VTec Engines Overrated?

JHMEG

C_Breeze wrote: »

VTEC albeit good engineering and technology is a bit pointless imho.

Enough said. I don't need to read the rest of this post.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

The Mondeo is a 1.6, and in the UK is available in 123 bhp guise. BMWs 1.6 engine has 122 bhp these days too. Their 2.0 has 170 bhp(143 bhp version is also available)

All of the above are DOHC, btw. So.. the Honda does the same thing, but with just one camshaft.

JHMEG

kceire wrote: »

Thats what im saying, i have never seen a 1.6 mivec reach its quoted power figures of 175bhp!

I think you're being a bit hard on the MIVEC engines. I don't a have a huge pile of experience with them, but it was all good. The altering of the intake and exhaust valve lift and timing independently (unlike VTEC, which does both at the same time) is a nice feature. I don't know if it makes any real difference to performance but it sounds good.

Have driven a few 100 miles in a '94 Cyborg ZR (4G92) and it was a hoot. Old school, a bit like my XSi Integra.

Gumbo

JHMEG wrote: »

I think you're being a bit hard on the MIVEC engines. I don't a have a huge pile of experience with them, but it was all good. The altering of the intake and exhaust valve lift and timing independently (unlike VTEC, which does both at the same time) is a nice feature. I don't know if it makes any real difference to performance but it sounds good.

Have driven a few 100 miles in a '94 Cyborg ZR (4G92) and it was a hoot. Old school, a bit like my XSi Integra.

as i said in my previous posts, i think they are a great engine, i just think vtec is ahead of it. nothing against them honest, i had one before

Mayshine

JHMEG - for you

The gear ratios on the S2000 are below. They are probably calculated at 9200rpm so you would usually change up a little sooner. Peak power at 8300ish

Max speed per gear:
1: 44mph;
2: 67mph;
3: 93mph;
4: 118mph;
5: 142mph;
6: Top Speed/170mph

Final drive ratio: 4.756 (4.1 * 1.16).

The interesting thing is I can put it in 4th at 25mph and pull all the way to 118. Perfectly smooth and quick. Thats what I would call in-gear flexibility

Steve

Mayshine wrote: »

The interesting thing is I can put it in 4th at 25mph and pull all the way to 118. Perfectly smooth and quick. Thats what I would call in-gear flexibility

Clarkson tried that in an Evo VIII in an 2004 Top Gear episode (was on yesterday on Dave)

Went from 30mph rolling start in 4th against a 1.6 rental car
(Daewoo or something?, can't remember.)

The Evo LOST!! - ran out of track before it got to boost range.

Biro

C_Breeze wrote: »

VTEC albeit good engineering and technology is a bit pointless imho.

I've owned one and driven many (DOHC VTEC's) - great engines, reliability and all that jazz but just not my cup of tea.

I fail to see the point.

Lets use a 1.6 VTI 1997 for example...

Firstly its way overpriced to buy because of that stupid YO I GOT VTEKKK !!!!111one mentality

Secondly yes they are powerfull - but this is only relative to its engine size (1600cc) - why do people place so much emphasis on this? ... if you want power why not buy a bigger engine???

Some guy i know drove a 97 VTI ... as usual paid an overpriced amount of money for it and obviously got raped by insurance...

sold it and bought himself an e36 320i .... Bigger engine , more power (although admitedly not as fast because it isnt made out of recycled sardine cans:rolleyes: ) much nicer car, much nicer power delivery and spanked any VTI once it got going on a motorway - Also CHEAPER to insure

So the only real advantage of the vti was the engine size ... but the main advantage of small cc is obviously cheaper insurance - but it doesnt make a difference with insurance in this case because DOHC VTECS get loaded anyway.

The premium he paid for the BMW Tax and petrol could easily have been offset by the saving he made on insurance - and he is driving a much nicer car, with 6 cyinders, more power and better image.

He admited that VTEC is just a gimick and the novelty wears off quite quickly .... unlike a 6cylinder RWD for the same price.

...With that said , at the end of the day it all comes down to whatever floats your boat - but YES ... VTEC is definitely overrated.

