-
[QUOTE=zeta]
. And they haven't figured out putting 4 valves on the OHV set up yet. [/QUOTE]
Haven't you figured out that they have figured it out? :D A 4-valve OHV has been in mass-production since 1998, the Cummins ISB (Ward's 10 Best 2004) and Ford Powerstroke 32-valve V8 is OHV
Some versions of Chevrolet's new Gen IV will feature 3-valve per cylinder
-
[quote=henk4]to point out to some person who can get almost violently angry when somebody else makes a reading mistake, that it "can happen"....:D[/quote]
hey ..... "no fair" :D
I get "angry" when there is deliberate avoidance, mis-quoting, distortion and bare faced lying.
Mis-reading can't be an excuse when it's pointed out half a dozen times.
If you want to label me get the label right :D
-
[quote=Slicks]That analogy was terrible.[/quote]
Was it ?
have you used a number of top quality pens ?
I can hold a pen in my hand and feel the blance and knwo if it will be comfortable and look at the nib shape and approximate the writingl :D
Same with cars :D
Get anotehr thread and say how it failed as an aanalogy --- let's keep this one for WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT HONDA !!!
:D
[quote]So under normal daily driving, and cruising around you normally keep the RPMs above 6000RPMs?[/quote]
No, under accelerateion when I NEED the power I do :D
[quote]Heh, can I ask what kind of gas milage you were getting? During daily driving normally you would want to keep the RPMs low as possible to save gas (and keep noise down).[/quote]
erm, THAT all depends on where your engine is most "efficient".
Fast acceleration at full throttle is shown to be optimal for fule efficiency durign acceleration.
Crusing is then just about gearing and for doing 70 you're sitting just under 5000 revs ( remember the top speed :D )
[quote]REVS ARE FINE, as long as you can make power at ALL of them.[/quote]
erm you are forgetting GEARING -- you always do :D
The gear overlap and width are important to use the engine power range.
If you dont' rev to use it you'll always find them slow.
[quote]Read my last reply to you.[/quote]
yeah but you slot in more off-topci BS to Ke.
We dont' jsut read posts addresed to ourselves ... this is a public forum :D
-
[quote=MrKipling]I think the motor operates in 12V mode (rather than 16V) on light throttle apllications, but most (all?) sixteen valve cars do this.
These images show the internal differences pretty well (taken from asia.vtec.net), note the much closer spacing of the valve rockers to facilitate the cam switch.[/quote]
The 12V mode on light throttle you describe is found in the VTEC-E. At sub-2500 RPM the cam profile opens only one of the intake valves. This engine was used in the Civic HX, a high efficiency Civic model.
more detailed explanation here:
[URL="http://www.leecao.com/honda/vtec/sohcvtece.html"]http://www.leecao.com/honda/vtec/sohcvtece.html[/URL]
-
As for the V8 vs I4 comparisons and how the Honda inline 4 lacks torque; how does that not make any sense? So, if Honda through some magical engineering produced a 2 litre four that produces 240 HP and very respectable performance numbers to match, the complaint is that you don't like the way it sounds?
You don't have to like the sound or nature of Honda's high revving engines to realize what masterpieces they are. Ask yourself if your a SBC fan, can GM ever hope of producing an F1 engine or a 600 cc 4-banger that produces 120+ HP in stock trim?
Personally, for normal everyday driving, I'd take a V6 that makes 240 HP rather than the smaller engine that can do the same, just because of the more relaxed nature of the power delivery. But that doesn't take away from what Honda achieved with their F20 and much improved F22 engines. Unlike before Honda offers torquer, lower-revving engines in their more pedestrian cars. The S2K is supposed to be driven at the limit, so no problem with it revving high.
-
[quote=PerfAdv]600 cc 4-banger that produces 120+ HP in stock trim? [/quote]
Or a 998cc producing 250+HP in race trim :D AND 100% reliability too :D :D
-
[QUOTE=sunk]Its 240hp. V-tch allows four bangers to have a lot of hp, but not necessarily torque in a lower range (less than 4000 rpm), where most of us will be driving.:D ;)[/QUOTE]
why are you knocking v-tec man ??
it offers gains with nearly no costs unlike forced induction
there's nothing about vtec that gives it low torque, it just seems that way cuz there's just so much more power at the upper range, the bottom half of the rev range is just like any other n/a engine of the same size
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]Or a 998cc producing 250+HP in race trim :D AND 100% reliability too :D :D[/QUOTE]
Don't they get completly rebuilt between every race, like F1 cars used to?
-
[quote=h00t_h00t]Don't they get completly rebuilt between every race, like F1 cars used to?[/quote]
Checked and if necessary rebuilt (not sure how often) ... but they dont' let go like Ducati and Suzuki have this season :(
Las years Honda engien did a WSB race and THEN a TT IoM weeks worht of events.
-
I like honda bikes and fourwheelers they build some good stuff. Other then that the NSX is a sweet car and the S2000 is a cool little package for sure.
-
[QUOTE=MrKipling]So, do you all hate turbos as well then?
