VTec Engines Overrated?

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

Virtually every modern European performance car is now revving to 8,000rpm and beyond

I mustn't have made myself clear. I don't mind revving high. What I do not like is having to rev the bejaysis out of an engine before it gives me any power. I like lots of torque (not necessarily max torque) at lowish revs

JHMEG wrote: »

One of my favourite American cars, the 7.0L Saleen S7.. peak power is 6,400rpm.

And peak torque at about 4k rpm. Typical figures for many N/A V8 engines, including my 22 year old one! (and again similar enough to both other N/A V8 petrol cars I have owned before the current one). Their love of V8 petrol engines is the other thing that the Americans got right

A VTEC doesn't deliver max power (or torque!) until what, 7-8k rpm?

JHMEG wrote: »

Better get re-acquianted with those rpms again there, Unkel

No need. See there ^^^. The future is looking good

Biro

E92 wrote: »

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?

Nope... I'm telling you Fiat have great inventions, Honda make them into great engines!
BMW copy, and to be fair, they do alright most of the time!!

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

And peak torque at about 4k rpm.

Great for pulling trailers... something you wouldn't be doing in an S7.;)

A VTEC doesn't deliver max power (or torque!) until what, 7-8k rpm?

Compare to:
BMW M3 peak power at 8,300rpm
Audi RS4 peak power at 7,800rpm
Ferrari F430 peak power at 8,500rpm
BMW M5/M6 peak power at 7,750rpm

ZiabR

JHMEG wrote: »

Compare to:
BMW M3 peak power at 8,300rpm
Audi RS4 peak power at 7,800rpm
Ferrari F430 peak power at 8,500rpm
BMW M5/M6 peak power at 7,750rpm

As stated above. People seem to forget we are talking about performance engines. They are both designed and built to run at RPM in excess of 7k RPM. The engine can handle it without a problem, some people are afraid to actually use the high RPM in a performance car for fear of damage.

You are supposed to rev them high in the first place, thats the difference between them and a normal engine.

With a Mugen ECU in a Vtec and other such ECU's the Vtec can hit 11k rpm, i have personally seen this and where it would not be the best thing for the engine, the engine WILL work without problems.

Your engine only goes to a certain RPM at factory settings, but remember, all performance engines CAN and WILL work higher than the standard setup can offer.

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

Compare to:
BMW M3 peak power at 8,300rpm
Audi RS4 peak power at 7,800rpm
Ferrari F430 peak power at 8,500rpm
BMW M5/M6 peak power at 7,750rpm

All those cars have V8 / V10 engines. Most have peak torque around 4k rpm

And let's put the comparison in perspective, shall we? Those supercars have roughly 400-500NM of torque at 4k rpm and plenty before that. They have 400-500BHP power at high revs but plenty of power before that

Comparing those supercars to a 4-pot VTEC hot hatch like a DC5 Integra Type-R leaves the latter a bit lacking with only 200NM and about 217BHP neither of which are available until nearly twice those kind of revs

Hats off to Honda for producing a small engine that can take all those revs all the time. Superb engines, don't get me wrong and I doubt anyone can say anything bad about them. On a racing track they sure punch above their weight (engine size). It's just that some people seem to think these cars can compete with much more powerful, faster (AWD / RWD) and bigger engined cars that is a bit staggering tbh

unkel

logik wrote: »

some people are afraid to actually use the high RPM in a performance car for fear of damage

I've seen people refer to the likes of them with terms like "snob", "poseur" or much worse

Personally, I like them. They buy new cars that one day, in the semi-distant future, I might own

Mayshine

JHMEG wrote: »

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.