Your arguement is pointless. I could buy a Prelude vti, 2.2 v-tec and then beat the 320Ci in a race, AND be comfortable on the motorway, and save on insurance and save a lot on buying the car in the first place.
A DC2 ITR is 1.8 with something around the 185bhp (UK model) if I'm not mistaken. They're a stripped out racer with no comfort and exceptional handling. The 2.2 vti Prelude is 197bhp, and is a comfort based model, similar performance in a straight line, not as quick around the track. Different cars for different buyers.

Everyone here bashing v-tec is basing their arguements on the 1.6 brigade of civic drivers who boast about their power. Half of them muppets don't even have DOHC v-tec models, so don't heed them. People talk crap, and most people think their own car is quick. Civic drivers, Nova SRI drivers and Golf TDi drivers seem to do the most mouthing over anyone, but take all that with a pinch of salt.
Remember this though, V-Tec is good! If you need proof, get a spin in an NSX and remember that the engine was designed in the 80's.

Gumbo

stevec wrote: »

Clarkson tried that in an Evo VIII in an 2004 Top Gear episode (was on yesterday on Dave)

Went from 30mph rolling start in 4th against a 1.6 rental car
(Daewoo or something?, can't remember.)

The Evo LOST!! - ran out of track before it got to boost range.

yep, that was an FQ400 model.
nothing then all hell breaks loose when the turbo kicks in!

great great car if your in the right gear at the right RPM. the FQ360 is a much better car for real world driving adn not too much slower round a track.

E92

Biro wrote: »

Remember this though, V-Tec is good! If you need proof, get a spin in an NSX and remember that the engine was designed in the 80's.

Don't forget that BMW made 3.0 engines with 286 bhp back in the days of the NSX(E36 M3, not sure when it was designed though, but it's based on the M50 which came out in '91, so I'm sure they started designing it in the 80s!), and now they have an engine designed for luxury saloons with no forced induction yet still has 272 bhp from it's 3.0 litre engine, more than the first NSX which had 270 bhp I note:D.

And there was no VTEC in sight either;).

It does 0-100 in 5 seconds or thereabouts, which shows how much of an enemy weight is to speed.

JHMEG

Mayshine wrote: »

JHMEG - for you

The gear ratios on the S2000 are below.

I would re-ratio that gearbox if I owned it. 1st, 2nd and 3rd are too long imo. Actually I'm pretty sure Honda gave the US-only 2.2L S2000 shorter gears.

For what it's worth, the DA6 would pull from 25mph (1500rpm) all the way to the speed limiter at 115mph (7500rpm) in 5th gear. Having a top gear that short did nothing for fuel economy.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Don't forget that BMW made 3.0 engines with 286 bhp back in the days of the NSX

Trying to find the 1989/1990 BMW you speak of?

cpoh1

C_Breeze wrote: »

VTEC albeit good engineering and technology is a bit pointless imho.

I've owned one and driven many (DOHC VTEC's) - great engines, reliability and all that jazz but just not my cup of tea.

I fail to see the point.

Lets use a 1.6 VTI 1997 for example...

Firstly its way overpriced to buy because of that stupid YO I GOT VTEKKK !!!!111one mentality

Secondly yes they are powerfull - but this is only relative to its engine size (1600cc) - why do people place so much emphasis on this? ... if you want power why not buy a bigger engine???

Some guy i know drove a 97 VTI ... as usual paid an overpriced amount of money for it and obviously got raped by insurance...

sold it and bought himself an e36 320i .... Bigger engine , more power (although admitedly not as fast because it isnt made out of recycled sardine cans:rolleyes: ) much nicer car, much nicer power delivery and spanked any VTI once it got going on a motorway - Also CHEAPER to insure

So the only real advantage of the vti was the engine size ... but the main advantage of small cc is obviously cheaper insurance - but it doesnt make a difference with insurance in this case because DOHC VTECS get loaded anyway.

The premium he paid for the BMW Tax and petrol could easily have been offset by the saving he made on insurance - and he is driving a much nicer car, with 6 cyinders, more power and better image.

He admited that VTEC is just a gimick and the novelty wears off quite quickly .... unlike a 6cylinder RWD for the same price.

...With that said , at the end of the day it all comes down to whatever floats your boat - but YES ... VTEC is definitely overrated.

You are living in dreamland dude. Nobodies going to take you seriously with rubbish like that.