I think you're all missing the point somewhat. The WHOLE POINT of VTEC engines is that they have 'two personalities', one for pootling around town and motorway driving (the economy profile) and one for blasting around the place (hi-lift, high consumption).
Also, I'd take an all-aluminium, DOHC lightweight engine in the nose of my car over a two tonne hunk of age old pig iron technology any day! Honda motors are engineering masterpieces, Yank V8s have all the delicacy and precision of a 12lb lump hammer.[/QUOTE]
Then its obveous youve never driven an American performance car.
Id also take an all aluminum, lightweight engine over a heavy one (i.e. LSx over a Honda engine).
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]Was it ?
have you used a number of top quality pens ?
I can hold a pen in my hand and feel the blance and knwo if it will be comfortable and look at the nib shape and approximate the writingl :D
Same with cars :D
[/quote]
Except pens dont brake, accelerate, and turn. All of which each car does differently and feels differently. Its hard to assume what a car drive like if youve never driven it. Pens are far too simple to make a comparison.
[quote]
Get anotehr thread and say how it failed as an aanalogy --- let's keep this one for WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT HONDA !!!
:D
[/quote]
Were still kinda on topic :p
[quote]
No, under accelerateion when I NEED the power I do :D
[/quote]
Exactly. Now think of it like this, what if it had that kind of power from 1000RPMs to 9000RPMs? Would that not be better?
[quote]
erm, THAT all depends on where your engine is most "efficient".
Fast acceleration at full throttle is shown to be optimal for fule efficiency durign acceleration.
Crusing is then just about gearing and for doing 70 you're sitting just under 5000 revs ( remember the top speed :D )
[/quote]
Holy buz batman, 70mph = 5000RPMs! Heh, Im barley over 1500PRMs...
[quote]
erm you are forgetting GEARING -- you always do :D
The gear overlap and width are important to use the engine power range.
If you dont' rev to use it you'll always find them slow.
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah I know gearing. But that doesnt always fix a peaky engine (ie most of the Honda's I drove)
-
[QUOTE=Slicks]Then its obveous youve never driven an American performance car.
Id also take an all aluminum, lightweight engine over a heavy one (i.e. LSx over a Honda engine).[/QUOTE]
wanna give some figures to back that up ??
until then im officially labeling ur posts as B/S
-
[QUOTE=Slicks]
Exactly. Now think of it like this, what if it had that kind of power from 1000RPMs to 9000RPMs? Would that not be better?
[QUOTE]
except you CANT have power from 1000 rpm to 9000rpm
the whole point of vtec is you can have high lift long duration cams at the top end which would give horrible torque at the low end, and low lift no overlap cams for the low end which give regular amount of torque, i dont care what you say about the LS1, it CANT do that
all of what you say is BS cuz as guilty as honda engines cant do what you claim, neither can your beloved LS1, just cuz ur LS1 has torque at low revs doesnt mean its better then the s2000s or wutever, ur forgetting ur nearly tripling the displacement, ofcourse it'd have more torque, now shut up before u hurt urself iwth your stupidity
-
[quote=Slicks]Except pens dont brake, accelerate, and turn. All of which each car does differently and feels differently.[/quote]
Proof you do NOT understand what am analogy is for :(
Either you TRY to act that way or you rally are obtuse !!!!
Please let me know, will save hassle in teh future.
So to EXPLAIN it to you.
Once you've drive enough cars to know the difference between torque and power, revs and gears, damping and spring, turn-in, balance, weight, drive out and a million other things that vary with cars and setups you get to know the differences that setups and gross differences make.
Jsut as anyone who's used decent pens can tell abtou pens -- GET the analogy now ?
[quote] Its hard to assume what a car drive like if youve never driven it. Pens are far too simple to make a comparison.[/quote]
You've clearly NOT tried a number of different decent pens :D
Also, once you drive enough cars then it really CAN get as simple as pens.
Jsut because you dont' think their is a difference with limited experience dont' make the mistake of thinking that thte truth !!!!
With pens and cars :D
[quote]Exactly. Now think of it like this, what if it had that kind of power from 1000RPMs to 9000RPMs? Would that not be better? [/quote]
For sure, but THAT gets even harder to achieve because of the differing engineering that affects energy extraction in an ICE !!
[quote]Holy buz batman, 70mph = 5000RPMs! Heh, Im barley over 1500PRMs...[/quote]
Do you READ what you write ?
All that says is you have a 6th gear to make YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE REVS :D
( And to "cheat" the freeway cruise mpg measurement for publication :) )
We know by now that you cannot comprehend anyone driving a car using revs. But realise you are in the minority in the world !!
[quote]Yeah, yeah I know gearing. But that doesnt always fix a peaky engine (ie most of the Honda's I drove)[/quote]
See again I'm not convinced youy arent' mixing peaky and revvy again !!!!!
Gears can NEVER "fix" peaky, but there arent' any "peaky" engines out there any more ( away from teh race track ).