A lot of people on the US S2k forums have altered the final drive for just that reason. It makes a big difference to acceleration but makes the car even more of a pain on the long journeys

Mayshine

unkel wrote: »

I mustn't have made myself clear. I don't mind revving high. What I do not like is having to rev the bejaysis out of an engine before it gives me any power. I like lots of torque (not necessarily max torque) at lowish revs



And peak torque at about 4k rpm. Typical figures for many N/A V8 engines, including my 22 year old one! (and again similar enough to both other N/A V8 petrol cars I have owned before the current one). Their love of V8 petrol engines is the other thing that the Americans got right

A VTEC doesn't deliver max power (or torque!) until what, 7-8k rpm?



No need. See there ^^^. The future is looking good

This is another fallacy - Peak torque is indeed high 7500rpm on the S2000 but you get 88% of peak torque at 2000rpm and 94% at 3000rpm. It has just as much torque in the 2000-5000rpm range an any other 4pot petrol

Have a look - http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2005/s2000/image/photo/05.jpg

I would image the JDM Civic Type R (FD2) with the newer 225Hp DOHC iVTEC engine would be even better

unkel

Mayshine wrote: »

This is another fallacy - Peak torque is indeed high 7500rpm on the S2000 but you get 88% of peak torque at 2000rpm and 94% at 3000rpm. It has just as much torque in the 2000-5000rpm range an any other 4pot petrol

Thanks for sharing that, Mayshine. That's flatter than I thought it would be. Fact remains though that because it is only a small capacity N/A 4-pot engine, the torque (max or 94% of max) is low so to get the power you need the revs.

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

Thanks for sharing that, Mayshine. That's flatter than I thought it would be. Fact remains though that because it is only a small capacity N/A 4-pot engine, the torque (max or 94% of max) is low so to get the power you need the revs.

Unkel, I drew my comparison *only* for the purpose of showing that all fast cars these days rev. I didn't mention anything about torque or power.

Of course a 2.0L is not going to have the torque of a 4.2 or 7.0L or whatever. But in fairness it's only you that keeps pointing this out, as if it is some sort of weakness.

Mayshine

unkel wrote: »

Thanks for sharing that, Mayshine. That's flatter than I thought it would be. Fact remains though that because it is only a small capacity N/A 4-pot engine, the torque (max or 94% of max) is low so to get the power you need the revs.

The car only weighs about 1250kg, so it might be low relative to bigger engines, but bigger engines are usually on heavier cars. So the V8 torque has to work more to lug the weight about. Since it small engine I get the inherent benfits of less weight and better distribution. It can be positioned behind the front axle so helping the handling too. A big V8 out front is not going to aid weight distribution. But I am digressing from the point

You would also probably be surprised how nippy it is below 6k as I think you seem to think it drives like a 1 litre micra

Anyway your point is equally valid on a v8 too. More revs on the V8 = more power and that is what BMW and Audi seem to be doing. Mercedes seem to like displacement more though...

At the end of the day VTEC is just a technology to get better engine breathing at high revs.

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

it's only you that keeps pointing this out

Other people as well but you refuse to read their posts

JHMEG wrote: »

as if it is some sort of weakness.

No weakness and if you re-read my posts you'll see nothing but praise for VTEC engines, unless one compares them to bigger engines. No surprise here

Of course it is unfair to compare a €50k 2l car with €100k 4l new car. But the key point C_Breeze was making imho was that second hand (say 8 years old) the total cost of ownership of those two cars could be very similar. Now all of a sudden it is fair to compare them!


@Mayshine - you don't need to convince me the S2000 is a great car. I'd love driving it around a track until I broke

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

the key point C_Breeze was making imho was that second hand (say 8 years old) the total cost of ownership of those two cars could be very similar. Now all of a sudden it is fair to compare them!

How many 8 yo 4.0L cars are nimble, quick, and can have the stones driven out of them every day of the week?

C_Breeze

JHMEG wrote: »

How many 8 yo 4.0L cars are nimble, quick, and can have the stones driven out of them every day of the week?

Why 4.0L - dont be so extreme.

...realistically speaking, why not a 320i or 325i e36? - whose total cost of ownership could easily be compared to the total cost of ownership of any Civic or integra Vti/Sir. should you have X amount of money to spend on that type of car.