The b16a (ive owned 2 of them in previous cars) has this over your 320i:

Better on juice (35mpg)
Cheaper to tax
MORE power (170hp as opposed to the 320's 150)
More reliable

VTEC makes perfect sense, you get super fuel economy under normal driving conditions and tax/insurance costs (my cars were always very cheap to insure) with a nice power band high up the rev range when required. They dont have too much torque but they dont need it with their close ratio gears
and light enough frame.

Mivec is pretty similar except the actuator solenoid for the mivec mechanism is inside the rocker cover and its not as reliable because of it. Bottom ends are softer too but then main difference on the road is the gearbox the mivecs use have longer ratios than the b16/18 and theyre slower as a result.

Steve

cpoh1 wrote: »

Mivec is pretty similar except the actuator solenoid for the mivec mechanism is inside the rocker cover and its not as reliable because of it. Bottom ends are softer too but then main difference on the road is the gearbox the mivecs use have longer ratios than the b16/18 and theyre slower as a result.

Mivec doesn't just come in 1.6 you know - it seems to be the consesus that the 1.6 Mivec in the Colt is crap - fair enough.
Would you say the same about the Evo engine or the FTO V6 (which has hydraulic lifters)?

Gumbo

stevec wrote: »

Mivec doesn't just come in 1.6 you know - it seems to be the consesus that the 1.6 Mivec in the Colt is crap - fair enough.
Would you say the same about the Evo engine or the FTO V6 (which has hydraulic lifters)?

dont forget they didnt use mivec technology in the Evo engine until the Evo 9 in 2006 iirc.

Gumbo

stevec wrote: »

Mivec doesn't just come in 1.6 you know - it seems to be the consesus that the 1.6 Mivec in the Colt is crap - fair enough.
Would you say the same about the Evo engine or the FTO V6 (which has hydraulic lifters)?

actually i would like a spin in a V6 FTO as ive never been in one and i do know that there is a world of difference between the 1.6 vtec and 1.8 vtec so maybe the mivec in the 2 litre version is ok. they do have 200 bhp afterall i suppose.

Biro

E92 wrote: »

Don't forget that BMW made 3.0 engines with 286 bhp back in the days of the NSX(E36 M3, not sure when it was designed though, but it's based on the M50 which came out in '91, so I'm sure they started designing it in the 80s!), and now they have an engine designed for luxury saloons with no forced induction yet still has 272 bhp from it's 3.0 litre engine, more than the first NSX which had 270 bhp I note:D.

And there was no VTEC in sight either;).

It does 0-100 in 5 seconds or thereabouts, which shows how much of an enemy weight is to speed.

The NSX engine was around before the E36 M3 engine was. The E36 has Vanos technology, which is variable valve timing from BMW. Honda were second with mass produced variable valve timing, Fiat actually pioneered it. BMW saw Honda making it work so well and copied! The M3 engine has a small number of known weak points, the Honda has no known weak points. The Honda engine sounds far, far better on full song.
And you're right, the 3 litre N/A is now impressive from BMW, but it came out only recently, 2005 at the very earliest, and that's 15 years later! 9 years ago Honda had 237bhp from a 2 litre N/A.
Moral of the story - BMW make excellent engines, but Honda make better ones!

E92

Mother of Jesus.

C_Breeze has said something that has all the Hondmentalists up in arms.

Ye're all telling him that HE IS WRONG. Ever heard of people having different opinions? Maybe people might respect C-Breezes opinion. Disagree all you want, far from not wanting people to disagree, I'm all for people giving opinions, but some peoples "opinions" are the "I'm right and you're wrong because you don't agree with what I'm saying" type.

I'm not getting into an argument about whether VTEC is good, bad or indifferent, because I haven't driven a VTEC Honda, and therefore I'll reserve my judgement until such time as I drive a proper VTEC Honda(i.e. a DOHC one) but people need to live a little here and realise that not everyone thinks VTEC is so wonderful. I realise that C-Breeze is exaggerating re power, I know that loads of DOHC VTEC Hondas would eat a 320i for breakfast in terms of all the extra power(and because they're so much lighter, they would of course eat a 320i in 0-60 you name it), but there is more to an engine than power.