You have NOT driven a "peaky" Honda coz they dont' exists -- unless you've fallen foul of a ricer who's mismatched the filter and exhaust with the fuelling :(
You HAVE driven a "revvy" Honda and been afraid to use it throught the gears so dont' understand them properly.
Or you can TRY to explain how it was "peaky" when it was driven in a Honda gearbox using the gears if you knwo abtout gearing ?????
-
[QUOTE=KnifeEdge_2K1]wanna give some figures to back that up ??
until then im officially labeling ur posts as B/S[/QUOTE]
If I remember right, the F20 is about 325lbs, and as you know its making only 240hp. The NSX's V6 is around 420lbs for a more fair comparison.
While the 385lbs LS2 (dry) is making 400hp/400ft.lbs. (hell we can throw in the LS7, weighing the same yet making 505hp/470ft.lbs.
-
[QUOTE=KnifeEdge_2K1]
except you CANT have power from 1000 rpm to 9000rpm
the whole point of vtec is you can have high lift long duration cams at the top end which would give horrible torque at the low end, and low lift no overlap cams for the low end which give regular amount of torque, i dont care what you say about the LS1, it CANT do that
[/quote]
That was just an example, to give an idea of what a usable powerband would be like. Would it not be better? (and by power I meant torque, being thats what moves the car)
I doubt it would be possible for that many RPMs, and your right, but you can have a flat torque curve, get the idea?
[quote]
all of what you say is BS cuz as guilty as honda engines cant do what you claim, neither can your beloved LS1, just cuz ur LS1 has torque at low revs doesnt mean its better then the s2000s or wutever, ur forgetting ur nearly tripling the displacement, ofcourse it'd have more torque, now shut up before u hurt urself iwth your stupidity[/QUOTE]
Did you forget, Ive driven Hondas and LS1s, have you?
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]Proof you do NOT understand what am analogy is for :(
Either you TRY to act that way or you rally are obtuse !!!!
Please let me know, will save hassle in teh future.
So to EXPLAIN it to you.
Once you've drive enough cars to know the difference between torque and power, revs and gears, damping and spring, turn-in, balance, weight, drive out and a million other things that vary with cars and setups you get to know the differences that setups and gross differences make.
Jsut as anyone who's used decent pens can tell abtou pens -- GET the analogy now ?[/quote]
Yeah, I GOT the analogy, it just wasnt as good as it must have sounded in your head.
[quote]
You've clearly NOT tried a number of different decent pens :D
Also, once you drive enough cars then it really CAN get as simple as pens.
Jsut because you dont' think their is a difference with limited experience dont' make the mistake of thinking that thte truth !!!!
With pens and cars :D
[/quote]
Whatever you say champ, there is no point in even trying to argue this with you anymore.
[quote]
For sure, but THAT gets even harder to achieve because of the differing engineering that affects energy extraction in an ICE !!
[/quote]
Alright, glad that is cleared up. Can you see why Honda bumped the F20 to 2.2l for the US?
[quote]
Do you READ what you write ?
All that says is you have a 6th gear to make YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE REVS :D
( And to "cheat" the freeway cruise mpg measurement for publication :) )
We know by now that you cannot comprehend anyone driving a car using revs. But realise you are in the minority in the world !!
[/quote]
Did you read what I wrote?
5000RPMs in the S2000 = bumble bee nest under the hood.
Even if I were in 5th (top speed gear, over 162mph) Id still be under 2000RPMs, theres no "cheating." Hell Im more than happy I have a gas milage 6th gear, since I use top speeds of 150+ 0% of the time. So instead, I rather cruise at 70mph and get 27+mpg...
Theres a different in comprehending revs, and not liking peaky engines, try to remember that. Remeber, Ive drivin some Hondas/Acuras (and other high revving japanese cars).
[quote]
See again I'm not convinced youy arent' mixing peaky and revvy again !!!!!
Gears can NEVER "fix" peaky, but there arent' any "peaky" engines out there any more ( away from teh race track ).
You have NOT driven a "peaky" Honda coz they dont' exists -- unless you've fallen foul of a ricer who's mismatched the filter and exhaust with the fuelling :(
You HAVE driven a "revvy" Honda and been afraid to use it throught the gears so dont' understand them properly.
[/quote]
I drove an early 90s Prelude Si, civics, and an early 90s integra, all of which were pretty peaky. And the S2000 is peaky.
You cant "fail to use the gears" when you start in 1st, and nothing happens until 6000RPMs... Another example of that I can think of was the 02(?) sheclipse I drove, I hammered the gas off a roll of about 5mph and I had to look down at the peddle to make sure I was on the right one. The engine didnt feel like it was running until about 3000RPMs.
-
[quote=Slicks]Alright, glad that is cleared up. Can you see why Honda bumped the F20 to 2.2l for the US?[/quote]
If it's anythign liek waht has happened so many times in the past it's to make up for the crap fuel and the excessive emissions requriements restricting the engine :D
AS I said, I've hussled an S2000 round a track. Using it properly. You KEEP repeating abotu the revs so clearly you haven't "sriven" it, you may have sat behidn the wheel and pushed some pedals but that's not really the same, is it :D
[quote]Did you read what I wrote?