I don't know whether youre missing the point because it hasn't been articulated enough for you or whether the fanboy inside you is refusing to read and understand a logical argument/point that is being made.

miss enzo

kill-joy wrote: »

forget v-tec get yourself a mi-vec, mitsubishi are just as good as honda if not better when it comes to preformance

yeah i agree mivec rocks! but i would say that since i have a v6 mivec fto!

now if he see's this he will deny it but my finance says that he prefers the noise out of my engine to his vti civic!!

deffo the sound of a v6 mivec is WAY nicer than that of any vtec...

as for performance i reckon they are both on par.... i mean out of a standard (11yr old car) im gettin 200bhp from a 2l v6 engine!

JHMEG

C_Breeze wrote: »

Why 4.0L - dont be so extreme.

...realistically speaking, why not a 320i or 325i e36?

Ok that's enough of that post.

Why not get an auld family saloon instead of a DC2...:rolleyes: And you reckon you could happily drive the stones out of it every day? :rolleyes:

Did you get spanked by a Honda when you were a kid or something? That's some chip on the shoulder you have... you'll be on my ignore list soon enough at this rate.

Biro

miss enzo wrote: »

deffo the sound of a v6 mivec is WAY nicer than that of any vtec...

You are wrong.

colm_mcm

Biro wrote: »

You are wrong.

I can't think of any VTEC that sounds as good as a 6 cyl MIVEC. which one had you in mind?
sounds are pretty subjective, but IMO a 6 cylinder car will always have a nicer note than a 4 cyl, and the exhaust note of the MIVEC V6 is quite unusual, never heard anything quite like it.

Biro

colm_mcm wrote: »

I can't think of any VTEC that sounds as good as a 6 cyl MIVEC. which one had you in mind?
sounds are pretty subjective, but IMO a 6 cylinder car will always have a nicer note than a 4 cyl, and the exhaust note of the MIVEC V6 is quite unusual, never heard anything quite like it.

NSX 3 litre V6 V-Tec, also 3.2 litre V6 V-Tec. Best sounding engine I've had the pleasure of hearing. Better even than a Ferrari 3.4 V8 and a Porsche 997 Carerra S flat 6. (not that they sounded bad!)

msg11

I have a mivec just to add in my piece on the thread.

I could have got a vtec , but I choose to get a mivec for the simple fact they are fairly rare (in the stance of stickers on the side of every civic you see).

That's why I bought one, and I left it totally stock, I enjoy driving it around, no attention brought to myself or people up your arse all the time.

Vtec is a really great system, same as the mivec, driving in normal as in lower revs most of the time, you get around quite a lot with out having too fill up thanks to the system.

It is over used, sure just look on the insurance websites online, they wont quote most people on civics in around the 1.6 but theres rarely any hassle with mitsu (thats just my quotes) !

It is more, over used by people than over rated, because saying that it is over rated is not justice for a great system.

C_Breeze

JHMEG wrote: »

Ok that's enough of that post.

Why not get an auld family saloon instead of a DC2...:rolleyes: And you reckon you could happily drive the stones out of it every day? :rolleyes:

Did you get spanked by a Honda when you were a kid or something? That's some chip on the shoulder you have... you'll be on my ignore list soon enough at this rate.

And a Honda Civic doesnt qualify as an "auld family saloon"? :rolleyes:

cough*OAP*cough

Anyway, im not a complete honda-basher ... although admitedly it does give me some satisfaction how it seems to grate on you - i just think its funny how you can be such a fanboy.

I think the current Accorrd saloons are fantastic and so are the DC2 and DC5 typeR's - if that's what your into.

I also think Glanzas are good engineering and have fanatstic engines and power for a 1.3 engine but would still never be caught dead in one let alone buy one.