@cpoh1: the 320i has a 2.0 6 cylinder engine, and as you presumably know, 6 cylinder engines by default are much heavier on fuel. The 320i is a much heavier car than a Honda with a B16A1 engine too(kerb weight of the newest Honda with the engine, the EJ Civic is only 1052 kg, according to Wikipedia, the BMW's kerb weight is 1315 kg, which unquestionably gives the Honda an even bigger advantage on the fuel economy and performance front.

All this considered, 35 mpg is either piss poor for a 1.6 in a really light car, or the 30 mpg from the big and heavy 320i is very good.

BMW engines are by and large very reliable, yes there are some that are bad, we all know about the Nikasil problem, and the 320d is noted for eating turbos too, but most BMWs have a very hard life because they tend to get a lot of enthusiastic drivers driving them. That definately doesn't help reliability, but you can't blame BMW for the way people treat their cars(no they're not Honda reliable, but at the same time how many cars are;)?)!

E92

Biro wrote: »

The NSX engine was around before the E36 M3 engine was. The E36 has Vanos technology, which is variable valve timing from BMW. Honda were second with mass produced variable valve timing, Fiat actually pioneered it. BMW saw Honda making it work so well and copied! The M3 engine has a small number of known weak points, the Honda has no known weak points. The Honda engine sounds far, far better on full song.
And you're right, the 3 litre N/A is now impressive from BMW, but it came out only recently, 2005 at the very earliest, and that's 15 years later! 9 years ago Honda had 237bhp from a 2 litre N/A.
Moral of the story - BMW make excellent engines, but Honda make better ones!

VANOS is not VTEC. It's only the VT part of VTEC really:D. No copying from Honda at all!

I had forgotton the fact that it was actually Fiat that invented half of VTEC(the VT part of it). So Honda stole Fiats idea and put in something new and now take credit for something that came from Fiat:D.

And you're telling me that Honda make great engines:p?

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

C_Breeze has said something that has all the Hondmentalists up in arms.

Ye're all telling him that HE IS WRONG. Ever heard of people having different opinions?

C_Breeze is a long standing Honda basher. Mention anything Honda and C_Breeze says it's crap. That's not really valid opinion in my eyes.

cpoh1

E92 wrote: »

@cpoh1: the 320i has a 2.0 6 cylinder engine, and as you presumably know, 6 cylinder engines by default are much heavier on fuel. The 320i is a much heavier car than a Honda with a B16A1 engine too(kerb weight of the newest Honda with the engine, the EJ Civic is only 1052 kg, according to Wikipedia, the BMW's kerb weight is 1315 kg, which unquestionably gives the Honda an even bigger advantage on the fuel economy and performance front.

All this considered, 35 mpg is either piss poor for a 1.6 in a really light car, or the 30 mpg from the big and heavy 320i is very good.

Theyre not that much lighter, my mk2 crx came in at 1130Kg in its uk mot and my mk3 del sol came in at 1180Kg in its NCT test.

I actually think 35mpg is excellent for any 1.6L car mixed driving, I used to regularly get this on mostly short commutes while giving her a good caning regularly. How many cars do you know with 170hp and 35mpg on mostly short journeys?

unkel

Performance VTEC engines (and other similar engines like MIVEC) can rev up to far higher rpms than other engines. This means that the power can be much higher than other same size engines without having to resort to adding turbos etc. 158BHP out of a nearly 20 year old 1.6 car is very impressive indeed

But the real beauty about the VTEC performance engines is that because they are so well made that reliability / longevity is not compromised as it is in many other high revving engines (think F1 engines needing to be replaced every other race or so as an extreme example)

The drawback is that performance is only there when the revs are kept really high (because torque is low). This explains why the MIVEC car lost in that race mentioned above

E92

cpoh1 wrote: »

How many cars do you know with 170hp and 35mpg on mostly short journeys?

Any modern 4 cylinder diesel with 170 or more bhp in say an Avensis or Mondeo would do it in it's sleep.

Actually, a BMW 320i also has 170 bhp and averages 33.6 mpg in urban traffic, and that is a much heavier car with a bigger petrol engine.(of course the EU figures aren't always accurate I realise that)

Any 4 cylinder 1, 3 or 5 series diesel would beat 35 mpg in it's sleep, actually, even the worst model, the 123d averages a claimed 43.5 mpg in urban driving alone, and that car has 204 bhp.

Of course, this is only an EU test, but it's the only thing I have.