5000RPMs in the S2000 = bumble bee nest under the hood.[/quote]
REad it and it's the same ccrap showign you dont' USE the revs of an engine.
AND YET you KLEEP complaining about it.
Realise it's your USAGE that sucks, not the car.
[quote]Even if I were in 5th (top speed gear, over 162mph) Id still be under 2000RPMs,[/quote]
So drop a gear d'head :(
Really you are pathetic with this jsutification you attempt whilst at every stage proving your ignoranvce on USING an engien power via the gears and revs available.
[quote]theres no "cheating."[/quote]
yes there is>
It's widely accepted that logn top gears are in to fit the way the measurements are made.
You should study more widely :D
BECAUSE the measurments dont' actually reflect real-world driveing.
The reason that Europe has developed a different measurement technique that more closely relfects REAL world usage ( and produces a lower mmp rating !! )
[quote] Hell Im more than happy I have a gas milage 6th gear, since I use top speeds of 150+ 0% of the time. So instead, I rather cruise at 70mph and get 27+mpg...[/quote]
Not sure if you realise that the "highway consumption" you get varies LOTS from the published figures in real world use ????
[quote]Theres a different in comprehending revs, and not liking peaky engines, try to remember that. Remeber, Ive drivin some Hondas/Acuras (and other high revving japanese cars).[/quote]
You'r mixign peaky and revvy in teh same sentence again>
CAN YOU PLEASE GET IT RIGHT.
Do you mean peaky or revvy ?
Also you KNOW we dont' beleive you ahve actually "driven" a Honda, you may well ahve been behidn the wheel and pushging the pedals but that block you have on revs we all guess measn you never actually unleash the tigher :D
[quote]I drove an early 90s Prelude Si, civics, and an early 90s integra, all of which were pretty peaky. And the S2000 is peaky.[/quote]
CRAP.
The S2000 is NOT "peaky".
Neither were even early Civics.
You I suspect are again confusign peaky and revvy.
Go read a what a peaky engine is about. and then you'll grasp it.
[quote]You cant "fail to use the gears" when you start in 1st, and nothing happens until 6000RPMs... Another example of that I can think of was the 02(?) sheclipse I drove, I hammered the gas off a roll of about 5mph and I had to look down at the peddle to make sure I was on the right one. The engine didnt feel like it was running until about 3000RPMs.[/quote]
Why is a MItsubishi in a Honda thread ?
Which model Eclipse ?
Didnt' you guys get a dumbed down poerformance out of the US factory adn STIL The AWD, so not enought power AND giving most of it away in AWD because that's what the market wanted ??
Besides, we're NOT debating arbitrary cars of arbitrary vintage otherewise I'll get on to the Camarao Z28 I drove in the US that was a JOKE in performance AND handling ???
Can you PLEASE get back to Hondas ??????
-
So I've not read this entire thread, but the pages I have read all contain the same arguments, time to lock perhaps?
-
VTEC ! 15 years and 15 million engines sold :D
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]If it's anythign liek waht has happened so many times in the past it's to make up for the crap fuel and the excessive emissions requriements restricting the engine :D[/quote]
Try again, it was to make up for the lack of low end to mid range punch. Even owners compained about it...
[quote]
AS I said, I've hussled an S2000 round a track. Using it properly. You KEEP repeating abotu the revs so clearly you haven't "sriven" it, you may have sat behidn the wheel and pushed some pedals but that's not really the same, is it :D[/quote]
And as Ive said, track racing is not street driving.
[quote]
REad it and it's the same ccrap showign you dont' USE the revs of an engine.
AND YET you KLEEP complaining about it.
Realise it's your USAGE that sucks, not the car.
[/quote]
Huh? That has nothing to do with what Im saying.
[quote]
So drop a gear d'head :(
Really you are pathetic with this jsutification you attempt whilst at every stage proving your ignoranvce on USING an engien power via the gears and revs available.[/quote]
Huh? Why would I want to drop down a gear? Im giving an example of how even when Im not in my super overdrive gear Im still at nice and low RPMs opposed to being at 5000, like the S2k. It was just an example chill.
[quote]
yes there is>
It's widely accepted that logn top gears are in to fit the way the measurements are made.
You should study more widely :D
BECAUSE the measurments dont' actually reflect real-world driveing.
The reason that Europe has developed a different measurement technique that more closely relfects REAL world usage ( and produces a lower mmp rating !! )[/quote]
Thats awful funny, because I get every bit of the claimed 27mpg highway driving if not BETTER. If you talk to any LS1 owner theyll tell you the same.
Europeans have a different system because they have different ROADS and drive differently. You know we have mainly strait, wide open roads to cruise.
[quote]
Not sure if you realise that the "highway consumption" you get varies LOTS from the published figures in real world use ????
[/quote]
Not sure if you realise but the highway consumption doesnt consist of going 70mph. In the real world I usually do BETTER than claimed highway consumption as Ive aready said.
