. Drive a really communicative car (non power steering fitted RWD will qualify, Mazda MX5, Lotus Elise that sort of thing) and you'll be amazed at the amount of feedback you get.

- Focus. Less important but a drivers car is usually designed as such. As a result it often is less comfortable or les practical than it's stablemates. Usually the more single minded a company have been on making a drivers car the worse it is at everything else and the better it is on the road. Compare an MX5 to a BMW 3 series Coupe. On the surface both are sports cars but the MX5 is built to feel good on teh road wheras the BM has to be comfrortable on motorways, hold 4 adults, have luggage space, have a certain amount of toys, etc. Which do you think is the better drivers car?

I would argue that there is also an "X Factor" to it - good drivers cars make you want to get in and drive, take the long way home and leave you getting out with a big grin. They make you look out your bedroom window last thing at night and smile at them in a way that a Micra never will!

Atomic Pineapple

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I would argue that there is also an "X Factor" to it - good drivers cars make you want to get in and drive, take the long way home and leave you getting out with a big grin. They make you look out your bedroom window last thing at night and smile at them in a way that a Micra never will!

Definatly!

I share a lift to college and we alternate who drives on different days, currently sitting in college wishing I had brought my car so i could enjoy the drive home, I feel like this everytime I get a lift

JHMEG

There's no real definition for what a driver's car is. In my opinion it is one that alomost overloads the drivers senses with feedback. A car where you can feel everything. Not necessarily good grip or anything else like that.

The Integra does the above, as well has having massive grip, great engine, great body control etc, predictable handling. It puts a lot of RWD cars to shame.

Biro wrote:

In some ways that's like saying "Can someone tell me what a good opera is".
If you don't know, you'll never know really.

Not true. You might just never have been. And when you've been, you'll know;)

Biro

Funny thing about grip in line with handling... while grip is important, the guy in Mazda who was designing the new MX5 wanted it to have no more grip than the old one. It works, the new one is absolutely fantastic to drive on a track, you just feel everything. If it had more grip, it may feel a bit too safe until you over stepped the mark, which would be at a higher speed, therefore taking away some of the whole feel of the car and excitement of it.

Green Hornet

I had an Accord 1.8 VTec and on an 80 mile round trip the car was giving 37 mpg. Now have a new Civic saloon 1.8 iVTec and the mpg is actually 42 mpg on the same trip. Those figures are measured from the pump, the computer is a big liar, trying to tell me I'm getting 45 mpg:rolleyes:.

The VTec really needed to be in the higher rev range (>4000 rpm) to achieve reasonable power and was sluggish in the lower rev range.

However, the newer iVTec is much smoother throughout the range. I've been informed that "power" mode is the "normal" mode in the iVTec whereas it was the other way around in the VTec engines. I'm far from an expert so I'm not sure if thats true but there is definitely a big difference between the VTec and iVTec.

Must say though that I think a lot of people do assume that VTec is some super duper boost that you will experience at 4000 rpm and will blow your head off. Thats not true. Sure there is a little boost but I think people overplay the effect.

Honda NEVER break down though.;)

Steve

My 11 year old 2.0L Vtec has roughly the same HP as a new '08 Audi TT 2.0T, and is 100kg lighter.
Somehow I can't justify the extra €40K for the TT..

JHMEG

stevec wrote: »

My 11 year old 2.0L Vtec has roughly the same HP as a new '08 Audi TT 2.0T, and is 100kg lighter.

1997, 200bhp 2.0L... what car is that?

Steve

JHMEG wrote: »

1997, 200bhp 2.0L... what car is that?

FTO GPX

Kingser

well people in t end i got a Civic wit a FULL K20 CONVERSION FROM EP3!! Its going to take few weeks but it'll be worth it!!!:D:D:D.
insurance will be for EP3 also t same for tax! mpg35+ i'm told.
Cheers for all the help!!:)any comments about these K20 Conversions will come in handy!!

JHMEG

stevec wrote: »

FTO GPX

A VTEC FTO.. that's a new one!

Steve

JHMEG wrote: »

A VTEC FTO.. that's a new one!

Same sh1t inside, different make.
Do you have a hoover or a vacuum cleaner?