Re kerb weight, I got my figure for the most recent Honda with the B16A1 engine from Wikipedia(which they said was the Civic between 96 and 2000, whatever one ye Hondamentalists call that), and I reckoned because every newer version of a car gets heavier, that that was the most any Honda with that engine could weigh. Forgive me for using Wikipedia, I know it's not always right;).

And I repeat the point that any 4 cylinder engine has an inherent advantage over a 6 cylinder engine for fuel consumption no matter what, which is the main reason your VTEC is more fuel efficient than a 6 pot BMW(the weight being the next most important reason).

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

VANOS is not VTEC. It's only the VT part of VTEC really:D. No copying from Honda at all!

VANOS, like SOHC VTEC, only operates on the intake valves. The much later double VANOS operates on both. Although there's really little point in comparing VANOS and VTEC as they're not similar.

E92 wrote: »

I had forgotton the fact that it was actually Fiat that invented half of VTEC

It doesn't really matter who did it first. It matters more who was first to do it right. Fiat did it first but weren't able to do it well enough to put it into mass production.

unkel wrote:

The drawback is that performance is only there when the revs are kept really high

Peak power is up high alright. That's why God gave us gearboxes.:D

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

But the real beauty about the VTEC performance engines is that because they are so well made that reliability / longevity is not compromised as it is in many other high revving engines

Read about stuff like FRM, pioneered in the NSX and carried on in the Prelude, S2000 etc and you'll appreciate that Honda are metallurgical experts.

Steve

unkel wrote: »

The drawback is that performance is only there when the revs are kept really high (because torque is low). This explains why the MIVEC car lost in that race mentioned above

as kceire pointed out the Evo8 didn't have Mivec so it was lack of turbo at low revs - same thing though.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Any modern 4 cylinder diesel with 170

Compare like for like. No modern diesel has any of the characteristics of petrol engines that make petrol engines enjoyable.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

Compare like for like.

cpoh1 said "How many cars do you know with 170hp and 35mpg on mostly short journeys?" and I answered his question. I also gave him an example of a petrol car with 170 bhp too while I was at it.;)

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

Enough said. I don't need to read the rest of this post.

Perhaps you should. C_Breeze is making a point that would be valid for someone considering buying a performance car and is considering a VTEC versus any other car

There is a big premium to be paid to buy a VTEC performance car in this country compared to a car with similar performance but with a bigger engine. You get some of that premium back when you come to resell, but some of it is lost the day you buy it. The latter car costs more in tax and fuel but might cost less to insure due to the insurance loading of performance VTECs

That's the objective side so far. Then there's the subjective side, clearly marked as such by C_Breeze by posting "not my cup of tea".

Back many years ago when I decided I wanted a performance saloon, I drove some relatively powerful 4-pot saloons, one of them a Rover 620TI. It had about 200BHP and even though it had a turbocharger, I found the poke unsatisfactory unless I revved it really high a lot, something I found unpleasant in normal driving. I decided it was time for a car with a bigger engine and more cylinders. The one thing the Americans understand about cars: "there's no replacement for displacement"

Steve

after following this post all day, I just had to unleash some Mivec on the way home:D:D:D

Tootling along at 50kph in 2nd on a dark deserted road, planted the "go" foot and RRROOOOOOOAAAARRRR...... few seconds later 8000revs, 110kmh, changed to third and lifted off (end of quiet deserted road)

Needless to say, I got home with a nice grin.

So to answer the OP's question, is vtech overrated? NO NO NO NO NO!!
[joke](unless you drive a Honda:p)[/joke]

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

There is a big premium to be paid to buy a VTEC performance

In fairness, people are willing to pay a premium for nothing more than a badge. You will pay a premium for a DOHC VTEC, the ITR is a perfect example. No doubt you are getting something for your money (not just a badge) and a lot of owners seem to think it's worth it.

unkel wrote: »

something I found unpleasant in normal driving. I decided it was time for a car with a bigger engine and more cylinders. The one thing the Americans understand about cars: "there's no replacement for displacement"

Virtually every modern European performance car is now revving to 8,000rpm and beyond. One of my favourite American cars, the 7.0L Saleen S7.. peak power is 6,400rpm. Better get re-acquianted with those rpms again there, Unkel. The Americans are even doing it!