[quote]
You'r mixign peaky and revvy in teh same sentence again>
CAN YOU PLEASE GET IT RIGHT.
Do you mean peaky or revvy ?
Also you KNOW we dont' beleive you ahve actually "driven" a Honda, you may well ahve been behidn the wheel and pushging the pedals but that block you have on revs we all guess measn you never actually unleash the tigher :D
CRAP.
The S2000 is NOT "peaky".
Neither were even early Civics.
You I suspect are again confusign peaky and revvy.
Go read a what a peaky engine is about. and then you'll grasp it.
[/quote]
Yes because you know me, I started out in 3rd gear and didnt rev right?
Already told you, used 1st gear as an example, didnt go utill VTAK PWER. Its like turbo lag without a turbo (or turbo kind of power).
[quote]
Why is a MItsubishi in a Honda thread ?
Which model Eclipse ?
Didnt' you guys get a dumbed down poerformance out of the US factory adn STIL The AWD, so not enought power AND giving most of it away in AWD because that's what the market wanted ??
Besides, we're NOT debating arbitrary cars of arbitrary vintage otherewise I'll get on to the Camarao Z28 I drove in the US that was a JOKE in performance AND handling ???
Can you PLEASE get back to Hondas ??????[/QUOTE]
Heh, "OMG!#$@#$^!@ WHY DONT YOU READ!@#$!#!#!"
Do you know what an example is?
As stated it was the 02ish model (3rd gen) with a V6.
Please, tell me about this Z28.
-
[quote=Slicks]And as Ive said, track racing is not street driving.[/quote]
Your confusion.
I use revs on teh street too .... so do every other owner I've encounetred --- well , OK, not the granny and flat-cap brigades :D
[quote]Huh? Why would I want to drop down a gear?[/quote]
Coz that's hwo it's designed.
You don't liek to work when driving, fine then stick with YOUR preference.
But dont' try to turn that into a "rule" abotu revs :D
[quote]Thats awful funny, because I get every bit of the claimed 27mpg highway driving if not BETTER. If you talk to any LS1 owner theyll tell you the same.[/quote]
Do you knwo HOW the agencies calculate these ?
Of COURSE you will manage to meet ( and often exceed ) published figures on some journeys.
[quote]Europeans have a different system because they have different ROADS and drive differently. You know we have mainly strait, wide open roads to cruise.[/quote]
Go read how your EPA measure highway mileage.
It would enlighten you.
it's not that different from European motorway... multilane roads all over the world are amazingly similar -- it's OFF those we tend to see major differences :)
Anyway, the freeway/motorway miles are measuerd using CYCLES of different speeeds for different durations.
It's because traffic pattersn have changed over the years that Eureop is changing it's measurmenet method to better approximate real world.
Some of these cycles produce HIGHER mpg than the average and some lower. So unless REALLY bad driver then everyeon can exceed the published mpg on a journey if the conditions match those upper results.
BUT because the real world mix tended to have less fo the better results, then the Eureopan one is changing.
Ratherh than me have to take a dozen posts to explain it, go find it out yourself and save the arguemtns abtou opinion and lies you always put in my face when I present information to you :(
[quote]Not sure if you realise but the highway consumption doesnt consist of going 70mph. In the real world I usually do BETTER than claimed highway consumption as Ive aready said.[/quote]
and we've FULLY explained THAT haven't we :D
I was amazed you only cited one figure. Did you realise the number is taken as an average over different and repeating cycles or did you think Europe only did one speed or just mistankelny ASSuming somethign different to waht was written -- You'll see i pu "highway consumption" deliberatley in quotes so that it was evident I meant teh "special" case that the bodies use !!
[quote]Yes because you know me, I started out in 3rd gear and didnt rev right?
Already told you, used 1st gear as an example, didnt go utill VTAK PWER. Its like turbo lag without a turbo (or turbo kind of power).[/quote]
That's not really a differnce in peaky adn revvy :(
do you knwo it ??
eg turbo lag is somethign different altogether again.
[quote]Heh, "OMG!#$@#$^!@ WHY DONT YOU READ!@#$!#!#!"
Do you know what an example is?
As stated it was the 02ish model (3rd gen) with a V6.[/quote]
yep an example is somethign REPRESENTATIVE.
What you cited was NOT a Honda -- so not an example :D
Was one case in a large field of "examples" and the one you cited possibly inst' representative of the majority. Bad case to pick "examples" from teh extreme ends of bell curves :)
[quote]Please, tell me about this Z28.[/quote]
Thank you for confirming you dont' read.
This was pointed out to you in the "Engine 101 for SLick" thread many months back :D
Sorry I dont' want to waste any more time with you on this as you've proven AGAIN to not be worth it.
I guess in another 6 months time I might try to help you avoid confusing others with the BS, but this thread has ended. Go take it to the "Engine 101 for SLick" thread and stay out of here.
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]Your confusion.
I use revs on teh street too .... so do every other owner I've encounetred --- well , OK, not the granny and flat-cap brigades :D
[/quote]
Apparently not everyone likes to drive at an ear molesting 5000rpms.