I just gave my opinion - objective and subjective - and stated that its a matter of prefference and driving style ..whether you like to rev the nuts off a small cc engine or just plant the foot on a larger displacement 6 or 8 cylinder engine it all comes down to taste and prefference ... and at the end of the day each person has their own.

sinlessgunner

Had to answer this thread. I own a Mitsubishi FTO MIVEC and it's a far better than a Vtec. IMO the FTO is a car that sounds, looks and performs twice as well as a Vtec. Fair enough some of the VTec engines out there are certainly not to be sniffed at but I am friends with a few people who own Vtec Civics and the like and all, I repeat, ALL of them who have taken my car for a drive have admitted that it is an all around better machine!

Biro

sinlessgunner wrote: »

Had to answer this thread. I own a Mitsubishi FTO MIVEC and it's a far better than a Vtec. IMO the FTO is a car that sounds, looks and performs twice as well as a Vtec. Fair enough some of the VTec engines out there are certainly not to be sniffed at but I am friends with a few people who own Vtec Civics and the like and all, I repeat, ALL of them who have taken my car for a drive have admitted that it is an all around better machine!

I'm sorry, but your post is a load of drivel. If you own a Mivec Colt (Cyborg I think they were), or Mivec Lancer, (1.6) then you can compare your Mivec to the equivelant Civic V-tec, namely the Civic vti (3dr or saloon, depending on which is being paired with which).
If you're driving an FTO Mivec 2 litre V6, then you can only compare to the Honda equivelant, which is probably the Prelude Type S 2.2 v-tec.
What would you say to someone who took their Type S Prelude and whipped a Mivec Lancer and told you afterwards "Ah sure Mivec is pure crap, I'm after whipping one with a v-tec - therefore all mivecs are way worse than v-tecs"?

Steve

Biro wrote: »

I'm sorry, but your post is a load of drivel. If you own a Mivec Colt (Cyborg I think they were), or Mivec Lancer, (1.6) then you can compare your Mivec to the equivelant Civic V-tec, namely the Civic vti (3dr or saloon, depending on which is being paired with which).
If you're driving an FTO Mivec 2 litre V6, then you can only compare to the Honda equivelant, which is probably the Prelude Type S 2.2 v-tec.
What would you say to someone who took their Type S Prelude and whipped a Mivec Lancer and told you afterwards "Ah sure Mivec is pure crap, I'm after whipping one with a v-tec - therefore all mivecs are way worse than v-tecs"?

Who gives a phuq - biro you seem to have an issue with mitsi's, get over it.
Vtec was invented first, mivec was an improvement on it. which is better - Im afraid to answer cause I'd get mugged.
I own a FTO mivec and love it, I've driven civics, preludes and integras and IMO they don't cut the mustard for several reasons - I've also driven other mitsi's and would say the same thing.
The FTO was designed to compete with the Celica GT and it succeeded.
IMO the FTO has the sweetest sounding engine in it's class - honda's all sound like bikes.
If you want to compare, then the type r Teg is the nearest. Fto looks better, sounds better - which is faster?? who cares.

ZiabR

I kinda have to laugh at this thread, the fact it is still alive.

Especially when it was started with someone with a SOHC engine and not the DOHC engine. He was making a statement in relation to the SOHC engines and we have blown the thread out of proportion :P.

As i have said already, i am driving a Teg Type R putting out about 235BHP (Mugen Coilovers, Mugen Exhaust System, Induction Kit, etc) and i personally love the engine. You get the power at roughly 5k all the way to 9k rpm but you also get a beautiful car and one that is not extremely heavy on Petrol.

With the DOHC Vtec you get the best of many worlds in respect to looks, performance, fuel economy, reliability and its a Honda .