[quote]
Coz that's hwo it's designed.
You don't liek to work when driving, fine then stick with YOUR preference.
But dont' try to turn that into a "rule" abotu revs :D
[/quote]
You again fail to even remotly understand what Im saying.
When im normally crusing on the highway at 70, what would I get out of switching down? Im not racing, so why waste the gas?
[quote]
Do you knwo HOW the agencies calculate these ?
Of COURSE you will manage to meet ( and often exceed ) published figures on some journeys.
[/quote]
Its all a conspiracy, they're trying to hide the truth from us!
[quote]
Go read how your EPA measure highway mileage.
It would enlighten you.
it's not that different from European motorway... multilane roads all over the world are amazingly similar -- it's OFF those we tend to see major differences :)
Anyway, the freeway/motorway miles are measuerd using CYCLES of different speeeds for different durations.
It's because traffic pattersn have changed over the years that Eureop is changing it's measurmenet method to better approximate real world.
Some of these cycles produce HIGHER mpg than the average and some lower. So unless REALLY bad driver then everyeon can exceed the published mpg on a journey if the conditions match those upper results.
BUT because the real world mix tended to have less fo the better results, then the Eureopan one is changing.
Ratherh than me have to take a dozen posts to explain it, go find it out yourself and save the arguemtns abtou opinion and lies you always put in my face when I present information to you :(
[/quote]
Yeah Ive read it before, its pretty basic. Highway 50mph, slow down a few times, speed up to like 60 bla bla bla. Real world highway driving for me usually consists of a constant 50-70mph cruise (depending on the speed limit). Im not out around rush hour, so I rarly have to worry about heavy traffic.
[quote]
and we've FULLY explained THAT haven't we :D
I was amazed you only cited one figure. Did you realise the number is taken as an average over different and repeating cycles or did you think Europe only did one speed or just mistankelny ASSuming somethign different to waht was written -- You'll see i pu "highway consumption" deliberatley in quotes so that it was evident I meant teh "special" case that the bodies use !!
[/quote]
Refer to above.
[quote]
That's not really a differnce in peaky adn revvy :(
do you knwo it ??
eg turbo lag is somethign different altogether again.
[/quote]
It FELT like turbo lag, the car didnt friggen go, then the VVT goes to high lift, and you get some pep.
This is like the 10th time we've been circling this same argument. Peaky = doesnt move until high RPMs.
[quote]
yep an example is somethign REPRESENTATIVE.
What you cited was NOT a Honda -- so not an example :D
Was one case in a large field of "examples" and the one you cited possibly inst' representative of the majority. Bad case to pick "examples" from teh extreme ends of bell curves :)
[/quote]
It represented a peaky engine, not too hard to figure that one out.
[quote]
Thank you for confirming you dont' read.
This was pointed out to you in the "Engine 101 for SLick" thread many months back :D
Sorry I dont' want to waste any more time with you on this as you've proven AGAIN to not be worth it.
I guess in another 6 months time I might try to help you avoid confusing others with the BS, but this thread has ended. Go take it to the "Engine 101 for SLick" thread and stay out of here.[/QUOTE]
No, I actually wanted to hear your thoughts on the Z28, I dont ever remember you mentioning what you thought of it.
-
[QUOTE=Slicks]That was just an example, to give an idea of what a usable powerband would be like. Would it not be better? (and by power I meant torque, being thats what moves the car)
I doubt it would be possible for that many RPMs, and your right, but you can have a flat torque curve, get the idea?
QUOTE]
You're right in that respects, it would be better to have a flat torque curve giving usable power at all rpms ... if you only had one cam profile, if you had 2, you can tune each cam to be "best" in their respective operational ranges, this may give an engine with a rediculously high rpm value at peak torque, but as i was saying, compare the s2000 with a similarly sized n/a engine without vtec or some other form of variable valve timing, you'll see that the vtec engine is superior in every way. lets use ur ls1 for example, it has flat torque curve bla bla bla, now lets add vtec onto it allowing it to higher low rpm torque and higher power at the top of the rev range with out any disadvantages, would this be worse then the original cuz it's "peaky" ??
as for your driving both ls1 and honda or wutever, like you said that's not the point, we're not comparing cars here, we're comparing engines
this is the last time im gonna bring this up, vtec gives gains throughout the rev band with next to no costs, until you properly address this issue and provide a valid counter argument, im just gonna ignore u as there's no way of convincing u of ur error
-
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by [B]Matra et Alpine[/B]
Reliable
Top class engineering
Value for money
a bit "boring" [/QUOTE]
Matra, I must agree, Honda are a great car manufacturer but... Overall, Honda cars are a bit boring. However, Honda has manufactured many interesting and beautiful cars, such as the Honda NSX and the Honda S2000. Also, some Honda's have great character and charm.
-
Look, most of us are going to drive at 3000rpm-4000rpm on public roads. Whats the point of having a sports car that behaves like a normal econobox at that limit?
Woudn't you like to have some more 'juice' at that range?
-
if i had more juice at that range i'd lose my license :( i actually prefer less grunt down low when driving daily
-
[QUOTE=sunk]Look, most of us are going to drive at 3000rpm-4000rpm on public roads. Whats the point of having a sports car that behaves like a normal econobox at that limit?
Woudn't you like to have some more 'juice' at that range?[/QUOTE]
of course but one of the charming aspects of a sportscar is that it has a very nice gearbox, which can turn the "just rolling along" into something more exciting.
(NB: I hardly rev over 2000 when accelarating, with max torque setting in at 1700 there is no need to.:) and 3000 rpm corresponds to 145 kph in top gear:) )
-
[quote=Slicks]This is like the 10th time we've been circling this same argument. Peaky = doesnt move until high RPMs.[/quote]
We've been around it 10 times ONLY because this is the first time you've actually described what you think it is.
PEAKY is NOT power until [B]high revs[/B].
WRONG.
Peaky is exactly what it describes where the power curve a very strong peak ( or even more peaks in a VERY highly tuned engine )
It all comes back from OLD DAYS when fueling , valve lift valve bounce and manifold pressures were not as well understood and the engines didnt' have ECUs. So you would find points when the engine was "off cam" ( ie the low end timing was off - the most usual ) or the fuel/air mixture was not right, or flow had a stall point.
So I could have a "peaky" engine that only revved to 5000 or an engine that had good power until harmonic on valve springing caused bounce, but get past it and you had another 1000 revs. These are all things we've dialled out in the main through better component materials, multi-valve, fuel injection and engine management units.
The main one was always being "off cam" when the timing meant it didn't sing until higher revs - a very common problem when tuning pushrods. So natural you'd ONLY see that, but that's not all that "peaky" means.
[quote]It represented a peaky engine, not too hard to figure that one out.[/quote]
Well it actually sounded like an underpowered engine frankly.
A common problem with cars designed for elsewhere and then made "emission friendly" for the US. Shame you use that problem as a reason for bad engine :(
[quote]No, I actually wanted to hear your thoughts on the Z28, I dont ever remember you mentioning what you thought of it.[/quote]
That's exoected :(
It was nothing special.
IT didn't thave the pull of a Jaguar straight six and the handling was frightening.
Once it was up to 60mph it started to go light and the steering wander was terrifiying by the time it got out to 80. So much so you HAD to back off.
Looked good ( for it's day :) )
-
[quote=john14]Matra, I must agree, Honda are a great car manufacturer but... Overall, Honda cars are a bit boring. However, Honda has manufactured many interesting and beautiful cars, such as the Honda NSX and the Honda S2000. Also, some Honda's have great character and charm.[/quote]
Grab a Typre-R variant :)
We had a Civic Type-R on track last year.
He embarrassed SPORTS CARS costing 5 times more than him :D
THe suspension is well sorted out and the engine could really pull.
Yes, teh driver was good and the track's a twisty -- but the hairpin is one that often FWD's lose out on but it was so well blanced he could go into the apex on 3 wheels braking VERY late anda scrubbing speed.
The MAINSTREAM Honda is aimed at a person who WANTS reliability and sadly that generally means a person NOT Lookign for excitement and so the match of "borign" I'd asgree with.
Seen the new Civic in real life ? Saw my first today adn it IS a stunner adn looks just right !!! If they had the Typre-R now instead of the "sport" [EMAIL="I@d"]I'd[/EMAIL] likely go one as we're needing new "family car" :D
-
[quote=henk4]of course but one of the charming aspects of a sportscar is that it has a very nice gearbox, which can turn the "just rolling along" into something more exciting.
(NB: I hardly rev over 2000 when accelarating, with max torque setting in at 1700 there is no need to.:) and 3000 rpm corresponds to 145 kph in top gear:) )[/quote]
:) Yeah when I drive diesels I am teh opposite of Slicks.
I always find I'm tryign to get it to rev and end up SLOWER.
It takes me a bit of self-dscispline for the first few miles to swithc modes and then get their quicker :D
Nobody going to comment on the Honda diesel ---- "hate something, love something" ?
Seeing the new Civic specs it only gets 5mpg better than the VTEC .... is it worth it ?
-
Are you talking about the new shape Camaro Z28?
I, unfortunately, have had the dubious pleasure of driving one of those things around Donington. I had a rather frightening moment in the braking/turn in area for Coppice - for those who don't know Donington Coppice Corner has a steep up hill braking area and the turn in is more or less on the brow of the slope. As I turned in, nothing happened but as as the end of the slope kicked the rear suspension the front tyres gripped, the rear end tried to overtake me and nearly plowed into the outside barrier. Scary stuff. I took that corner in a Westfield XTR4 in the wet on semis and came in with cleaner underwear.
-
I havent driven a Honda diesel yet - are they any good?
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]Nobody going to comment on the Honda diesel ---- "hate something, love something" ?
Seeing the new Civic specs it only gets 5mpg better than the VTEC .... is it worth it ?[/QUOTE]
I mentioned it in post 59:D .