Masada

sinlessgunner wrote: »

Had to answer this thread. I own a Mitsubishi FTO MIVEC and it's a far better than a Vtec. IMO the FTO is a car that sounds, looks and performs twice as well as a Vtec. Fair enough some of the VTec engines out there are certainly not to be sniffed at but I am friends with a few people who own Vtec Civics and the like and all, I repeat, ALL of them who have taken my car for a drive have admitted that it is an all around better machine!

thats a very vague opinion you have there, how could an FTO MIVEC be better than a "VTEC"? a VTEC is an engine, not a car so you should be comparing cars of similar spec which also have "VTEC" engines, ive never been much of a fan of anything mitsubishi to be honest, there not al that reliable and even in the regualer cars like the lancer and colt 1.3 they are severly sluggish wheras a 1.3 civic will be a lot nippyier., i have a Lancer GLX myself and in a couple of days im getting a mivec colt from a mate for my brother but i wont be getting rid of the hondas anytime soon.. a car should be judged on its all round package and not "well this has a better such and such", its no supprise that honda's are bulletproof as far as reliability goes and per size of engine they pack a lot of power so for me they are a much prefered over similar cars by mitsubishi etc.,

--amadeus--

vtec wrote: »

...a VTEC is an engine, not a car...

I'll probably get yelled at for being pedantic, but hey...

A VTEC is NOT an engine. It is an engine technology, specifically it is a sophisticated valvetrain system designed to allow engineers to give an engine two otherwise conflicting personalities. A more traditional engine tuned for high RPM power would typically run quite poorly at low engine speeds, an optimal cam profile for smooth and efficient low RPM operation results in cylynders being underfueled at high RPM. Altering the duration and lift of teh valves by altering the cam profile moves you from one end of this spectrum to the other.

VTEC solves this by having two cam lobes and the cars electronics decide which one actuates teh valves depending on RPM. This gives good low rpm performance and efficiency and ensures the correct fuel / air mixtue hits the cylinders at high rpm. I have very little interest in Japanses cars but my understanding is that MIVEC operates in exactly the same way, using different cam profiles. They are the SAME THING.

Arguing about which is better is a bit like arguing who has teh better direct injection diesel system - nerdy and a bit pointless. Especially since the entire engine is only one element to a cars performance - weight, drag and gearing all have a huge part to play. If you think that AN Other Honda is faster than AN Other Mitsubishi because of VTEC you're wrong. It may be faster but it's about a lot more than how long the valves are open for above 4500 rpm. And the variable timing can only go so far - a small but sophisticated engine will never match a larger capacity engine for power output.

Biro

stevec wrote: »

Who gives a phuq - biro you seem to have an issue with mitsi's, get over it.
Vtec was invented first, mivec was an improvement on it. which is better - Im afraid to answer cause I'd get mugged.
I own a FTO mivec and love it, I've driven civics, preludes and integras and IMO they don't cut the mustard for several reasons - I've also driven other mitsi's and would say the same thing.
The FTO was designed to compete with the Celica GT and it succeeded.
IMO the FTO has the sweetest sounding engine in it's class - honda's all sound like bikes.
If you want to compare, then the type r Teg is the nearest. Fto looks better, sounds better - which is faster?? who cares.

He obviously gives a "phuq", and you obviously do.
I'm just sick of stupid posts giving opinions based on unfair comparisons.
And as for the "which is faster?? who cares" comment, some people do. I don't, but it's a deciding factor for plenty of people.
I never said a Mivec FTO V6 sounds bad. It sounds better than all the I4 V-tecs.

miss enzo

Biro wrote: »

You are wrong.

you obv havent hear a v6 fto at 4.5k/ 5.5k and 7.5k revs! there is NOTHIN like it! the noise has so many different tones and pitches! no honda would give u that kinda sound! believe me i have had MANY honda ppl tell me that its a CLASS sound!

miss enzo

Biro wrote: »

If you're driving an FTO Mivec 2 litre V6, then you can only compare to the Honda equivelant, which is probably the Prelude Type S 2.2 v-tec.

i have driven an Sir prelude actually (i do believe thats one up from the type s) and i way prefer my FTO! the pick-up is WAY better in the Mitsi, the lude took WAY longer to get up thru the revs! if i couldnt for some reason have the fto id buy an s-type. id still pick the fto first tho, on styling, acceleration, and engine noise!