Never driven one, good reputation though...
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]We've been around it 10 times ONLY because this is the first time you've actually described what you think it is.
PEAKY is NOT power until [B]high revs[/B].
WRONG.
Peaky is exactly what it describes where the power curve a very strong peak ( or even more peaks in a VERY highly tuned engine )
It all comes back from OLD DAYS when fueling , valve lift valve bounce and manifold pressures were not as well understood and the engines didnt' have ECUs. So you would find points when the engine was "off cam" ( ie the low end timing was off - the most usual ) or the fuel/air mixture was not right, or flow had a stall point.
So I could have a "peaky" engine that only revved to 5000 or an engine that had good power until harmonic on valve springing caused bounce, but get past it and you had another 1000 revs. These are all things we've dialled out in the main through better component materials, multi-valve, fuel injection and engine management units.
The main one was always being "off cam" when the timing meant it didn't sing until higher revs - a very common problem when tuning pushrods. So natural you'd ONLY see that, but that's not all that "peaky" means.
[/quote]
By "high revs" Im talking about [I]higher[/I] revs, like closer to redline opposed to closer to idle.
[quote]
Well it actually sounded like an underpowered engine frankly.
A common problem with cars designed for elsewhere and then made "emission friendly" for the US. Shame you use that problem as a reason for bad engine :([/quote]
Doesnt seem like a problem for most other manufacturers.
[quote]
That's exoected :(
It was nothing special.
IT didn't thave the pull of a Jaguar straight six and the handling was frightening.
Once it was up to 60mph it started to go light and the steering wander was terrifiying by the time it got out to 80. So much so you HAD to back off.
Looked good ( for it's day :) )[/QUOTE]
What year was this thing? What kind of condition was it in? Sounds like you were driving a 70s or a dud...
Even the 94 LT1 Z28 I drove felt planted to the ground at 80. At 120 my WS6 still feels glued to the road. No steering wander in either car. Sounds like yours needed an alignment fix bigtime.
-
[quote=Slicks]Doesnt seem like a problem for most other manufacturers.[/quote]
But it was :D
See everybody else go to expericen the real capability of the car.
Driving the equivalent model in the us were aenemic - personally driven Japanese and European equivalents that were terrible in the US but good elsewhere !!!
British sports cars were destroyed by the required additions of poinltess bumpers and emissions restrictions :(
[quote]What year was this thing? What kind of condition was it in? Sounds like you were driving a 70s or a dud...[/quote]
Early 80s, can't remember the precise model :( Senility settign in :D
It was a rental. We took it back and the guy said that's the way they are and he didnt' see anything wrong adn pointed out we are nto supposed to break the speed limits :D Guys at the office "in the know" said that it was fine.
We clocked up about 6000 miles on it while we were there.
Thankfully I did less than 1000 of that !!
[quote]Even the 94 LT1 Z28 I drove felt planted to the ground at 80. At 120 my WS6 still feels glued to the road. No steering wander in either car. Sounds like yours needed an alignment fix bigtime.[/quote]
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
It's what you're used to, American cars ALL used to wander badly compared to the inputs we required for day to day driving. It's all the compliant suspension and the inevitable steering input that the suspension movement induces.
BUT I only introduced it to show the pointlessness of picking ONE EXAMPLE adn makgin inferences abotu the average :D
-
In this respect the differences I found between the two Mercedes diesel engines for the European and the US market show that these practices are still ongoing....
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]
Early 80s, can't remember the precise model :( Senility settign in :D
It was a rental. We took it back and the guy said that's the way they are and he didnt' see anything wrong adn pointed out we are nto supposed to break the speed limits :D Guys at the office "in the know" said that it was fine.
We clocked up about 6000 miles on it while we were there.
Thankfully I did less than 1000 of that !!
[/quote]
Ahhh I see, thats the problem, an 80s rental Camaro, makes sense now. I drove an IROC Camaro once, that thing is pretty crappy, nothing like the 4th gen F-bodies.
Was it even a 305?
[quote]
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
It's what you're used to, American cars ALL used to wander badly compared to the inputs we required for day to day driving. It's all the compliant suspension and the inevitable steering input that the suspension movement induces.
BUT I only introduced it to show the pointlessness of picking ONE EXAMPLE adn makgin inferences abotu the average :D[/QUOTE]
Your too predictable :p
Did you forget, Ive driven more than just American cars.
BMWs, VW, and atleast one car from every Japanese company.
-
[quote=Slicks]Did you forget, Ive driven more than just American cars.
BMWs, VW, and atleast one car from every Japanese company.[/quote]
ah but did you READ what I pointed out ( and henk reminded too ) ???
You are comparing damaged-goods :D
OLD OLD line on UCP where we've seen time and again that the product YOU GUYS GET is worse suspension settings, worse gearing and worse performance because it's modified to meet the US "market needs"
THAT is why what I wrote was predictable !!!!!!
But you still seem to insist on decrying others who have experienced the REAL cars using your (bad) experience as the benchmark :(